View source for Presidential system

{{short description|Form of government}}
{{redirect|Presidential Republic|the period in the history of Chile|Presidential Republic (1925–1973)}}
{{Redirect|Congressional system|the 19th century European power arrangements|congress system}}
{{Systems of government}}
{{Politics sidebar|Systems}}

A '''presidential''', '''strong-president''', or '''single-executive system''' (sometimes also '''congressional system''')<ref name="e173">{{cite web | title=OCR Document | website=static.pmg.org.za | date=March 12, 2008 | url=https://static.pmg.org.za/docs/080307rhoda.htm | access-date=May 19, 2025}}</ref><ref name="t098">{{cite web | title=Canadian Parliamentary Review | website=Article | date=April 17, 1982 | url=http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?art=573&param=108 | access-date=May 19, 2025}}</ref> is a [[form of government]] in which a [[head of government]] (usually titled "[[President (government title)|president]]") heads an [[Executive (government)|executive branch]] that derives its authority and legitimacy from a source that is [[separation of powers|separate]] from the [[legislative branch]]. The system was popularized by its inclusion in the [[Constitution of the United States]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Political Representation|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|isbn=978-0521128650|chapter=Varieties of public representation}}</ref>

This head of government is often also the [[head of state]]. In a presidential system, the head of government is directly or indirectly [[Election|elected]] by a group of [[Citizenship|citizens]] and is not [[Responsible government|responsible]] to the legislature, and the legislature cannot [[Dissolution of parliament|dismiss]] the president except in extraordinary cases. A presidential system contrasts with a [[parliamentary system]], where the head of government (usually called a prime minister) derives their power from the [[Confidence (politics)|confidence]] of an elected [[legislature]], which can dismiss the prime minister with a simple majority.

Not all presidential systems use the title of ''president''. Likewise, the title is sometimes used by other systems. It originated from a time when such a person personally presided over the governing body, as with the [[President of the Continental Congress]] in the [[History of the United States (1789–1849)|early United States]], before the executive function being split into a separate branch of government. Presidents may also use it in [[semi-presidential system]]s. Heads of state of [[parliamentary republic]]s, largely ceremonial in most cases, are called presidents. [[Dictator]]s or leaders of [[one-party state]]s, whether popularly elected or not, are also often called presidents.

The presidential system is the most common form of government in [[Americas|the Americas]] and is also frequently found in [[Sub-Saharan Africa]] (along with semi-presidential hybrid systems). By contrast, there are very few presidential republics in [[Europe]] (with [[Politics of Cyprus|Cyprus]] and [[Politics of Turkey|Turkey]] being the only examples). In [[Asia]], the system is used by [[South Korea]], [[Syria]], the [[Philippines]], and [[Indonesia]].

== History ==
=== Development in the Americas ===
The presidential system has its roots in the governance of the [[British colonization of the Americas|British colonies]] of the 17th century in what is now the United States. The [[Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)|Pilgrims]], permitted to govern themselves in [[Plymouth Colony]], established a system that utilized an independent executive branch. Each year, a [[Governor of Plymouth Colony|governor]] was chosen by the [[Plymouth General Court|colonial legislature]], as well as several assistants, analogous to modern-day [[Cabinet (government)|cabinets]]. Additional executive officials such as constables and messengers were then appointed.<ref>{{cite web |last=Fennell |first=Christopher |title=Plymouth Colony Legal Structure |url=http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html |publisher=Histarch.uiuc.edu}}</ref> At the same time, the [[British Isles]] underwent a brief period of republicanism as [[the Protectorate]], during which the [[Lord Protector]] served as an executive leader similar to a president.<ref>Vile, M. J. (1967). The separation of powers. In: Greene, J. P., & Pole, J. R. (Eds.). (2008). ''A companion to the American Revolution'', Ch. 87. John Wiley & Sons.</ref>

The first true presidential system was developed during the United States [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] in 1787.<ref name="Sundquist">{{Cite book |last=Sundquist |first=James L. |title=Designs for Democratic Stability: Studies in Viable Constitutionalism |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=1997 |isbn=0765600528 |editor-last=Baaklini |editor-first=Abdo I. |pages=53–72 |language=en |chapter=The U.S. Presidential System as a Model for the World |editor-last2=Desfosses |editor-first2=Helen}}</ref> Drawing inspiration from the previous colonial governments, from [[English Common Law]], and from philosophers such as [[John Locke]] and [[Montesquieu]], the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|delegates]] developed what is now known as the presidential system. Most notably, [[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]] advocated for a unitary executive figure that would become the role of the president.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McCarthy |first=Daniel J. |date=1987 |title=James Wilson and the Creation of the Presidency |journal=[[Presidential Studies Quarterly]] |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=689–696}}</ref> The United States became the first presidential republic when the [[Constitution of the United States]] came into force in 1789, and [[George Washington]] became the first president under a presidential system.

During the 1810s and 1820s, Spanish colonies in the Americas [[Spanish American wars of independence|sought independence]], and several new Spanish-speaking governments emerged in [[Latin America]]. These countries modeled their [[constitution]]s after that of the United States, and the presidential system became the dominant political system in the Americas.<ref name="Sundquist" /> Following several decades of [[Empire of Brazil|monarchy]], Brazil also [[Proclamation of the Republic (Brazil)|adopted]] the presidential system in 1889 with [[Deodoro da Fonseca]] as its first president. Latin American presidential systems have experienced varying levels of stability, with many experiencing periods of dictatorial rule.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sondrol |first=Paul |date=2005 |title=The Presidentialist Tradition in Latin America |journal=International Journal of Public Administration |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=517–530|doi=10.1081/PAD-200055210 |s2cid=153822718 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mainwaring |first=Scott |date=1990 |title=Presidentialism in Latin America |journal=[[Latin American Research Review]] |volume=25 |pages=157–179|doi=10.1017/S0023879100023256 |s2cid=252947271 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Valenzuela |first=Arturo |date=2004 |title=Latin American Presidencies Interrupted |journal=[[Journal of Democracy]] |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=5–19|doi=10.1353/jod.2004.0075 |s2cid=51825804 }}</ref>

=== As a global system ===
Following the pattern of other Spanish colonies, the Philippines established the first presidential system in Asia in 1898, but it fell under [[Philippine–American War|American control]] due to the [[Spanish–American War]]. The presidential system was restored after the United States granted the Philippines independence in 1946.

