32-33). A leader who should be impartial is not only appointed by ministers, but also responsible in "[advising] the head of state to dissolve parliament" (Lijphart, 1992, pp. 34-36). Moreover, members of parliament who are usually included in ministers have responsibility to the assembly (Lijphart, 1992, p. 35). In other words, as Dickerson et al. (2010) said, "[T]he Cabinet must enjoy the continued support of the popularly elected house of the legislative assembly in order to remain in office" (p. 310). .
On the other hand, the presidential system divided power into three branches: executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch. They maintain a balance of power, being regulated by each other. Lijphart (1992) said, "the assembly remains an assembly only" in the presidential system (p. 40) and "members of the assembly are not eligible for office in the administration and vice-versa" (p. 43). Even though the executive is not divided, it can prevent a forced resignation of the president; the chief of executive is elected by people and therefore, the president guaranteed definite term of office (Lijphart, 1992, p. 41). The president can only appoint his or her "secretaries who are heads of his executive departments" (Lijphart, 1992, p. 42). Unlike parliamentary system, the assembly cannot be dissolved or coerced by the head of government (Lijphart, 1992, p. 44). Finally, presidential system, specifically the executive branch, has responsibility to the electorate directly and to the constitution (Lijphart, 1992, pp. 43-45). In briefly, several distinctions exist among two systems even though both parliamentary system and presidential system are similarly split three branches up.
Even though both systems have strengths and weaknesses, presidential system is superior to parliamentary system. Presidential system may induce dictatorship because of "over-authority" of the president (Kaminski, 1997, p.
