In Thomas Pepinsky’s intriguing essay, “America Is a Normal Country: Presidentialism Can Break It, Exceptionalism Won’t Save It,” he challenges American exceptionalism with the argument that the United States is equally vulnerable to the same institutional weaknesses that affect other nations. This blog post builds on Pepinsky’s claim by analyzing how presidentialism threatens democratic resilience, especially when leaders prioritize personal power. Developments in the United States and Cuba recently emphasize the threats to democracy represented by presidential regimes, particularly when leaders place personal power over democratic norms. I examine four interrelated events in both the US and Cuba that contribute to democratic erosion in their own presidential systems. 

Democracies heavily rely on horizontal accountability (checks on the government), vertical accountability (elections), and diagonal accountability (civil society and the media). Given that Cuba is not a democracy, these accountability strategies do not exist as the judiciary lacks autonomy, and elections are neither free nor fair. Cuba’s civil society organizations are still repressed, and journalists like José Luis Tan Estrada, are constantly harassed or exiled as well. In the United States, although elections are competitive, gerrymandering and voter suppression activities jeopardize their integrity. The growing politicization of the judiciary, as seen in the Supreme Court’s broader interpretation of presidential immunity, undermines horizontal accountability. At the same time, assaults on the media and civil society organizations weaken diagonal accountability

Presidential systems have significant power in a single individual, and therefore are vulnerable to abuse when checks and balances are lost or not functioning. The government’s handling of opposition leaders in Cuba is the greatest example of such vulnerability. A dissident in Cuba and the leader of Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU), José Daniel Ferrer, was arrested on April 29, 2025, for allegedly violating the terms of parole, including not showing up at court hearings and exposing this through social media. He claimed that he was wrongly detained initially, so he refused to attend his court hearings. Ferrer was released only three months before this under a Vatican-mediated deal with the Biden administration. Ferrer’s re-arrest emphasizes how authoritarian regimes can suppress dissent by manipulating legal frameworks. Despite international complaints, including from Amnesty International, which designated him a prisoner of conscience, the Cuban government continues to stifle opposition voices. 

In the United States, while circumstances are different, fear of presidential overreach has grown. Within the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term, there has been extreme centralization. His administration has dismantled federal agencies, canceled programs, and eliminated officials deemed disloyal to his party. The politicization of the civil service and the Supreme Court decision that amplified presidential immunity have further eroded institutional checks 

An important feature of democratic backsliding is the weakening of political parties. In presidential democracies, parties are inclined to revolve around a charismatic leader rather than a solid institutional backbone. Cuba has a complex history with strongman rule, as it began with Fidel Castro and continued with his successors, with the Communist Party existing more as an extension of the leader’s desires rather than as a completely separate entity.

Similarly, in the U.S., the Republican Party has increasingly identified with Trump’s brand, frequently marginalizing mainstream conservative values. Such a shift destroys the party of checks on executive power, and it fuels political polarization.​ Nationalism and collective identity drive these trends. In Cuba, the state uses a rhetoric of unity in opposition to outside enemies, mobilizing nationalism to legitimize repression. In the U.S., Trump has promoted a narrow vision of the American identity over dissident voices and the creation of divisions.

Both governments have tended to reward loyalty over ability, further eroding institutional integrity. In Cuba, political appointments are often made based on regime loyalty, not merit. In the U.S., Trump’s administration has recently rewarded loyalists, like appointing Elon Musk to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, resulting in the elimination of essential programs and the dismissal of officials who are considered disloyal. These practices not only weaken institutional capacity but also discourage dissent as well as critical thinking within a government, creating an environment where power is concentrated and unchecked.

The United States and Cuban histories show the weaknesses that are prevalent in presidential governments, specifically when their presidents put more emphasis on individual power than they do about democratic norms. Although the U.S. has stronger institutional structures than Cuba, current events emphasize the need to closely monitor. Resilience of a democracy relies upon strong institutions, independent media, an active civic society, and respect for the rule of law. The fact that America cannot be shielded from democratic corruption is the start of keeping it democratic.