The end of [[World War II]] established presidential systems in two countries. After the United States ended the [[Korea under Japanese rule|Japanese occupation of Korea]], it assisted [[South Korea]] in the formation of a presidential government. However, the early years of the South Korean presidency were marked by dictatorial control.<ref>{{cite book|author=Tirman, John|title=The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars|publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-19-538121-4 |pages=93–95 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2bC5Bsc1NEQC&pg=PA93}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Buzo, Adrian|title=The making of modern Korea|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2007|isbn=978-0-415-41482-1|page=79|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KAbbtKCjHfUC&pg=PA79}}</ref> At the same time, Indonesia declared [[Proclamation of Indonesian Independence|independence]] from the Netherlands in 1945. While it nominally used a presidential system, it was in effect a dictatorship where the president controlled all branches of government. A true presidential system was [[Post-Suharto era in Indonesia|established]] in 1998.<ref>{{Cite book |last= |first= |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946753807 |title=Us indonesia diplomatic and political cooperation handbook. |date=2007 |publisher=International Business Publication USA |isbn=978-1-4330-5330-6 |location= |oclc=946753807}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Bush |first=Robin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ssg0aiSEyy0C&pg=PA111 |title=Nahdlatul Ulama and the Struggle for Power Within Islam and Politics in Indonesia |date=2009 |publisher=Institute of Southeast Asian Studies |isbn=978-981-230-876-4 |language=en}}</ref>

[[Decolonization]] in the 1950s and 1960s brought with it a significant expansion of the presidential system. During this time, several new presidential republics were formed in Africa.{{citation needed |date=February 2025}} Cyprus,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ker-Lindsay |first=James |date=2006 |title=Presidential Power and Authority in the Republic of Cyprus |journal=[[Mediterranean Politics]] |volume=11 |pages=21–37|doi=10.1080/13629390500490379 |s2cid=145444372 }}</ref> the Maldives,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Heath-Brown |first=Nick |title=The Statesman's Yearbook 2016 |year=2015 |chapter=Maldives}}</ref> and [[South Vietnam]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Ngo Dinh Diem |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ngo-Dinh-Diem |website=Britannica}}</ref> also adopted the presidential system following decolonization. Pakistan<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cohen |first1=Stephen Philip |title=The Idea of Pakistan |date=2004 |publisher=[[Brookings Institution Press]] |location=Washington, DC |isbn=978-0-8157-9761-6 |page=65 |edition=1st Pbk. |url=https://archive.org/details/ideaofpakistan00cohe}}</ref> and Bangladesh<ref>{{cite book |last=Rono |first=Haider Akbar Khan |title=Śatābdī pēriẏē |date=2010 |publisher=Taraphadara prakashani |isbn=978-984-779-027-5 |page=335 |language=bn |script-title=bn:শতাব্দী পেরিয়ে}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Ahmed |first=Moudud |author-link=Moudud Ahmed |title=Bangladesh: Era of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman |publisher=Franz Steiner Verlag |year=1984 |isbn=3-515-04266-0 |location=Wiesbaden |page=245 |orig-year=First published 1983}}</ref> did so as well, but they changed their governmental systems shortly afterwards.

Several more countries adopted the presidential system in the final decades of the 20th century. A modified version of the presidential system was implemented in [[Iran]] following constitutional reform in 1989, in which the [[Supreme Leader of Iran|Supreme Leader]] serves as the head of state and is the absolute power in this country.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Buchta |first=Wilfried |title=Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic |publisher=[[The Washington Institute for Near East Policy]] and the [[Konrad Adenauer Stiftung]] |year=2000 |isbn=0944029361 |pages=22}}</ref> In 1981, Palau achieved independence and adopted a presidential system.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shuster |first=Donald R. |date=1983 |title=Elections in the Republic of Palau |journal=[[Political Science (journal)|Political Science]] |volume=35 |pages=117–132|doi=10.1177/003231878303500108 }}</ref> When the [[Soviet Union]] was [[Dissolution of the Soviet Union|dissolved]] in 1991, the presidential system was adopted by the new states that were created, though most of them adopted other governmental systems over the following decades.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hale |first=Henry E. |date=2012 |title=Two Decades of Post-Soviet Regime Dynamics |journal=[[Demokratizatsiya (journal)|Demokratizatsiya]] |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=71–77}}</ref>

The presidential system continues to be adopted in the 21st century. Following its independence in 2011, [[South Sudan]] adopted a presidential system.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Diehl |first1=Katharina |last2=van der Horst |first2=Judith |date=2013 |title=The New Electoral Law in South Sudan |journal=[[Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America]] |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=215–233}}</ref> In 2018, after the [[2017 Turkish constitutional referendum]], Turkey adopted a presidential system.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Kirişci |first1=Kemal |last2=Toygür |first2=Ilke |date=2019 |title=Turkey's new presidential system and a changing west |work=[[Brookings Institution|Brookings]] |url=https://www.brookings.edu/research/turkeys-new-presidential-system-and-a-changing-west/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Adar |first1=Sinem |last2=Seufert |first2=Günter |date=2021 |title=Turkey's Presidential System after Two and a Half Years |journal=Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2018-06-25 |title=Turkey elections: How powerful will the next Turkish president be? |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44574919 |access-date=2022-03-01}}</ref> In 2025, following the adoption of the [[2025 Interim Constitution of Syria|new interim constitution]], Syria established a presidential system.<ref>{{cite web |date=14 March 2025 |title=Syria's new constitution gives sweeping powers, ignores minority rights |url=https://www.rfi.fr/en/middle-east/20250314-syria-s-new-constitution-gives-sweeping-powers-ignores-minority-rights |accessdate=15 March 2025 |publisher=rfi}}</ref>

