Why This Happens

The U.S. presidency, and presidencies in general, comes with substantial executive power, allowing each president to make decisions that shape the country’s direction. However, the frequent change in leadership brings a natural tendency for the incoming administration to impose its vision and undo previous policies. This can be problematic, especially if a president who introduces substantial reforms is replaced by one with opposing views. The result is that long-term projects, such as infrastructure investments or international agreements, often face delays or reversals.

Allowing a president to stay in office for a longer period or without limits, on the other hand, can be dangerous if the administration is ineffective or detrimental to the country. Extending terms without restriction could also risk authoritarianism or entrenching bad policies for an extended period.  Certainly, not a good idea for the citizens and its allies.

Possible Alternatives

Many voters may not fully understand the implications of their votes, especially regarding how a president’s policies impact them in the long run.

1. Longer Terms with More Accountability:

Instead of electing presidents every four years, the term could be extended to six years. This would allow more time for presidents to implement their policies without the constant pressure of re-election. However, to avoid the potential for entrenching bad policies, there could be a strong accountability system where mid-term referendums or performance reviews are conducted by either Congress or the public. This could help mitigate the risks of keeping an ineffective president in office longer.

2. Non-reversible Policies:

Another alternative is creating legislation that protects major reforms from being easily undone. For example, some economic or healthcare policies could require a supermajority in Congress to be reversed. This could prevent incoming administrations from rolling back significant policies without broader political consensus. This would ensure that only truly ineffective or harmful policies are revisited, promoting stability while still allowing necessary adjustments.

3. Two-tier Presidential System:

Some countries operate with both a president and a prime minister, sharing executive powers. This two-tier system could be explored in the U.S., where the president oversees broader national issues like foreign policy, while a prime minister or executive administrator handles domestic governance. This would help balance leadership by giving both domestic and international policies separate streams of accountability and preventing drastic policy reversals every four years.

4. Presidential Rotation System:

A more radical approach could be a system of shared governance where multiple leaders rotate over a six-to-eight-year term, dividing responsibilities according to specific areas (domestic affairs, foreign policy, economy, etc.). Each of these “presidents” would specialize in one area, while national decisions would require agreement across the board, avoiding the full concentration of power in one person.

5. Improving Civic Education and Voter Engagement:

Finally, a longer-term solution would involve better civic education and engagement. Many voters may not fully understand the implications of their votes, especially regarding how a president’s policies impact them in the long run. Improving voter knowledge and engagement could lead to more informed decisions, reducing the frequent shifts in political direction that stem from disillusionment or misunderstanding. This could also create a public environment where policies are scrutinized based on their merits rather than political affiliation, fostering continuity even across administrations.

Countries that operate the above types of governance

America has been known to always forge its own path. For example, America deviated from the British English to coin its own American English. It demonstrates America’s uniqueness. However, “borrowing” a governance of stability snd continuity certainly does no harm.

Several countries operate under systems that incorporate elements of the governance alternatives mentioned above that America should consider. These countries have experienced notable success in governance, largely due to the stability and balance their political systems provide. Let’s look at a few examples and how effective their governance has played out in each case:

1. France 🇫🇷 – Semi-presidential System

France has a semi-presidential system, where the powers of governance are shared between a President and a Prime Minister. The President is responsible for foreign policy and national defense, while the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President but accountable to the National Assembly, manages domestic policy. This system has proven to be relatively successful in ensuring political stability. It allows for a balance of power and helps ensure that the president’s foreign policies are not drastically altered with a new administration, while domestic policies receive more frequent legislative oversight, navigating both challenges effectively.

While France faces challenges like any other country, the semi-presidential system has provided a structure that prevents extreme policy swings with each election cycle.

2. Germany 🇩🇪 – Parliamentary Republic with a President and Chancellor

Germany also operates a two-tier system, where the Chancellor is the head of government and handles most of the executive functions, especially domestic policies, while the President serves as the head of state with more ceremonial duties. The Chancellor is usually elected by the Bundestag (parliament) and can stay in office for multiple terms, allowing for longer continuity in policy implementation.

German Chancellors often serve longer terms compared to presidents in other systems. Angela Merkel, for instance, served for 16 years, providing a long period of consistent leadership that contributed to Germany’s economic success. This system creates stability, particularly in domestic governance.

Germany’s parliamentary system has been praised for its efficiency, particularly in maintaining a strong economy and political stability.

Germany is the largest economy in Europe and the fourth-largest in the world. Its focus on industrial output, engineering, and innovation has thrived under stable leadership. Its political system encourages coalition governments, which promote negotiation and compromise between parties, ensuring that policies have broader support and continuity.

Germany is often cited as a model of economic and political stability, with its governance system playing a key role in achieving long-term prosperity.

