Presidential systems generally concentrate more executive power in a single leader compared to parliamentary systems, as presidents serve as both head of state and head of government, granting them significant autonomy. In contrast, parliamentary systems distribute executive authority more evenly, requiring the prime minister to maintain legislative confidence, which promotes accountability and prevents excessive power consolidation. Russia’s presidential system demonstrates the concentration of executive power in a single leader. Vladimir Putin, as president, controls the military, foreign policy, and much of the legislative agenda with minimal interference. The 2020 constitutional amendments, which extended Putin’s rule, highlights the concentration of power in executive leaders in presidential systems. This centralized power allows the president to dominate national governance, demonstrating how presidential systems inherently grant more authority to their executives than parliamentary systems

In contrast, the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system illustrates how executive power is limited by requiring collaboration with the legislature. The prime minister, while a central figure, must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to stay in office, significantly reducing their autonomy. For example, Theresa May’s inability to pass her Brexit deal despite leading the government forced her to resign, showing how parliamentary systems check executive authority through legislative oversight. Unlike presidents, prime ministers cannot unilaterally dictate policy without the support of their party and parliament, ensuring that power is more evenly distributed.

Presidential systems generally concentrate more executive power in a single leader compared to parliamentary systems, as presidents serve as both head of state and head of government, granting them significant autonomy. In contrast, parliamentary systems distribute executive authority more evenly, requiring the prime minister to maintain legislative confidence, which promotes accountability and prevents excessive power consolidation. Russia’s presidential system demonstrates the concentration of executive power in a single leader. Vladimir Putin, as president, controls the military, foreign policy, and much of the legislative agenda with minimal interference. The 2020 constitutional amendments, which extended Putin’s rule, highlights the concentration of power in executive leaders in presidential systems. This centralized power allows the president to dominate national governance, demonstrating how presidential systems inherently grant more authority to their executives than parliamentary systems

In contrast, the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system illustrates how executive power is limited by requiring collaboration with the legislature. The prime minister, while a central figure, must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to stay in office, significantly reducing their autonomy. For example, Theresa May’s inability to pass her Brexit deal despite leading the government forced her to resign, showing how parliamentary systems check executive authority through legislative oversight. Unlike presidents, prime ministers cannot unilaterally dictate policy without the support of their party and parliament, ensuring that power is more evenly distributed.

Between 1450 and 1750, religious tolerance was a debated issue influenced by political, social, and economic factors. The Ottoman Empire allowed non-Muslims to practice their faith under the millet system, while the Mughal Empire under Akbar promoted religious syncretism to unify its diverse population. In contrast, Europe was marked by religious wars and the persecution of minorities during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Religious tolerance differed in various empires, as some fostered it for political stability and economic cooperation, while others suppressed it to enforce religious uniformity.