Enrique Pena Nieto Quotes

The parliamentary regime is a regime of parties

In France, executive power dominates much more than in Anglo-Saxon countries

In republics the executive must be strongest because everything conspires against it, while in monarchies the legislature must be strongest, because everything conspires in favour of the monarch

In the Constitution, there is no idea of a political party. It is representatives of every constituency because it is so vibrant and varied.

There is no government in Europe where ministers go through that kind of confirmation process, which in fact is modeled on the way the U.S. cabinet members are confirmed.

If you want to be a government in a minority Parliament, you have to work with other people.

I've always voted Republican because America is exactly that, a republic. You can't expect much leadership with a Democrat behind the desk their not even close to dual efficient.

Without party, Parliamentary Government is impossible.

I have long held that this is a one party government, the incumbent party.

People want divided government.

England does not love coalitions.

All of us know that any substantial block of votes can cause trouble in the French legislature because practically any French government has to have the votes of many groups to have a majority.

… the decay of the liberties of the Dutch republic proceeded from three causes: 1. The perfect unanimity requisite on all occasions. 2. Their obligation to consult their constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last destroyed the equality of representation, and the liberties of Great Britain also are sinking from the same defect.

No Israeli leader is a king.

The middle ground in Congress has all but disappeared. The founders intended competing principles and interests to check excesses and create a balance in our politics that would benefit 'we the people.' Gerrymandered districts and a hyped-up fight-night media offer a partial explanation of why we seem to have neither checks nor balances.

The thing is that we live in a presidential system with a parliamentary constitution. Congress has a lot of weight in Brazil, and the president cannot always do when he wants; he does what he can.

The regional parties have emerged as a strong force, and they, too, deserve a place in national politics.

In America, we have a two-party system, and the American Constitution is a piece of brilliance, but they did not know when they set it up we would just have a two-party system. It just so happens that our electorate pushed towards the two-party system because it's a very good way to govern.

The Indian government is extraordinarily large, and it is difficult to try and believe that one leader can make all the change. This is a federal system.

The system [in U.S.] is designed for a two-party system. And those two parties have an interest in keeping third parties out. There's too much of the structure that works in the two-party way. They will keep the third party out.

I think the Founding Fathers probably knew what they were doing in setting up the government to have a healthy tension between the executive branch and the legislative branch.

I know the pain of coalition government.

That's the fundamental question. Do we have a check and balance system? Do we have three equal branches or do we have one supreme branch, not just the Supreme Court? That's the fundamental question.

The country has always been governed by a coalition but today it is governed by a so-called Grand Coalition which is a more polite word for all and sundry.

I'm just saying that we need to find a better way to manifest the broader society's aspirations, politically. The key to it has to be some sort of proportional representation, which allows there to be more parties.