Comparison of heads of state

Consider how the role of the President compares to other heads of state internationally. What are the differences in power, in duties, in the way they are elected? Is there a more democratic method of governance? Are other leaders more effective?

Here is what I have written so far, It needs to be 1300 words.

Across various countries the role of head of state is assigned to different individuals in leadership. This role could entail constitutional responsibility or simply be a formality for that nations image.
In a monarch form of government the role is fulfilled by the king or queen1, however, in a republic the role typically falls on the elected president. In a dictatorship the position is simply seized. Depending on the country the individual assigned to head of state can be voted in by the people, by a legislation, or be an existing heir. Several European democracies do not have term limits for head of state, the assigned individual stays in power as long as they maintain a majority of support in their assigned parliament. In areas like Haiti, the United States and Russia, heads of state have term limits that can vary from 4-6 years. Haiti however does not allow for consecutive terms so a head of state must leave the position, allow another to serve and run for re-election. In the United States the president is elected by the people/electoral college. The majority of Prime Ministers are elected by a legislative body.
In the United States, most political figures are elected to office. However, positions such as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Interior Design, Secretary of Commerce, etc. are nominated by the President. Once nominated, the United States Senate will confirm these individuals into their roles by a majority vote. The only exception to this is the Attorney General. In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister will appoint and dismiss Ministers into the cabinet. Similar to the United States, the final approval of these positions falls on Parliament.
Having executive power in the United States means a president can act if congress is unable to come to an agreement on something. However, if too much power is given, we may not be able to hold them accountable. Individuals are not able to expand the powers entrusted to them, however various have modified their own powers and those of future heads of states. According to billsofrightsinstitute.org, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton was said to have presented Federalist Paper No. 70. In ____ . In 1993 President Yeltsin dissolved the Russian parliament and ____.
In the current geopolitical climate, the definition and effectiveness of modern head of states varies by nation on a global scale. Here in the United States, one could assume that the president’s effectiveness is based on how much of his agenda he is able to complete while in office. A divided house and senate would make it difficult to get legislation passed so completing his agenda could consider him effective. In the UK however,

Last Completed Projects