Here it sounds like he is criticising the parliamentary system were the legislative elects the executive instead of direct election of the executive. Of course both in parliamentary and presidential (and combined) systems a number of voting systems are used. The US famously does not use FPTP for presidential elections, but instead uses an electoral college.

So to be very charitable, he means a parliamentary system where it's hard to depose the executive. I don't think any parliamentary system uses 60 % (presumably of votes or seats in parliament) to depose a cabinet leader, mostly because once you have 50% aligned the cabinet leader you presumably have an opposition leader with a potential majority. So 60% is stupid.

If you want a combined system where parliament appoints but can't depose, Suriname is the place to be. Though of course they appoint their president for a term, not indefinitely. Because that's stupid.

To sum up: stupid ideas, expressed unclearly. Maybe he should have gone to high school.

less charitably, it seems he might mean to say "their job is to do their job, not to get rewarded because of position", i.e. pushing the view that he thinks parliamentary bodies are just there for the high life and rewards

and while I understand that this is the type of "what did he actually mean?" that you might get from highschool poetry analyses, it is also the kind of thing that eliyuzza NotEvenWrong yud[0] seems to do pretty frequently in his portrayals

[0] - meant to be read in the thickest uk-chav accent of your choice