pondering : will for diversity
Maybe for nations of < blood >, that is nations with one predominant ethnicity, religion or language, it can be that presidents are still the best way to guide a nation. Supporters of presidential political systems can reasonably pretend that unlike in multicultural or multipolar countries, those uniform nations of one ethnicity aren't torn apart by two languages, two regions, two religions or two armies. Their loyalty is evenly spread throughout the country. They have their divisions when it comes to the rift between progressives and conservatives, between capitalists and communists or greens, and so forth, but they aren't divided to the point of one region having constantly as well independence in mind as a solution to the conflicts with the central authority.
But for multicultural nations i must recommend a collegial form of government : a directorial executive as the Swiss know it. A perfect way for the different currents of society to be proportionally included in the highest public office and guaranteed fair representation. In Switzerland it has been sufficient to stipulate that the parliamentarians elect an equal federal council, representing the different regions of the country in regular and balanced manner.
A further rule ensuring a diverse directorial executive doesn't fall apart in the discord that reigns in a multicultural nation, is that the councilors stick to the decisions the council has taken democratically, whether they support it or not. Indeed sometimes a councilor has to speak against his or her party-politics because the whole council decided otherwise. If he or she doesn't, it's a break of the unity of the federal council which can lead to discord in the executive and something much bigger up to the un-election of that councilor.
Parliamentarians bear the power to decide about the fate of the nation, as it is them who can unelect a councilor gone renegade. In Switzerland a majority is needed to do so, something that can not easily be achieved, but it's not an impossible task neither. Therefore the risk of seeing the council fall apart in disunity for a longer period and with it the country fall victim to secession or civil war is very small. In post-revolutionary France, the parliamentarians gave Napoleon full power back. An error that the legislative should not fall victim to, as tempting it might seem : isn't it just a conformist monotheist delusion of might?
.
Under collegial rule, a new directorial government learns what's the will of the nation of will, what's the common denominator in the multicultural environment, what's possible in the country and what's not supported by the majority : what's the common sense most people agree to and can live with void of rebellion. With knowledge comes power as some say, and therefore it takes that time for a new collegial national executive to reflect more and more the will of the people : to be a political authority in touch with the will of the nation of will. Not automatically, but as a result of the thousands of small political fights taking place in the country with the strategy - as in any democracy - to have parliamentary, executive and judiciary representation and with it decision making power, to bring forward the individual will to make live better than is or is told supposed to be. Merit as defined not by culture, blood or religion, but the individual will and wills of the individuals and communities forming the nation, able to persuade others peacefully through reason and positive action.
Because under the shared rule of a collegial council, such goal goes only with the will of the centrist parties who would want representation in government for electing a majority of the other side, it creates difficulties for a pure left- or right-wing executive, but not for a center-right or center-left government. In Switzerland, the power trading resulted over the course of more than hundred years in a left-center-right government comprising that is more or less whole parliament. We follow a formula that gives the three biggest parties each two seats and the fourth party one. An executive that mirrors fairly the parliamentary composition such allowing for good collaboration. We call it the "magic formula", gave it stability and progress since WW2.
The Swiss example doesn't prove by its own that a population couldn't vote in theory for one majority party in parliament allowing it to elect such a directorial executive composed with seven members of the same party. In a multicultural country, fair and proportional elections would though always lead to a diverse parliament, and such a diverse executive and with it a stable society in an ever-changing world and world economy, i tend to pretend.
