Alternatives to Westminster and Presidential systems?

Czar Kaizer

Banned
So today nearly all governments in the world whether they be democratic or authouratarian seem to either follow the British style westminster system or the American style presidential system or a variation of the two.
Is it possible to get alternative systems? What might they look like?
 
Off the top of my head, a system where the judiciary is supreme. My reasoning is the Presidential system places the Executive branch at the forefront, and the Westminster system places the Legislative branch there.
 
Something like a formalized version of the National Convention in France? A unicameral legislature ruling more or less absolutely, with executive authority largely exercised by committees?

And something like the Swiss model, with a corporate executive?
 
You could have two-man executives, as in the Roman Republic. Plus you're ignoring all the systems in the world that have supreme power invested in one person, like in North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
 
The traditional syndicalist 'family tree' system whereby economic and political power is vested within trade unions/cooperatives starting at the factory/farm level and then rising to regional and national levels with each level electing the next one above it.

Or maybe a formalised junta, where it is up to the military to choose a dictator from amongst their ranks?

Rule by judges is an interesting one. Maybe an earlier *Israel driven by religion over nationhood is established and they go this route. Now I know the 'Major Judges' of the Old Testament weren't really lawmakers but they were served by the 'Minor Judges' who were, so perhaps a Major Judge is chosen as a de facto monarch, with his powers limited by by a council of judges.
 
The Swiss system crossed my mind as well. In the US it could consist of 7 members, 2 elected every 2 years for 6 year single terms and one chosen by the Congress.

Has a government chosen by lottery been attempted or considered in modern times? Choosing the actual officeholders in this manner could be a huge gamble but it could be a way of selecting the candidates for election
 
Some ideas that could have lasted:

A directorial system (like in France between 1795 and 1799): there is not one president, but five directors administrating the country, the secretaries act under their command. Switzerland has a very similar constitution today.

A consular system (France until 1802/04): three consuls with one very powerful first consul lead the government. The executive is very powerful, but electing the consuls and the legislative chambers is a function of the so-called Senate, which is also a constitutional court (the eldest of the world BTW) -> The Senate is a kind of Super-Supreme Court. The sovereignty is vested in the nation.

The Commonwealth of England. Besides the Lord Protector (a president for life), the government consists of a Council of State and the parliament.

A Soviet system. Just let Russia stay in a revolutionary-democratic stage, and you have a model council government.

A direct democracy of the Athenian type, were (almost) all the government agents aren't elected and the legislative power is vested in the people.

Something like a formalized version of the National Convention in France? A unicameral legislature ruling more or less absolutely, with executive authority largely exercised by committees?
Or just enact the 1793 French constitution - a mixture of direct democracy, a mighty moncameral parliament and an elected corporative executive.

Plus you're ignoring all the systems in the world that have supreme power invested in one person, like in North Korea
North Korea officially has a normal, presidential constitution.
 
Doesn't France IOTL arguably have an alternative system, with authority divided between the President and Prime Minister?
 
Top