== Features ==
Several characteristics are unique to presidential systems or prominent in countries that use presidential systems. The defining aspect of presidential systems is the separation of powers that divides the executive and the legislature. Advocates of presidential systems cite the democratic nature of presidential elections, the advantages of the separation of powers, the efficiency of a unitary executive, and the stability provided by fixed terms. Opponents of presidential systems cite the potential for gridlock, the difficulty of changing leadership, and concerns that a unitary executive can give way to a dictatorship.

=== Separation of powers ===
{{Main|Separation of powers}}
The presidential system is defined by the separation of the executive branch from other aspects of government. The [[head of government]] is elected to work alongside, but not as a part of, the legislature.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=von Mettenheim |first=Kurt |title=Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics |publisher=[[The Johns Hopkins University Press]] |year=1997 |isbn=0801853133 |pages=2–15 |language=en}}</ref> There are several types of powers that are traditionally delegated to the president. Under a presidential system, the president may have the power to challenge legislation through a [[veto]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tsebelis |first=George |date=1995 |title=Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism |journal=[[British Journal of Political Science]] |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=289–325|doi=10.1017/S0007123400007225 |s2cid=18060081 |url=http://revistas.usal.es/index.php/1130-2887/article/view/alh2016734566 }}</ref> the power to [[pardon]] crimes, authority over foreign policy, authority to command the military as the [[Commander-in-chief]], and authority over advisors and employees of the executive branch.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

==== Checks and balances ====
Separation of powers is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other. This is in contrast with a parliamentary system, where the majority party in the legislature that also serves as the executive is unlikely to scrutinize its actions. Writing about the [[Watergate scandal]], former British MP [[Woodrow Wyatt]] said, "Don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it."<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Schlesinger |first=Arthur |date=1974 |title=No Way to Curb the Executive |magazine=[[The New Republic]]}}</ref> The extent of this effect is debated. Some commentators argue that the effect is mitigated when the president's party is in power, while others note that [[party discipline]] is not as strictly enforced in presidential systems.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Depauw |first1=Sam |title=Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments |last2=Martin |first2=Shane |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2008 |editor-last=Giannetti |editor-first=Daniela |chapter=Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective |editor-last2=Benoit |editor-first2=Kenneth}}</ref>

Another stated benefit of the separation of powers is the ability of the legislature to enforce limits on the powers of the executive. In a parliamentary system, if important legislation proposed by the incumbent prime minister and his cabinet is "voted down" by a majority of the members of parliament, then it is considered a [[vote of no confidence]]. The presidential system has no such mechanism, and the legislature has little incentive to appease the president beyond saving face.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

==== Efficiencies and inefficiencies ====
When an action is within the scope of a president's power, a presidential system can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than a parliamentary system. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained. In ''[[Why England Slept]]'', future U.S. president [[John F. Kennedy]] argued that British prime ministers [[Stanley Baldwin]] and [[Neville Chamberlain]] were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the [[House of Commons|Commons]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kennedy |first=John F. |title=Why England Slept |publisher=[[Wilfred Funk|Wilfred Funk, Inc]] |year=1940}}</ref>

[[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]], who advocated for a presidential system at the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|constitutional convention]], maintained that a single chief executive would provide for greater public accountability than a group and thereby protect against tyranny by making it plain who was responsible for executive actions. He also submitted that a singular chief executive was necessary to ensure promptness and consistency and guard against deadlock, which could be essential in times of national emergency.<ref>{{harvnb|Yoo|2019|pp=55–57}}</ref>

Conversely, a presidential system can produce [[Gridlock (politics)|gridlock]] when the president and the legislature are in opposition. This rarely happens in a parliamentary system, as the prime minister is always a member of the party in power. This gridlock is a common occurrence, as the electorate often expects more rapid results than are possible from new policies and switches to a different party at the next election.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=George |first1=Edwards |title=Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, AP* Edition – 2016 Presidential Election, 17th Edition |last2=Warrenberg |first2=Martin |publisher=Pearson Higher Education |year=2016 |isbn=9780134586571 |pages=16}}</ref> Critics such as [[Juan Linz]], argue that in such cases of gridlock, presidential systems do not offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems and that this inherent political instability can cause democracies to fail, as seen in such cases as Brazil and [[Presidency of Salvador Allende|Allende's Chile]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Linz |first=Juan |date=1990 |title=The perils of presidentialism |journal=[[The Journal of Democracy]] |volume=1 |pages=51–69|doi=10.1353/jod.2005.0026 }}</ref>

It is easy for either the president or the legislature to escape blame by shifting it to the other. Describing the United States, former Treasury Secretary [[C. Douglas Dillon]] said, "The president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with the government in Washington".<ref name=":4">{{cite book |last=Sundquist |first=James |url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionalre00sund_1 |title=Constitutional Reform and Effective Government |publisher=Brookings Institution Press |year=1992 |page=[https://archive.org/details/constitutionalre00sund_1/page/11 11] |url-access=registration}}</ref> Years before becoming president, [[Woodrow Wilson]] famously wrote "how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping?"<ref name="PhD_pp186-187">Wilson, ''Congressional Government'' (1885), pp. 186–187.</ref> [[Walter Bagehot]] said of the American system, "The executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of which others [and not itself] will suffer the effects".<ref name="Bagehot">{{cite book |last=Balfour |title=The English Constitution |chapter=The Cabinet}}</ref>

