I'll be (the) one to ask.

I'll be one, among many, in the days and years ahead, to ask if democracy really needs a presidency. There are a handful of democracies to examine, all of them young and unpracticed, some of them feigning the role of empire, in a gaudy, clutch-your-pearls manner, that speaks to the immaturity of children loose in a candy store, then given access to a 7-piece drum set. Or a teenager, given a key ring to access both an after-hours liquor store, and an unsupervised highly-insured sports car. Or a senile reality TV show host, given access to a nuclear arsenal and asked to increase his on-air ratings lest he be canceled.

Does democracy need presidency?

Presumably so, say the founders of the modern French and American republics, who were raised by monarchy and needed to come up with some plan, quickly, to replace mad kings.

They could choose their primary ruler from between a royal or a minister; they recognized that people feel the need for someone presiding over their affairs, at least managing the business of crime and punishment, and hopefully keeping a boundary between those occupations.

It seems exemplary that the founders in the new American nation approached George Washington during his inauguration, and asked if they should call him highness. They really all sensed the need for some grand daddy, to handle their affairs and reassure them of dominant order.

Does democracy need presidency?

It seems to be one of the most sincere weaknesses of the exercise. Democracy is, indeed, an exercise, and presidency sure as hell fails to be; full in recent years of undisciplined creepy old fucks who run re-election campaigns known as CREEP, or capitulate their celebrity into chances at the companionship of young ladies.

When they do find chance to use their responsibilities, or authorities, of office - those are really damn terrible moments for humanity. Are we really sure that disarmament of nuclear weapons is progressing more easily under the rough-and-ready leadership of a touchy mobster who sees the internet as a channel for casual threats?

If that unskilled gooner became a goner, how could the remainders of us accomplish the challenging problems?

In a sense, we'd be replacing demagogy with [anthrogogy].

Does democracy need presidency?

Of course, the only response comes from an experiment. This perhaps seems like a problem - surely there are many emergent problems to handle if a nation undergoes such a change.

Although, the biggest concern on many peoples' minds, is likely that someone would find a way to capture the leadership again. This seems to indicate that we already recognize that the biggest threat to rule-by-the-people is de-facto rule-by-a-singleton.

Perhaps with no human president, lobbying corporations could begin a leadership reign. That seems no different than the current moment, when the president acts simply to obscure the corporate influences and funding channels guiding each of his decisions; then finding a simple excuse (currently "national security", meaning the "unimpeachable bodily security of select american nationals"), to re-brand the corporate guidance as patriarchical benevolence.

All of this seems to be sickening.... of the people.

Does democracy need presidency?

The original experiment in poly-headed leadership, seems to be the Roman Triumvirate. This was famously co-opted by none other than Julius Caesar, who proclaimed himself dictator for reasons of national security. No one really hails him as a role model any more; especially seeing all the respect his peers offered him in parting.

A far more modern, perhaps more resilient, and surely more democratic example can be found in Switzerland. There, the president operates in a seriously bounded role.

The Swiss Federal Council has seven members, and is presided over by the President of the Swiss Confederation. The president seems to have no other role than keeping these meetings on pace, and so operates more as a speaker-of-the-house than speaker-for-the-people. I'll be examining the proceedings to follow up on this model of leadership.