The presidential system is usually considered bad for democracy, as it often results in more authoritarian and corrupt regimes and there is little or no accountability shared between the executive and legislative branches, which can impede progress. Virtually, AFAIK, no country in Europe, with the possible exception of Switzeland, depending on how you want to look at it, uses the presidential system, and you can maybe add Cyprus to the list, though idk if it is actually a European country in the technical sense. Cyprus has a president as both its head of state and government, but Idk if it would actually be more akin to something found in South Africa where it is a parliamentary system with a prime minister titled as president and serving as both the head of state and government.
It seems that even here in the United States, we are confident with our own form of government as corruption is rampant, we have corporations interfering in politics, widespread paranoia, and it seems many people are dissatisfied with the two-party system, or very dissatisfied with the nominees of both parties. Well, I wouldn't' say we have lost confidence completely, as despite all the proposed reforms, no one seems to be suggesting we switch to a parliamentary or a semi-presidential or introduce a prime minister or something similar as head of government. POTUS, after all, seems like a pretty stressful job for one person, especially considering how active the U.S. is in international affairs, and he is expected to handle domestic problems as well.
Some of the criticisms of this system may also be looked at as strengths or advantages by advocates. While the system is prone to gridlock, it can prevent hasty legislation or bills that may actually be bad ideas from becoming law, and, in theory at least, forces compromise between the executive and the legislator, especially if they are of opposing parties.
Another possible advantage is that the president could make the correct but potentially unpopular decision and would not have to be removed via a vote of no confidence. Of course, he isn't guaranteed to make the right decision, either, as he could very well make a decision that is both wrong and unpopular.
While it looks like the presidential system has a bad track record, I think it can work if it is done properly, and there might be a proper way to do it. While the government and politics of the U.S. aren't ideal, we are doing pretty good compared to the other presidential republics out there. It could have more to do with the nature of the countries themselves, as they might not value democracy, nor has it been a historical value to them, or the country could have a weak republican or democratic tradition, so maybe it has more to do with that than the system itself.
Would countries like Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Finland, Ireland, or Germany be any worse off, or much worse off if they were to adopt a presidential system like the U.S?
Personally, I don't really have a strong preference either way when it comes down to whether the presidential or parliamentary system is better overall, especially for democracy.
