a leader who can be vetoed will damage the authority of the leadership

Hello everyone, I'm back to greet you in this great community, in episode 3.

As a democratic country, we are free to express our opinions, and this is protected by law. To elect a president, there must be a general election. The results of that election are valid for a person to become president. This means that the president, or the holder of supreme power, is born from the votes of the people. Before becoming president, the state has prepared for him clothing, an official residence, and a salary.

So, there is no reason for the president to be cynical about his people. A president should prioritize the interests of the people, not the interests of a party or group. What happens everywhere is that after taking office, he behaves arrogantly and refuses to be criticized by his people, forgetting that what brought him to the highest seat of power was the result of the people's election.

In my region, some individuals hold power based on election results, but there is also power derived from being directly appointed by someone with higher authority. Usually, power derived from elections is more effective because they will choose the best and consider all factors.

However, if a leader holds authority based on elections, they will have unilateral power and can overturn decisions or take other steps in determining something. This often leads to protests from subordinates, but they can still make decisions according to their wishes.

The power we are discussing now is veto-capable power. Yes, power that can be vetoed by groups or higher-ups. I often see regional leadership and department heads in the current government being vetoed by their superiors. They will follow whatever is vetoed by their superiors, whether in decision-making or other actions.

Source

Hal This kind of thing actually only benefits one party. Leaders can be controlled or vetoed. So, if they want to make positive changes and advance anything, they must first get approval from the person with the veto power.

I believe this kind of thing will never provide freedom of opinion, creativity, or progress because there are still those who control it. This kind of leader is merely a symbol or tool used by the person with the veto power.

In fact, a leader can regulate and determine the direction of their leadership and also has full rights. Criticism and suggestions are allowed, but the veto power should be removed because it can reduce the scope and power of the leader.

I look further now and see that almost all leaders in democracies can be vetoed by groups and parties. Therefore, leaders must comply with all their wishes. These leaders are used as symbols or tools that can be used by them. Those who actually benefit are those with the veto power.

It is not impossible that a country whose leaders are not subject to vetoes and are only subject to criticism, like a kingdom, might be more advanced, and its leaders would be more authority and respect because there is no power higher than the king, so it is not worthy of a veto.