3. Switzerland 🇨🇭 – Federal Council Rotation

Switzerland has a unique system of governance with a Federal Council made up of seven members who act collectively as the head of state. The presidency of the council rotates every year among the members. This rotation helps prevent the concentration of power in one individual and ensures continuity in governance, as the policies of the government are determined collectively by the council. Each member is responsible for specific portfolios, and decisions are made by consensus. The frequent rotation limits drastic policy shifts and promotes long-term stability.

Switzerland’s Federal Council system has been highly successful in maintaining political stability and ensuring continuity in governance. Its unique system has allowed it to maintain neutrality in global conflicts, while internally, it has remained one of the most stable and well-governed nations in the world.

The collective nature of the Federal Council ensures that policies are made through consensus, which fosters stability and long-term planning.

Switzerland is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with a high standard of living, low unemployment, and a strong financial sector.

4. Mexico 🇲🇽 – Single 6-Year Presidential Term

Mexico offers another model with its sexenio, a single, non-renewable six-year presidential term. The president has more time to implement policies without worrying about re-election, but the single-term limit ensures that if the president is ineffective, their tenure is limited. While this provides continuity for six years, it also ensures that a poor administration is not prolonged through multiple terms. However, this system can still be prone to policy reversals, depending on the next administration’s ideology.

Mexico still faces serious issues with corruption, drug cartels, and violence, which the governance system has struggled to address consistently. But, despite those challenges, Mexico has grown into a significant economic player in Latin America, with trade deals like NAFTA (now USMCA) boosting its economy.

While Mexico has made progress, its political structure sometimes limits long-term governance solutions, especially in areas like crime and corruption.

5. China 🇨🇳 – Longer Terms with Structured Accountability

Although China operates under a single-party system, its leaders are appointed for longer terms (typically 10 years) with considerable emphasis on long-term policy goals. The system allows for policy continuity, especially in economic and infrastructural projects, but it’s accompanied by a complex system of internal checks and balances within the Communist Party. While this is not a democratic model, it is an example of a system where leaders can pursue long-term projects without facing constant electoral shifts, although it lacks the accountability mechanisms found in democracies.

While China’s governance model differs significantly from democratic countries, it has however been highly successful in terms of economic development and long-term planning.

China has experienced unprecedented economic growth, transforming from a developing country into the world’s second-largest economy in just a few decades. This has been driven by long-term, centralized planning. The Chinese government’s ability to plan long-term has led to massive infrastructure projects, advancements in technology, and leadership in sectors like renewable energy. However, China’s system lacks the democratic checks and balances that prevent leaders from becoming entrenched in power.

While it has been successful economically, it faces criticism over human rights abuses and the concentration of power.

China’s governance model has clearly delivered economic success, but it does so at the expense of democratic freedoms.

6. Singapore 🇸🇬 – Stable Leadership with Long-term Policy Focus

Singapore’s governance model is often noted for its political stability and long-term policy planning. Though it is a parliamentary republic, its People’s Action Party (PAP) has remained in power since 1959, creating an environment where long-term strategies, especially in economic and urban development, can be implemented without major political disruptions. Prime ministers in Singapore serve as long as they are re-elected, providing continuity in governance, with rigorous accountability mechanisms in place to ensure effective governance.

Singapore is often considered a model of effective governance, especially in terms of economic development and political stability. From being a struggling island city-state, Singapore has become one of the wealthiest and most advanced economies in the world. This success is largely attributed to its stable leadership and long-term economic planning. Singapore is also one of the least corrupt countries globally, and its strict governance model ensures accountability and transparency.

Singapore has world-class healthcare, education, and infrastructure, all of which have flourished under consistent, long-term governance. The country’s combination of a semi-authoritarian system with a strong focus on economic and social welfare has proven highly effective, though it may not be fully democratic.

Conclusion

The challenge of frequent policy reversals due to changing leadership is not an easy one to solve. However, by considering alternatives such as longer terms with accountability, a two-tier system, or stronger voter education, the United States might develop a more stable and effective governance model. The goal should be to allow meaningful policy development while ensuring that leaders are held accountable and that harmful governance cannot persist unchecked.

The governance systems in countries like France, Germany, and Switzerland offer models where power is shared or rotated, power and economic stability, and long-term leadership structures, preventing drastic policy reversals while ensuring accountability. Meanwhile, countries like Mexico and Singapore provide longer terms with mechanisms to balance continuity and leadership change. China, while economically successful, shows the trade-offs between long-term governance and democratic freedoms. Each system presents its own strengths and challenges, but these examples show that alternatives to the U.S. four-year cycle do exist, and they may offer lessons for more stable governance while maintaining democratic principles.