In reality, of course, they produce a great deal more than cuckoo clocks; one of the most competitive pharmaceutical industries in the world, industrial chemicals, defence technology, agriculture, financial services, food processing, etc - up to a trillion or so per annum IIRC.
and nothing of note has happened in any of them since World War II.
Further again, that quote appears to address present era Switzerland 500 years after the infamous time of the House of Borgia.
2/ The OP is about San Marino; the quoted excerpt is referencing the European city states of San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra; hence the flow of comments you point at is not concerned with Switzerland per se.
3/ The referenced quote is nevertheless false, because cuckoo clocks were invented in the Dresden in early 1600s; only popular culture associate them to Switzerland.
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/politics/miscellany/history...
Things would be very different in Switzerland if it bordered the Eastern Bloc or the Mediterranean Sea.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sanmarino/...
gives you a good picture. (Seems like he was incarcerated for domestic violence..)
Parliamentary republics do tend to form less stable governments, but it's also true that you can really govern by compromising both with your party, allies, and opposition.
In over 50 years not a single parliamentary republic has turned authoritarian, in fact only Sri Lanka in the 70s has done so since world war 2.
Presidential and semi-presidential republics? They are all just waiting for the right person at the right time, from Turkey to Nicaragua to the Philippines to Russia, etc, etc.
I don't think any modern country should aim at anything less than boring, albeit unstable, parliamentary republics, with presidents that are not elected by popular vote (like in Germany or Italy) and have no executive power.
If your country is doing good, you likely want minor/middle steer adjustements, not radical changes at each new vote.
In fact, I'd say that Ireland's (directly elected) presidency has been one of the most notably successful, particularly in the post-1990 period when it's taken on more of a "cultural" rather than "political" focus.
A political head of state is not good imho, just ends up vetoing and doing politics instead of acting as a guardian of the constitution and institutions.
It's just a matter of "elect president from government's opposition and he's now emboldened to veto and block anything because he has popular mandate to do so".
Politicians electing the president seems a better option because they need to compromise on an individual that will allow any party to govern and be checked.
> In over 50 years not a single parliamentary republic has turned authoritarian, in fact only Sri Lanka in the 70s has done so since world war 2.
Also I take issue with this stawnt as basically no Presidential Republic that had a functioning Presidential Republic prior to WW2 has gone authoritarian. What your pointing to has more to do with the overall legitimacy of governments themselves.
In addition your claim itself is false as we have plenty of parliamentary republics that devolve into authoritarian dictatorships including but not limited to - Mynamar - Nigeria - Ghana - Uganda - South Korea (Second Republic) - Syria - Pakistan experiencing various military coups.