A country under enormous stress may, supporters argue, be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating premierships.
This can be seen in when Democrat Bill Clinton was president with a Republican controlled Congress. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the prime minister needs to survive a vote of confidence otherwise a new election must be called.
In parliamentary systems, party discipline is much more strictly enforced. Nomination of illiterate members as ministers causing strongest bureaucracy. This means that, even the president is proved to be inefficient, even if he becomes unpopular, even if his policy is unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured till the moment comes for a new election.
In addition, this reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other. One example is Japanwhere the national government uses the parliamentary system, but the prefectural and municipal governments have governors and mayors elected independently from local assemblies and councils.
So, no questions may be asked about their performance or activities or they can be condemned. As example, state that implemented this system is United State, the American president continued to support war in Vietnam in spite of popular opposition to this policy in United State.
O'Neill agreed to tax cuts favored by Reagan, and in exchange Reagan agreed to budgets that did not restrain spending to his liking.