@valleyforge In Poland it seems like we have a better situation as our executive power - government is made from our parliament. Usually the party who won election constitutes it. So there is no bias between legislation and execution. Well maybe with some exception to president who can postpone legislation process by using veto law.
@valleyforge If there is such as binary bias sometimes it's cased by asking wrong questions. Maybe we should think on how to get benefits from both approaches? Get execution autonomy from presidental systems, and good legislation/execution cooperation in parliamental ones?
@cz35iek The constitution is supposed to have congress and the president opposed to each other because if they're working together they can more easily wield power against the people. The problem now is that the president can too often override Congress, specifically regarding appropriations although among other things too. I would rather have power held among Congress because it's divided rather than being held by a single man.
@valleyforge funny but maybe somehow interesting analogy would be an IT system. Usually programmers contribute to (in this example monolithic) service. They add new features, fixing bugs. This would be legislation analogy. The execution part is infrastructure / runtime where this service runs. I our world (programmers) we are very legislation heavy. There have been some "operations" teams but they are already converted to devops, and they also uses "legislation" methods. Maybe in order to solve too much power in one hands issue we should split legislation itself (again analogy here is microservices) but keep it coupled with it's execution part?
@cz35iek im mostly complaining that the executive has too much power here. In parliamentary systems the executive has much more power because they generally also control the legislative and have much much fewer restrictions on their power