Why does the U.S. have a "President" when most democracies have a "Prime Minister"?

Question

I don't understand what the point of a "President" is. Are Americans afraid of democracy?

Answer 1

Parliaments have prime ministers. We don't have a parliament in the United States. The Founding Fathers specifically designed a government that wasn't parliamentary because parliaments tend to have bitter internal factional divisions.

Also, as others have said, we are not technically a democracy in the Aristotelian sense of the word. We're a republic.

In the Continental Congress (the governing body after the US declared independence from Great Britain), there were "presidents." A president was an individual who presided--not interfered--over the congress. A president is one who presides and that was the role envisioned by the Founders. The president is supposed to use the veto sparingly, only striking down legislation that violates the Constitution. The president is one who oversees. Conversely, a prime minister is one who interferes because he is a member of the parliament. In the US, the president is not a member of the legislature and should not act like a legislator.

Americans aren't "afraid" of democracy. In fact, Americans are almost entirely responsible for the modern definition of democracy and the fact that most European countries have long since abandoned their monarchies and aristocracies.

And as a historical note, prime minister means first minister to the monarch. No monarch here!

Answer 2

I believe that the way other countries governments are set up are a little different from ours. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in other countries, parliamentary elections are held en masse, and whichever party wins the majority of seats in the election appoints the leader of the party to be Prime Minister. We do things a little differently. We have elections, and the party with the majority selects a representative from the House of Representatives to be Speaker of the House, and a senator to be Senate Majority leader. The President is a separate election because the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch. This can lead to a "lame duck" presidency, in which the Congress and Presidency are controlled by different parties, because the president can veto (refuse to sign) any legislation passed by congress. This is good (in the case that congress passes something really stupid), or bad (in the case that congress decides we need a timetable to pull out of Iraq, and the president says no). Congress can override the veto, but they need a 2/3rds majority, which we're not gonna get on Iraq.
So that's American government in a nutshell. As you can see, we're not afraid of democracy, we just like doing things the hard way.

Answer 3

Having a President tends to offer more stability than a prime minister. Prime ministers can be removed from office by a vote of no confidence in the national legislature, which is a lot easier than an impeachment. Italy had the problem of very frequent changes of PM's during the 60's for example.

Some countries have both presidents and prime ministers. Often in these cases the president's power is very limited, and it is often mostly a ceremonial post.

Answer 4

Actually, that's because most of these countries have a parliamentary system that was either based on 1) British rule, which means these systems are technically monarchic (although the Queen and her governors haven't vetoed anything in those countries in a very long time), or 2) Have a dual system (such as in France, Poland, etc...) where they have both a president and a prime minister - their president. Does not have as much power as the U.S. president and has to rule with more consensuses on the issues.
The problem with American democracy is not the presidential system, but the ever-growing involvement of private industry and special interest group lobbying in the party system.

Answer 5

Most Prime Ministers come from countries that have Parliaments. For example, people in Great Britain do not vote directly for the Prime Minister. The majority party in the Parliament instead chooses their leader to be Prime Minister. The U.S. is a republic. Both are different forms of democracy.

Answer 6

That we are a Republic is correct but does not answer the question. No offense intended.
Most other democratic govt. the Prime Minister is a different position than our President. The President sets policy and is the chief executive. A Prime minister is usually the head of a coalition and does not have the distinct powers that our govt. charges our President with. Just different forms. I think our system is better as is usually makes for a more consistent policy.

Answer 7

most republics have both a president and a prime minister. those who only have a prime minister are parliamentary monarchies, such as UK, the Netherlands, Spain... countries where a king or queen are actually the head of state.
but on the other hand, the US has both president and vice-president. while other countries don't have vice-presidents. so many different system, but democracy is just about the same in most western countries, no matter how the government is.

Answer 8

Matter of historical development. Those countries that have a prime minister have a "parliamentary form of government." Usually, there is a remnant of a monarchy, such as in Great Brittan, or there is a President acting as a head of state. The prime minister is elected by the parliament from one of the members of parliament, and he/she technically reports to the head of state. So a prime minister has to run for member of parliament, and he has to be the designated head of the party to which he belongs - the people elect the members, such that whatever party gets a majority in parliament gets to elect the head of this party as prime minister.

We have a democratic republican form of government, and the head of state is the executive officer of the government and is elected separately from the members of the legislature.
In the US, the President is not exactly elected directly by the people, but by Electors in each of the separate states - the people in each state elect these electors. The number of electors from each state is equal to the number of senators and representatives that the state has in Congress, which number is determined by population.

What happens is, that when a candidate's electors receive a majority of the people's vote in a state, all the electors from that state must vote for that candidate in the Electoral College, not just those pledged to the candidate. That might result in a candidate receiving a majority of the popular vote, but losing the election, because a candidate only needs to garner the votes of populous states to prevail.

The reason for this is historical - there was originally a concern about the rights of states, and at the time of the adoption of the constitution, there were no real political parties and it seemed fair to the states, and seemed wise to the framers of the constitution, who distrusted popular whim.

So really, it is not more or less democratic than other systems. It is a bit convoluted, to be sure, and in these days, it is seen as unsatisfactory by many, owing to the possibility of winning the electors and not the popular vote.

Answer 9

The United States is not a true democracy but rather a republic..and since George Washington was the first president..although he could have been a King but he turned that honor down..thus we have a president...tradition rules

Answer 10

there are a variety of of of who pick to have faith that this President could no longer probable be interior the incorrect whilst it includes Iraq. they are not staunch Republicans, they are not brazen flag wavers, heck, maximum do no longer vote. interior a similar way that they "know" the solar will upward thrust each and each morning, they "know" that a united states President will act presidential, and at last, all will end for the extra effective. This line of thinking would not require any thought, artwork, or hardship on their section, so all they ought to do is slap on a help Our Troops ribbon on the 'ol mini van, and bypass on with their lives. The Bush White homestead counted in this complicity, and became into the best option in doing so for 6 years. in basic terms after the '06 elections did the drowsing "American Public" massive start to stir. Admitting something is new to those who ought to declare it, and additionally to those who ought to hearken to it. It only shouldn't ensue with the fee that many might pick to work out.