The appeal for a directly elected president is easily comprehensible. It is an intuitively appealing and credible notion that people deserve to directly elect their leader in a democratic process, and in principle, that is something I agree with.

As I am contemplating my next phrases of this article, I am acutely aware that the burden to prove that people should not get to directly vote their leader rests within people advocating against the directly elected executive, rather than the other side having the obligation to prove its merits. Likewise, I am mindful of our current and past political predicaments rife with instability and governments torn by inter and intra-party disputes. Potential stability this could bring does have people dreaming of a uniform government and policies that would bring much-needed investment, jobs and prosperity.

Well, as always, the devil is in the details and practical reality.

First, on a principle level, imagine a powerful executive, say that of the United States. The president has the power to veto bills and sign them, sign executive orders, call the shots during a war, grant pardons and so on. It follows logically, that the burden of proof also lies to a great extent on concentrating so much power on one individual. People with competence and integrity always do not get on top, and even if such people are on top, it does not mean that they are demi-gods who can make perfect decisions all the time. So why should the whims of individuals decide matters of great importance? Remember Trump’s handling of COVID? If Trump seems like an extreme and anomalous example, note that current President Biden, branded with the “nice guy” image, unilaterally decided to send bombing planes in Syria.

Of course, this is not to claim that the parliamentary system is a paragon of rationality and accountability, but the fact that discourse has to happen publicly in parliaments under the public’s watchful eyes creates incentives to take more integrity-laced decisions. It is likely that if there had been a publicly visible discussion about bombing targets in Syria. i.e., a decision to drop expensive bombs, with ultra-expensive planes, to destroy innocent lives, decisions would be different. The public has the right to scrutinize as many decisions and policy discussions as possible, to the extent that they want. Also, the process of discourse itself results in better chances of yielding more rational decisions.

In many cases, the executives are appointed based on voting won by slight margins. For instance, a president gains 51% of votes and can rightfully hold the executive power; however, the other candidate with 49% of votes gets no representation in the executive power domain. Whereas in a parliamentary system, minority parties can form coalition governments and gain ministries, they are completely shut down from the executive system, especially under something like the spoils system in the United States. This system in the presidential form of government is likely to disproportionately harm minority groups who have a lesser chance of having a member of their group being elected as the national figurehead.

Similarly, this concentration of executive power poses a direct threat to democracy if the executive has or can garner sufficient influence over guardrails of democracy and is seeking to break free from their reins. This was vividly visible recently in democratic backsliding in Turkey and was visible in Nepal as well. In Turkey, Erdogan, its Prime minister (and current President), began to lay foundations for his authoritarian tendencies in this very way. He pushed for constitutional changes to replace the parliamentary system in Turkey with a presidential one, which would centralize power in the presidency and weaken key checks and balances built upon the parliamentary system. Likewise, in Nepal, where it will take a while for democratic gains to get cemented, there was a de-facto concentration of executive power when the interests of President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and Prime Minister K.P. Oli were aligned. The two Supreme Court decisions saved our infantile democratic practice but the flashing danger lights were for everyone to see. The very definition of dictatorship is the concentration of power without checks and balances. Hence, of course, reducing the supervision of checks and balances, which is primarily a legislative function (it not only elects or controls the executive branch but confirms judicial appointments in most democracies) is the bedrock of budding authoritarianism. A strong parliament, in control of the executive branch, acts as a bulwark to such despotism as power in this most powerful body is divided among hundreds of members of parliaments.

The other important consideration would be the impact on the election process itself. The character, quirks, personal beliefs and relationships of the presidential candidates fill large chunks of political columns that ideally should be filled with policy discussions. This prevails in the parliamentary system too but is more prominent in candidate-centric elections rather than party-centric elections. During candidate focused elections, qualities that gain preponderance are charisma and oratory skills; qualities that people wrongly value in political leaders.

Likewise, this is likely to foster racism and battering of minorities. In all political systems, an effective way to gain a devoted following is by appealing to their emotions. Sadly, thanks to a physiological phenomenon called negativity bias (things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one’s psychological state and processes than positive things), people are attuned to respond with greater emotional intensity to things like fears, prejudice, anger, etc. This means by arousing or responding to people’s prevailing feelings of fears or xenophobia of various groups, usually minorities, power-hungry rulers can garner a devoted following. This is a tremendously common phenomenon: Trump’s appeal to fears of shrinking white majority, Modi’s incitement of fear against Muslims, and the Burmese military demonizing and cleansing Rohingya by portraying them as perpetrators of all evil are among the countless examples of this. The sheer effectiveness of this means it has been used by rulers or aspiring rulers of all shades and systems. However, there is an added benefit to using this heinous tactic for directly electing presidential candidates. While political parties have an incentive to garner the broadest possible constituency possible to earn a larger number of seats, presidential candidates can effectively get away with winning at best 51% of votes. This is the reason why Trump eagerly chose to ride the tide of white nativist fears despite alienating a broader sector of minorities. People of colour were not his targeted constituents.

Spare a thought about how this could potentially play out in an ethnically diverse country like Nepal with low education and literacy rate. In a country where our brothers and sisters in Terai have been portrayed by the ruling elites for centuries as “Indians” and have these notions firmly hammered in the sentiments of the general public. Where prejudice and stereotypes exist regarding various ethnicities and castes. Where reactionary voices used the incident of a Dalit woman not getting rent as a platform to question affirmative action. Where wide-ranging frustration, unemployment, poverty and deeply rooted social injustices prevail, leaving a fertile ground for an aspiring charismatic dictator.