fight corruption
do you need a strong president when you're at war?
i don't think so.
i think you can as well give the army in the hands of a strong general
and have him or her handle the wars the nation is fighting.
a general can be the leader figure the soldiers and the population needs.
the council on top can give guidance and respond to extraordinary events
which will take more time than if only a president can decide
but i think extraordinary events should anyway be answered with a cool head
rather than with the emotions following an attack.
it's not like the general can't defend his or her country at once
with sufficient authorisations to do so.
.
the swiss never needed a strong president
despite several wars and a civil war fought out.
the french knew military successes under the rule of the directoire.
i don't know, i think it's a lie that you need a president to win wars.
a council just does the job as well
with all the constitutional advantages that come with it
the main being that with a civilian authority next to the military one
it can be prevented that there is a militarisation of government during times of war
which can only help the return to normal after it.
it can such be prevented to see opening up
the lethal prospect of military corruption
turning the country into an unsafe and violent place
where the rule of the stronger prevails
and equality, freedom and stability suffer.
.
