Final answer:
The Articles of Confederation did not include a strong chief executive due to fears of tyranny reminiscent of British rule. Deliberations at the Constitutional Convention led to a compromised executive role within a system of checks and balances designed to prevent executive overreach.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Articles of Confederation did not include a strong chief executive or executive branch because there was a profound fear of centralized power reminiscent of British monarchical rule. The early American experience with the British Crown left the colonists wary of a powerful executive, which they associated with tyranny. Instead, they emphasized a legislative branch as the guardian of liberty. During the initial Constitutional Convention deliberations, various proposals were considered, ultimately resulting in a compromise that balanced the need for an executive while ensuring a system of checks and balances to prevent the executive from becoming too powerful.
This system was designed to require consultation, cooperation, and compromise. For instance, early plans for the presidency, suggested by figures like Edmund Randolph and James Madison, proposed the election of the executive by Congress, with undefined powers. Nonetheless, Alexander Hamilton's suggestion for a strong executive served for life was rejected as it reflected monarchical tendencies. Following extensive deliberation, it was agreed to establish an indirectly elected executive, who could be removed through impeachment, and who would share power with the legislative and judicial branches.
The designed government thus emerged as a hybrid, neither purely national nor purely federal, embodying aspects of both. The president would execute the legislation passed by Congress, and a system of checks, including the presidential veto, Senate confirmation of appointments, and the power of Congress to impeach, ensured a balance of power among the branches.