Lewis Holden is exploring the issue of what a President would be in a republican New Zealand. He covers the advantages and disadvantages of a ceremonial appointed executive, separate executive and executive elected by parliament.

Any republican system has to be able to explain its choice of executive, especially one that will move from a constitutional monarchy based on a parliamentary system - as Australia and New Zealand are.

Lewis writes that he prefers the parliamentary model :

However, in discussions about deeper constitutional change, such as the separation of the executive from parliament - to prevent the melding of the legislature and the executive and thus protect against potential constitutional abuses by the executive - parliamentary republics still, in my view, stand stronger than presidential systems.

I disagree. I prefer the separate executive of the Washington system. The US system is messy and has massive arguments about separation of powers and checks and balances - arguments that parliaments don't have as those powers which the President and Congress are fighting over are predominantly the domain of the executive in a parliament.

A parliamentary system's calm belies the lack of independent legislative power in it. The Washington system is becoming more dependent upon party machines to provide the checks and balances like the Australian system. This is a recent phenomenon in the US; because of Labor's pledge and block voting in Australia it has always been a part of the Australian political landscape.

The messiness of the US system and its airing of its power struggles between executive and congress in public are a good sign of the deliberative component in liberal democracy.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Lewis . # . 1/1
    I think it depends on your aim for the political system. I suspect most republicans in Australia and New Zealand want to emphasise that parliamentary republics do have a greater degree of accountability, as a reaction to the accusation from supporters of the monarchy that republics in general do not. In this sense, my argument for a parliamentary republic is admittedly a reactionary one. That said, your point - that the "mess" of the US system airs its power struggles much unlike the Westminster system - is a valid one.
    • cam . # .
      Lewis, I don't think Parliamentary republics do have better accountability than Presidential systems. The checks and balances are just flat out lacking in parliamentary systems because the executive is in the lower house. In unicameral parliaments it is even worse.
      • Lewis . # .
        Ah, well I'm about to argue that due to proportional representation in NZ's unicameral parliament, we should avoid that problem (as is the case in Germany, upon whom NZ bases its electoral system).