A 2024 meta-analytical review found that presidential systems were associated with more corruption than parliamentary systems.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Dawson |first1=Stephen |last2=Schwenk |first2=Jana |last3=Xezonakis |first3=Georgios |date=2024-10-04 |title=The Distribution of Executive Power and Corruption: A Meta-Analytical Review |journal=Comparative Political Studies |language=en |doi=10.1177/00104140241290213 |issn=0010-4140|doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Presidential elections ===
{{Main|Fixed-term election}}
In a presidential system, the president is elected independently of the legislature. This may be done directly through a popular vote or indirectly, such as through the [[United States electoral college|electoral college]] used in the United States. This aspect of the presidential system is sometimes touted as more democratic, as it provides a broader mandate for the president. Once elected, a president typically remains in office until the conclusion of a term.<ref name=":2" />

==== Fixed-terms ====
Presidential systems are typically understood as having a head of government elected by citizens to serve one or more fixed terms. Fixed terms are praised for providing a level of stability that other systems lack.

Proponents of the presidential system also argue that stability extends to the cabinets chosen under the system. In most parliamentary systems, cabinets must be drawn from within the legislative branch.  Under the presidential system, cabinet members can be selected from a much larger pool of potential candidates. This allows presidents the ability to select cabinet members based as much or more on their ability and competency to lead a particular department as on their loyalty to the president, as opposed to parliamentary cabinets, which might be filled by legislators chosen for no better reason than their perceived loyalty to the prime minister.

Some political scientists dispute this concept of stability, arguing that presidential systems have difficulty sustaining democratic practices and that they have slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which they have been implemented. According to political scientist [[Fred Riggs]], presidential systems have fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country where they've been attempted.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Riggs |first1=Fred W. |year=1997 |title=Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism: Implications for Representativeness and Legitimacy |journal=International Political Science Review |volume=18 |issue=3 |page=258 |doi=10.1177/019251297018003003 |jstor=1601343 |s2cid=145450791}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |year=1994 |title=Conceptual homogenization of a heterogeneous field: Presidentialism in comparative perspective |journal=Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance |pages=72–152}}</ref> The list of the world's 22 older democracies includes only two countries (Costa Rica and the United States) with presidential systems.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dahl |first=Robert A. |title=How Democratic Is the American Constitution? |year=2001 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=0-300-09218-0}}</ref> Yale political scientist Juan Linz argues that:<ref name=":3" />

{{blockquote|The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate. Losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.}}

Fixed terms in a presidential system may also be considered a check on the powers of the executive, contrasting with parliamentary systems, which may allow the prime minister to call elections whenever they see fit or orchestrate their vote of no confidence to trigger an election when they cannot get a legislative item passed.

==== Limited mechanisms of removal ====
Unlike in parliamentary systems, the legislature does not have the power to recall a president under the presidential system.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Sargentich |first=Thomas O. |date=1993 |title=The Presidential and Parliamentary Models of National Government |journal=[[American University International Law Review]] |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=579–592}}</ref> However, presidential systems may have methods to remove presidents under extraordinary circumstances, such as a president committing a crime or becoming incapacitated. In some countries, presidents are [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|subject to term limits.]]

The inability to remove a president early is also the subject of criticism. Even if a president is "proved to be inefficient, even if he becomes unpopular, even if his policy is unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured until the moment comes for a new election".<ref>{{cite book |last=Balfour |title=The English Constitution |chapter=Introduction}}</ref>

The consistency of a presidency may be seen as beneficial during times of crisis. When in a time of crisis, countries may be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating premierships.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}} Some critics, however, argue that the presidential system is weaker because it does not allow a transfer of power in the event of an emergency. [[Walter Bagehot]] argues that the ideal ruler in times of calm is different from the ideal ruler in times of crisis, criticizing the presidential system for having no mechanism to make such a change.<ref name="Bagehot" />

==== Heightened status ====

The president's status as both [[head of government]] and [[head of state]] is sometimes the subject of criticism. [[Dana D. Nelson]] criticizes the office of the President of the United States as essentially undemocratic and characterizes presidentialism as worship of the president by citizens, which she believes undermines civic participation.<ref name="twsSEPvsnfl">{{cite book |last=Nelson |first=Dana D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qgAWphms5oMC&q=Dana+Nelson+vanderbilt%3F+%22bad+for+democracy%22&pg=PA223 |title=Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-8166-5677-6 |location=Minneapolis, Minnesota |page=248 |author-link=Dana D. Nelson}}</ref><ref name="twsSEPnn4r56">{{cite web |last=Sirota |first=David |author-link=David Sirota |date=August 22, 2008 |title=Why cult of presidency is bad for democracy |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/21/EDCQ12G3M0.DTL |access-date=2009-09-20 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]}}</ref> <!--British-Irish philosopher and MP [[Edmund Burke]] argued an official should be elected based on "his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience", and therefore should reflect on the arguments for and against certain policies and then do what he believes is best for his constituents and country as a whole, even if it means short-term backlash. Thus defenders of presidential systems hold that sometimes what is [[Trustee model of representation|wisest may not always be the most popular decision]] and vice versa.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}-->

==== Political budget cycles ====

A 2019 peer-reviewed [[Meta-analysis|meta-analysis]] based on 1,037 regressions in 46 studies finds that presidential systems generally seem to favor revenue cuts, while parliamentary systems would rely on fiscal expansion characterized by a higher level of spending before an election.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cazals|first1=A.  |last2=Mandon |first2=P. |year=2019 |title=Political Budget Cycles: Manipulation by Leaders versus Manipulation by Researchers? Evidence from a Meta-Regression Analysis. |journal=[[Journal of Economic Surveys]] |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=274–308 |doi=10.1111/joes.12263  |s2cid=158322229 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joes.12263|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

