Political Science 101 (I hope): What are the pros and cons of comparative (primarily Latin American) presidential systems, as per the examples below?
1) Assuming weak or semi-strong veto power, and not strong veto power, from Peru’s model, an exclusively executive ability to deal with legislature-defeated bills and vetoed bills, like those dealing with questions on war and peace, by holding referenda
2) From the models of Brazil and Chile, an exclusive legislative initiative (reserved for the executive) in policy areas beyond just budget law and international trade affairs
3) From Ecuador’s model, the ability to force legislatures to explicitly vote down, within a certain number of days (30 in Ecuador), bills submitted by the executive that have also been declared “urgent” (otherwise that bill automatically becomes law)
4) From Venezuela’s model, the ability to legislate by decree
5) For the purposes of direct monetary and fiscal intervention, including the specific case of avoiding a US-style budget crisis initiated by a relatively stubborn legislature (a la Gingrich), from Colombia’s model, the ability to declare “economic emergency”
6) From the FDR era, but more extensive, the enforcement of political accountability in those courts dealing specifically with constitutional affairs (as opposed to typical criminal and civil cases) by means of of arbitrary "judiciary reorganization" and "court packing"
7) From Russia's model, the power to arbitrarily dismiss and support chief executives of municipalities, provinces, prefectures, and federated states
