Many parliamentary governments tend only to be stable when there is a majority, see Canada and the UK (arguably) for examples of this. There are definitely counter-examples, but they're generally less similar to the US (culturally and legally).
When there are majority governments, there is essentially no difference between executive and legislative power.
I assume you're replying in good faith, but it's difficult to not be incredulous when you're ignoring the highest GDP country in the world after China -- i.e Germany -- which has had coaltion governments since in the 60s. Sweden since the 70s, Netherlands since the 1800s.
You're needlessly conflating the topic of stability and democracy, which muddles the discussion. Autocrats have come into power by championing "stability" at the expense of democracy since time immemorial. This is texbook by now.
My point was simply just that the USA was behaving democratically, but more like a parliamentary democracy (with a majority) than a republic. I agree that parliamentary coalitions are possible, they just don't seem very popular or stable in the anglo-sphere.
Italy and Israel also manage relatively stable minority parliaments! It's not impossible, but for some reason, the common-law countries seem to struggle with it. Autocrats often do champion stability (Putin/Xi) or change (Pinochet/Castro), but so do many democratic leaders (like prime ministers in Canada/UK).
When there are majority governments, there is essentially no difference between executive and legislative power.