== Comparative politics ==
The separation of the executive and the legislature is the key difference between a presidential system and a parliamentary system. The presidential system elects a head of government independently of the legislature, while in contrast, the head of government in a parliamentary system answers directly to the legislature. Presidential systems necessarily operate under the principle of structural separation of powers, while parliamentary systems do not;<ref name=":1" /> however, the degree of functional separation of powers exhibited in each varies – [[Dualism (politics)|dualistic parliamentary systems]] such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Slovakia forbid members of the legislature from serving in the executive simultaneously, while [[Westminster system|Westminster-type parliamentary systems]] such as the [[United Kingdom]] require it. Heads of government under the presidential system do not depend on the approval of the legislature as they do in a parliamentary system (except for mechanisms such as impeachment).<ref name=":2" />

The presidential system and the parliamentary system can also be blended into a [[semi-presidential system]]. Under such a system, executive power is shared by an elected head of state (a president) and a legislature-appointed head of government (a prime minister or premier). The amount of power each figure holds may vary, and a semi-presidential system may lean closer to one system over the other.<ref name=":2" /> The president typically retains authority over foreign policy in a semi-presidential system.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}} A pure presidential system may also have mechanisms that resemble those of a parliamentary system as part of [[Checks and Balances|checks and balances]]. The legislature may have oversight of some of the president's decisions through [[advice and consent]], and mechanisms such as [[impeachment]] may allow the legislature to remove the president under drastic circumstances.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

