A better executive

My blog has become so American-centric, that my readers might wonder whether it is justified to keep the name of my site as politics unlimited when its limited to just one nation and one election. So, today I am opening a stronger and more global phenomenon to my readers- the Executive power. Before I go into executive power, it is best to divide the world into three categories- Non-democratic states, Presdential republics and Palimentary states. In Presidential republics, the need for a strong and structured executive, the responsiblity factor is compromised while in parlimentary modes, for increased responsiblity of the executive, strength and sturdity is compromised. Countries that have tried to fix this like France have created a mix of presidential and parlimentary executive, where power is yielded completely to none. But instead of solving the problem, a semi-presidential executive only makes things worse. So, is there a better government, a better executive. Can an executive be both powerful and controlled, can it be both flexible and rigid? Well there is a way, if governments are willing to work towards them. There is way in which executive power can be balanced with executive responsibility. The answer is, have a fixed-term executive elected directly by the people but answerable to the legislature and to the people i.e have an executive similar to USA but without veto powers or control of the army. And although the President/ Chief executive should have some amount of immunity, it must be easy to curb presidential power through a mixture of constitutional amendments and special provisions. Provision such as these, that allows the Legislature to remove the President should be in order. Moreover, a President must be subjected to removal not only in cases of high offence but also when the Legislature deems it neccessary to replace the President. The President however has to be protected from falling prey to political differences. Here the judiciary must intervene and constitutionally solve the deadlock. While it is way easier said than done, we can convince ourselves that only a executive powerful enough to lead the country but not powerful enough to destroy it can balance power between the three branches of the government.