Recently I’ve been wondering about why a president is seen as necessary. I don’t really understand why the position could not just be merged into the main parliament or supreme government body. Why do we need that single individual?
Sometimes enterprises need the executive capacity to make quick top down decisions. This is why the president is head of the military for example.
That’s the logic I’m familiar with. Not sure if it will be so necessary under communism.
quick decisions and viewpoint, but I agree finding a more collective system should be found.
I’d personally prefer a Soviet to make up the highest body with one generally elected person (instead of just elected from their industry) to be given a position as head of the council with 1.5 votes to prevent ties. This general councilor could be given emergency powers if its necessary to have faster acting government but in peacetime such a thing isn’t necessary.
A lightning rod for public hatred
The only good argument I know of (and mind you I’m not submitting this as something to live by), is that a council would lack a guiding figure.
Votes in the council body would lean towards the political majority of the time, which would make it tough to have ideological integrity. In the sense of the capitalist socio-economic system, it would make it hard for the government to remain in the hands of the bourgeois class, as the threat of popular voter revolution is always theoretically possible. And in the socialist socio-economic system, counter-revolutionaries could gather enough control over the council to direct the ideology of the government, and it would make long-term projects more difficult to pull off, as the new majority could undo the progress of the old majority.
With a single elected official, the direction of the governing body can always be controlled. And as long as the “right” person is elected, the ideology of the government will never be threatened.