=== Presidentialism metrics ===
Presidentialism metrics allow a quantitative comparison of the strength of presidential system characteristics for individual countries. Presidentialism metrics include the presidential index in [[V-Dem Democracy indices]]<ref name="v-dem">{{cite journal | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066654 | doi=10.2139/ssrn.3066654 | title=Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa's Political Regimes | year=2017 | last1=Sigman | first1=Rachel | last2=Lindberg | first2=Staffan I. |journal=V-Dem Working Paper 2017:56 | hdl=2077/54296 | s2cid=158437511 | hdl-access=free }}</ref> and presidential power scores.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0007123414000465 | title=Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power | year=2016 | last1=Doyle | first1=David | last2=Elgie | first2=Robert | journal=British Journal of Political Science | volume=46 | issue=4 | pages=731–741 | doi-access=free }}</ref> The table below shows for individual countries the V-Dem presidential index, where higher values indicate higher concentration of political power in the hands of one individual.
{{Sticky header}}
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed sticky-header"
! Country !! Presidentialism Index for 2021<ref name="v-dem"/>
|-
| {{flaglist| Afghanistan }}  || 0.934
|-
| {{flaglist| Albania }}  || 0.22
|-
| {{flaglist| Algeria }}  || 0.807
|-
| {{flaglist| Angola }}  || 0.627
|-
| {{flaglist| Argentina }}  || 0.203
|-
| {{flaglist| Armenia }}  || 0.297
|-
| {{flaglist| Australia }}  || 0.01
|-
| {{flaglist| Austria }}  || 0.047
|-
| {{flaglist| Azerbaijan }}  || 0.965
|-
| {{flaglist| Bahrain }}  || 0.917
|-
| {{flaglist| Bangladesh }}  || 0.711
|-
| {{flaglist| Barbados }}  || 0.091
|-
| {{flaglist| Belarus }}  || 0.98
|-
| {{flaglist| Belgium }}  || 0.051
|-
| {{flaglist| Benin }}  || 0.419
|-
| {{flaglist| Bhutan }}  || 0.117
|-
| {{flaglist| Bolivia }}  || 0.535
|-
| {{flaglist| Bosnia and Herzegovina }}  || 0.327
|-
| {{flaglist| Botswana }}  || 0.176
|-
| {{flaglist| Brazil }}  || 0.136
|-
| {{flaglist| Bulgaria }}  || 0.16
|-
| {{flaglist| Burkina Faso }}  || 0.314
|-
| {{flaglist| Myanmar }}  || 0.879
|-
| {{flaglist| Burundi }}  || 0.801
|-
| {{flaglist| Cambodia }}  || 0.88
|-
| {{flaglist| Cameroon }}  || 0.873
|-
| {{flaglist| Canada }}  || 0.08
|-
| {{flaglist| Cape Verde }}  || 0.098
|-
| {{flaglist| Central African Republic }}  || 0.618
|-
| {{flaglist| Chad }}  || 0.929
|-
| {{flaglist| Chile }}  || 0.019
|-
| {{flaglist| China }}  || 0.891
|-
| {{flaglist| Colombia }}  || 0.133
|-
| {{flaglist| Comoros }}  || 0.833
|-
| {{flaglist| Costa Rica }}  || 0.033
|-
| {{flaglist| Croatia }}  || 0.107
|-
| {{flaglist| Cuba }}  || 0.806
|-
| {{flaglist| Cyprus }}  || 0.151
|-
| {{flaglist| Czech Republic }}  || 0.09
|-
| {{flaglist| Democratic Republic of the Congo }}  || 0.689
|-
| {{flaglist| Denmark }}  || 0.012
|-
| {{flaglist| Djibouti }}  || 0.751
|-
| {{flaglist| Dominican Republic }}  || 0.181
|-
| {{flaglist| Ecuador }}  || 0.397
|-
| {{flaglist| Egypt }}  || 0.494
|-
| {{flaglist| El Salvador }}  || 0.855
|-
| {{flaglist| Equatorial Guinea }}  || 0.966
|-
| {{flaglist| Eritrea }}  || 0.977
|-
| {{flaglist| Estonia }}  || 0.033
|-
| {{flaglist| Eswatini }}  || 0.707
|-
| {{flaglist| Ethiopia }}  || 0.735
|-
| {{flaglist| Fiji }}  || 0.525
|-
| {{flaglist| Finland }}  || 0.022
|-
| {{flaglist| France }}  || 0.068
|-
| {{flaglist| Gabon }}  || 0.752
|-
| {{flaglist| Georgia }}  || 0.282
|-
| {{flaglist| Germany }}  || 0.033
|-
| {{flaglist| Ghana }}  || 0.13
|-
| {{flaglist| Greece }}  || 0.12
|-
| {{flaglist| Guatemala }}  || 0.351
|-
| {{flaglist| Guinea }}  || 0.764
|-
| {{flaglist| Guinea-Bissau }}  || 0.413
|-
| {{flaglist| Guyana }}  || 0.276
|-
| {{flaglist| Haiti }}  || 0.706
|-
| {{flaglist| Honduras }}  || 0.402
|-
| {{flaglist| Hong Kong }}  || 0.569
|-
| {{flaglist| Hungary }}  || 0.288
|-
| {{flaglist| Iceland }}  || 0.051
|-
| {{flaglist| India }}  || 0.227
|-
| {{flaglist| Indonesia }}  || 0.206
|-
| {{flaglist| Iran }}  || 0.812
|-
| {{flaglist| Iraq }}  || 0.484
|-
| {{flaglist| Ireland }}  || 0.04
|-
| {{flaglist| Israel }}  || 0.1
|-
| {{flaglist| Italy }}  || 0.089
|-
| {{flaglist| Ivory Coast }}  || 0.532
|-
| {{flaglist| Jamaica }}  || 0.084
|-
| {{flaglist| Japan }}  || 0.135
|-
| {{flaglist| Jordan }}  || 0.25
|-
| {{flaglist| Kazakhstan }}  || 0.807
|-
| {{flaglist| Kenya }}  || 0.132
|-
| {{flaglist| Kosovo }}  || 0.296
|-
| {{flaglist| Kuwait }}  || 0.317
|-
| {{flaglist| Kyrgyzstan }}  || 0.614
|-
| {{flaglist| Laos }}  || 0.59
|-
| {{flaglist| Latvia }}  || 0.036
|-
| {{flaglist| Lebanon }}  || 0.539
|-
| {{flaglist| Lesotho }}  || 0.123
|-
| {{flaglist| Liberia }}  || 0.296
|-
| {{flaglist| Libya }}  || 0.479
|-
| {{flaglist| Lithuania }}  || 0.025
|-
| {{flaglist| Luxembourg }}  || 0.092
|-
| {{flaglist| Madagascar }}  || 0.677
|-
| {{flaglist| Malawi }}  || 0.136
|-
| {{flaglist| Malaysia }}  || 0.354
|-
| {{flaglist| Maldives }}  || 0.211
|-
| {{flaglist| Mali }}  || 0.623
|-
| {{flaglist| Malta }}  || 0.131
|-
| {{flaglist| Mauritania }}  || 0.74
|-
| {{flaglist| Mauritius }}  || 0.194
|-
| {{flaglist| Mexico }}  || 0.369
|-
| {{flaglist| Moldova }}  || 0.122
|-
| {{flaglist| Mongolia }}  || 0.207
|-
| {{flaglist| Montenegro }}  || 0.246
|-
| {{flaglist| Morocco }}  || 0.348
|-
| {{flaglist| Mozambique }}  || 0.442
|-
| {{flaglist| Namibia }}  || 0.207
|-
| {{flaglist| Nepal }}  || 0.213
|-
| {{flaglist| Netherlands }}  || 0.028
|-
| {{flaglist| New Zealand }}  || 0.016
|-
| {{flaglist| Nicaragua }}  || 0.987
|-
| {{flaglist| Niger }}  || 0.32
|-
| {{flaglist| Nigeria }}  || 0.36
|-
| {{flaglist| North Korea }}  || 0.986
|-
| {{flaglist| North Macedonia }}  || 0.46
|-
| {{flaglist| Norway }}  || 0.015
|-
| {{flaglist| Oman }}  || 0.574
|-
| {{flaglist| Pakistan }}  || 0.286
|-
| {{flaglist| Palestine }} (Gaza)  || 0.807
|-
| {{flaglist| Palestine }} (West Bank)  || 0.585
|-
| {{flaglist| Panama }}  || 0.297
|-
| {{flaglist| Papua New Guinea }}  || 0.197
|-
| {{flaglist| Paraguay }}  || 0.258
|-
| {{flaglist| Peru }}  || 0.094
|-
| {{flaglist| Philippines }}  || 0.35
|-
| {{flaglist| Poland }}  || 0.361
|-
| {{flaglist| Portugal }}  || 0.056
|-
| {{flaglist| Qatar }}  || 0.716
|-
| {{flaglist| Republic of the Congo }}  || 0.779
|-
| {{flaglist| Romania }}  || 0.184
|-
| {{flaglist| Russia }}  || 0.898
|-
| {{flaglist| Rwanda }}  || 0.738
|-
| {{flaglist| Sao Tome and Principe }}  || 0.213
|-
| {{flaglist| Saudi Arabia }}  || 0.814
|-
| {{flaglist| Senegal }}  || 0.236
|-
| {{flaglist| Serbia }}  || 0.404
|-
| {{flaglist| Seychelles }}  || 0.055
|-
| {{flaglist| Sierra Leone }}  || 0.296
|-
| {{flaglist| Singapore }}  || 0.298
|-
| {{flaglist| Slovakia }}  || 0.047
|-
| {{flaglist| Slovenia }}  || 0.159
|-
| {{flaglist| Solomon Islands }}  || 0.216
|-
| {{flaglist| Somalia }}  || 0.756
|-
| {{flaglist| Somaliland }}  || 0.599
|-
| {{flaglist| South Africa }}  || 0.13
|-
| {{flaglist| South Korea }}  || 0.076
|-
| {{flaglist| South Sudan }}  || 0.881
|-
| {{flaglist| Spain }}  || 0.031
|-
| {{flaglist| Sri Lanka }}  || 0.252
|-
| {{flaglist| Sudan }}  || 0.692
|-
| {{flaglist| Suriname }}  || 0.126
|-
| {{flaglist| Sweden }}  || 0.02
|-
| {{flaglist| Switzerland }}  || 0.013
|-
| {{flaglist| Syria }}  || 0.922
|-
| {{flaglist| Taiwan }}  || 0.15
|-
| {{flaglist| Tajikistan }}  || 0.943
|-
| {{flaglist| Tanzania }}  || 0.15
|-
| {{flaglist| Thailand }}  || 0.419
|-
| {{flaglist| The Gambia }}  || 0.131
|-
| {{flaglist| Timor-Leste }}  || 0.29
|-
| {{flaglist| Togo }}  || 0.804
|-
| {{flaglist| Trinidad and Tobago }}  || 0.113
|-
| {{flaglist| Tunisia }}  || 0.113
|-
| {{flaglist| Turkey }}  || 0.722
|-
| {{flaglist| Turkmenistan }}  || 0.907
|-
| {{flaglist| Uganda }}  || 0.411
|-
| {{flaglist| Ukraine }}  || 0.597
|-
| {{flaglist| United Arab Emirates }}  || 0.835
|-
| {{flaglist| United Kingdom }}  || 0.062
|-
| {{flaglist| United States of America }}  || 0.078
|-
| {{flaglist| Uruguay }}  || 0.045
|-
| {{flaglist| Uzbekistan }}  || 0.905
|-
| {{flaglist| Vanuatu }}  || 0.102
|-
| {{flaglist| Venezuela }}  || 0.958
|-
| {{flaglist| Vietnam }}  || 0.726
|-
| {{flaglist| Yemen }}  || 0.884
|-
| {{flaglist| Zambia }}  || 0.277
|-
| {{flaglist| Zanzibar }}  || 0.591
|-
| {{flaglist| Zimbabwe }}  || 0.592
|}

