I am trying to write something on the undesirability of unitary presidents, or over-powerful first amongst equals within collective executives.
My wiki snip, On presidentialism has aged well, looking at how the mighty US Presidency came to be once the founding fathers decided to have a single president. The fact that its copies become deformed in the same way suggests to me there are fatal flaws in the constitutional settlement. I also wrote about it in my wiki article, On (2) founding-fathers.
So I had a look for some white papers, both for and against the unitary executive.
Gemini says, https://share.gemini.google/T66ACDIhBKQh and https://share.gemini.google/UYYJM7ouoeYt
It summarises Hamilton in Federalist Papers No 70, “While generally classified as a historical essay rather than a modern policy white paper, this is the foundational text for the single executive in American constitutional theory. Hamilton argues that a unitary executive is essential for “energy in the executive,” which allows for “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” He asserts that a plural executive—such as a ruling council—would inevitably lead to internal friction, conceal faults, and destroy democratic accountability by making it impossible for the public to know who to blame for administrative failures.”
It also quotes, “The Fatally Flawed Theory of the Unbundled Executive” by Steven G. Calabresi and Nicholas Terrell (2009) who “maintain that voters are far better served by electing one chief executive who can balance competing policy priorities rather than fragmenting power across multiple uncoordinated, single-issue actors.”
The anti’s are cited, “The Unbundled Executive” by Christopher R. Berry and Jacob E. Gersen (2008), and The Diffuse Executive” by Anya Bernstein and Cristina Rodríguez (2023); both of these are ficused on the USA.
The focus on the US and on the founding process led me to ask Gemini to list the anti-federalist papers opposing a unitary executive. The quote, Letters from the Federal Farmer (Letter No. XI), attributinging likely authorship to Richard Henry Lee (or Melancton Smith), and summarising the argument as follows, “[critiquing] the structural balance of the proposed national government, specifically objecting to how the executive branch and the Senate shared and wielded immense administrative and appointment powers. The letters argued that a single executive magistrate would inevitably align with aristocratic elements rather than protect democratic interests, creating an unbalanced system prone to corruption and executive dominance over public offices and state authority.” Cato No IV, identifies the nexus of powers, that combining a four-year term with sweeping authorities over military command, appointments, and treaty-making created a recipe for an elective monarchy. He famously warned that if a president possessed personal ambition, the office provided “power and time sufficient to ruin his country,” eventually establishing an “imperfect aristocracy bordering on monarchy.”
But another query pointed at European Governance A White Paper by the European Commission; to be read, but I asked for it to be summarised by gemini. It took the diffusion from the treaty based institutions. Possibly useful because it does not see the EU copying the the US with a President, bicameral legislature and a court, but seems to seek a new separation of powers based on three committees.
I need some more, particularly pointing at Europe and maybe even the Soviet debates about what socialist constitution looked like.