=== Subnational governments ===
{{See also|State governments of the United States}}

Subnational governments may be structured as presidential systems. All of the state governments in the United States use the presidential system, even though this is not constitutionally required. In these cases, instead of the title of the President, the role has the title of Governor. On a local level, a presidential system might be organized with the office of the Mayor acting as the president. Some countries without a presidential system at the national level use a form of this system at a subnational or local level. One example is [[Japan]], where the national government uses the parliamentary system.

== States with a presidential system of government ==
{{more sources|section|date=April 2024}}
{{Excerpt|List of countries by system of government|Presidential systems|subsections=yes}}

=== Presidential system in administrative divisions ===
'''Dependencies of the United States'''

* {{flag|American Samoa}}
* {{flag|Guam}}
* {{flag|Northern Mariana Islands}}
* {{flag|Puerto Rico}}
* {{flag|United States Virgin Islands}}

'''Special administrative regions of China'''
*{{HKG}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipm.edu.mo/cntfiles/upload/docs/research/common/1country_2systems/academic_eng/issue4/09.pdf|title=The Executive Authorities and the Legislature in the Political Structure of the Hong Kong SAR|last=Chen|first=Albert Hung Yee|date=n.d.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329110928/http://www.ipm.edu.mo/cntfiles/upload/docs/research/common/1country_2systems/academic_eng/issue4/09.pdf|archive-date=2017-03-29|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*{{MAC}}

=== Former presidential republics ===
*{{flag|Islamic Republic of Afghanistan}} (2004–2021)
*{{flag|Armenia}} (1998–2013){{efn|as the [[Armenian SSR]] [[parliamentary]] in 1990–1991, Soviet age and after independence, it was a [[semi-presidential republic]] in 1991–1998, a [[presidential republic]] in 1998–2013, a [[semi-presidential republic]] in 2013–2018 and a [[parliamentary republic]] in 2018.}}
*{{flag|Azerbaijan SSR}}/{{flag|Azerbaijan|1918}} (1990–1991, 1992–2016){{efn|as the [[Azerbaijan SSR]], it was a [[presidential republic]] in 1990–1991, a [[semi-presidential republic]] after [[Azerbaijan Republic|independence]] in 1991–1992, a [[presidential republic]] in 1992–2016 and a [[semi-presidential republic]] in 2016. Under a [[hereditary dictatorship]] since 1993}}
*{{BGD|1990}} (1975–1991){{efn|[[Parliamentary republic|Parliamentary]] in 1972–1975, [[President (government title)|presidential]] in 1975–1991, and parliamentary since 1991.}}
*{{flag|Cuba|1902}} (1902–1959)
*{{flag|Estonia}} (1938–1940)
*{{flag|Georgia}} (1995–2004){{efn|as the [[Georgian SSR]] and after independence, [[parliamentary]] in 1990–1991, [[semi-presidential]] in 1991–1995, [[President (government title)|presidential]] in 1995–2004, [[semi-presidential]] in 2004–2019  and [[parliamentary]] since 2019.}}
*{{flagcountry|Weimar Republic}} (1930–1933) ''de facto''{{efn|A [[semi-presidential republic]] as the [[Weimar Republic]] in 1918–1930, a presidential republic in 1930–1933, a [[totalitarian]] [[dictatorship]] under a [[parliamentary system]] in 1933–1945 as a [[Nazi Germany]], a [[Allied-occupied Germany|military occupation]] in 1945–1949 and a [[parliamentary republic]] in 1949.}}{{failed verification|date=January 2022}}
*{{GRC}} ([[First Hellenic Republic|1822–1832]],<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/syn09.pdf |title=Πολιτικὸν Σύνταγμα τῆς Ἑλλάδος |trans-title=Political Constitution of Greece |chapter=Κεφάλαιον Ε' {{endash}} Περὶ συντάξεως τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς πολιτείας  |lang=Greek |trans-chapter=Chapter 5 {{endash}} Concerning the organisation of the Hellenic state |quote=Ἡ νομοτελεστικὴ [ἐξουσία] ἀνήκει εἰς ἕνα μόνον ὀνομαζόμενον Κυβερνήτην, ἔχοντα διαφόρους ὑπ' αὐτὸν γραμματεῖς τῆς ἐπικρατείας. |trans-quote=The Executive [power] belongs solely to one [individual] titled Governor, who has under him state secretaries. |location=[[Troezen]] |date=5 May 1827 |publisher=[[Third National Assembly at Troezen|Third National Assembly]] |via=the [[Hellenic Parliament]] |access-date=29 December 2024 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110705000814/https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/syn09.pdf |archive-date=5 July 2011}}</ref> [[Greek junta|1973–1974]])
*{{flag|Haiti}} ([[Republic of Haiti (1859–1957)|1859–1957]], [[Duvalier dynasty|1957–1986]])
*{{Flag|Katanga}} (1960–1963)
*{{flag|Kirghiz SSR}}/{{flag|Kyrgyzstan}} (1990–1993){{efn|[[President (government title)|Presidential]] in 1990–1993, [[Semi-presidential system|Semi-presidential]] in 1993–2010 (''de jure''); 1993–2021 (''de facto''), [[Parliamentary republic|Parliamentary]] in 2010–2021 (''de jure''), and presidential again in 2021.}}
*{{Flagicon image|Flag of Mali.svg}} [[Mali]] (1960–1992){{efn|A presidential republic (1960–1991, 2023-present), military dictatorship (1968–1991,1991–1992, 2012, 2020-present) single-party state (1960–1968, 1974–1991) semi-presidential republic (1991–2023).}}
*{{Flag|Mauritania}} (1960–1978){{efn|A one-party presidential republic (1960–1978), military dictatorship (1978–1992, 2005–2007, 2008–2009), semi-presidential republic since 1992.}}
*{{Flagicon image|Flag of Niger.svg}} [[Niger]] (1960–1974, 1989–1993){{efn|A [[One-party state|single-party]] presidential republic (1960–1974, 1989–1993), a [[military dictatorship]] (1974–1993, 1996–1999, 1999, 2010–2011, 2023-present), a [[Semi-presidential system|semi-presidential]] republic (1993–1996, 1999–2010, 2011–2023)}}
*{{flag|Pakistan}} (1958–1973,1978–1985, 2001–2002)
*{{flagcountry|Second Polish Republic}} (1935–[[Invasion of Poland|1939]])
*{{flag|RSFSR}}/{{flag|Russia|1991}} ([[Cabinet of Boris Yeltsin and Yegor Gaidar|1991–1992]]) ''de facto''
*{{flag|South Korea|1949}} (1963–1972){{efn|All South Korean constitutions since 1963 provided for a strong executive Presidency; in addition, the formally authoritarian [[Yushin Constitution]] of the [[Fourth Republic of Korea|Fourth Republic]] established a presidential power to dissolve the [[National Assembly of South Korea|National Assembly]], nominally counterbalanced by a vote of no confidence. Both of these provisions were retained by the [[Fifth Republic of Korea|Fifth Republic's constitution]] but repealed upon the transition to democracy and the establishment of the [[Sixth Republic of Korea|Sixth Republic]]}}
*{{flag|South Vietnam}} (1955–1975){{Cn|date=November 2022}}
*{{flagcountry|Ba'athist Syria}} (1963–2024)
*{{flag|Tajik SSR}} (1990–1991)
*{{flag|Togo}} (1960-2024)
*{{flag|Turkmen SSR}} (1990–1991)
*{{flag|Ukraine|1992}} (1995–1996){{efn|An interim constitution passed in 1995 removed the President's ability to dissolve the [[Verkhovna Rada]] and Rada's ability to dismiss the government by a vote of no confidence. Both of these provisions were restored upon the passage of a permanent constitution in 1996.}}
*{{flag|Uzbek SSR}} (1990–1991)
====Republics with executive governors====
*[[Vermont Republic]] (1777–1791)
*[[United Provinces of the Río de la Plata]] (1820–1832) and [[Argentine Confederation]] (1835–1852)
*[[Alabama in the American Civil War|Alabama]] (1861–1865)
*[[Georgia in the American Civil War|Georgia]] (1861–1865)
*[[Louisiana in the American Civil War|Louisiana]] (1861–1865)
*[[Texas in the American Civil War|Texas]] (1861–1865)
*[[Mississippi in the American Civil War|Mississippi]] (1861–1865)
*[[South Carolina in the American Civil War|South Carolina]] (1861–1865)
*[[Florida in the American Civil War|Florida]] (1861–1865)
*[[Virginia in the American Civil War|Virginia]] (1861–1865)
*[[Arkansas in the American Civil War|Arkansas]] (1861–1865)
*[[North Carolina in the American Civil War|North Carolina]] (1861–1865)
*[[Tennessee in the American Civil War|Tennessee]] (1861–1865)
*[[Confederate government of Missouri|Missouri]] (1861–1865)
*[[Confederate government of Kentucky|Kentucky]] (1861–1865)

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
* [http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=108&art=573 The Great Debate: Parliament versus Congress]
* Castagnola, Andrea/Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal: [http://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jpla/article/view/41/41 Presidential Control of High Courts in Latin America: A Long-term View (1904-2006)], in Journal of Politics in Latin America, Hamburg 2009.

{{Government}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Political systems]]
[[Category:Presidents|System]]
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category:Separation of powers]]
[[Category:Types of democracy]]
[[Category:Types of republics]]