NationStates Jolt Archive

Are there any countrys which have a Prime Minister as head of state?

According to Wiki, nope. Head of state is usually the monarch or the president, and the PM runs the government.

No, because by definition the PM is the 'first minister', meaning he is the head of the government and not the state.

Thanks, better change my NS poltics! lol

As in leaders of the parliamentary majority faction? South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Government), perhaps.

In America the president is both the head of the government and of the state so it's not inconceivable for a PM to do the same.

The 'Prime Minister' is a term which comes from a parliamentary system. There is a Head of State, which symbolizes the Nation as a whole -it may be an elected President, or a Monarch-, who is over the daily political struggle. And a Prime Minister who leads the Executive and depends on the confidence of a majority of Parliament.
The contrary of a parliamentary system is a "presidential system", where the Head of State is also the Head of the Executive. There is no Prime Minister there. The President is elected directly by the voters, and his position doesn't depend from the parliament, which can have a majority in oposition to the Government (something impossible in a parliamentary system).
In America, all countries but the Commonwealth Dominions are presidential systems. In Europe, all countries but France are parliamentary systems, i.e., Monarchies or Republics which are heirs of the old monarchies. In these republics, Presidents are symbolic figures and act like Monarchs (that is, theitr functions are only representatives and they intervene only in case of political crisis, deciding to accept or not the parliament's dissolution and calling of new elections, etc...). This is the case of Germanyh, Italy, Switzerland, and the rest of European republics.
France is a curious system with a mixture of presidential and parliamentary systems. De Gaulle's constitution of 1958 designed it like this to avoid a chronical political instability in the French Republic.
Although his post is well of a Prime Minister, some of them may be titled 'President'. This is the case of Spain, where the Prime Minister is called "the President", as "President of the Government" -the King being the Head of State-, or Italy, where he is the "President of the Council of Ministers" -the President of the Republic being the Head of State.

You also have the countries like Australia where the head of government (prime minister) is the de facto head of state also because the de jure head of state is the Queen of England.

In Sweden the King are the head of state but it is the prime minister that run the goverment. The monarchy in sweden is cermonial and have no real power.

While not technically, for many years Australia's Prime Minister acts as a head of state and as the head of government, the Governor-General who is our head of state acts as one of the checks and balances in our system.

You also have the countries like Australia where the head of government (prime minister) is the de facto head of state also because the de jure head of state is the Queen of England.

Not exactly.

The de jure head of state is the Queen of Australia. The crowns of the Commonwealth monarchies are legally distinct. And there's no such thing as the Queen of England, anyway. In addition, the de facto head of state in Australia would be the Governor-General, rather than the PM, as that position exists entirely to act on behalf of the Queen in Australia.

Nadkor is right. Australia's Head of State is Elisabeth II, Queen of Australia, and the Governor-General represents her in this function. The same applies to Canada, New Zealand and other Dominions. It doesn't matter how much ceremonial is the function of a Head of State. Practically all European Heads of State are purely ceremonial, Kings or Presidents they may be, with the exception of France's President. Do many of the non-German members know who's the Head of State of Germany? Its is the 'Bundespräsident', the Federal President, and not Angela Merkel, who as Chancellor (Prime Minister) leads the government and the country's destinies. The only moment in which one of these ceremonial Head of State may play some political role is during a political crisis. This is rare in Anglosaxon democracies, with their majority electoral system, but it happens from time to time in other democracies with proportional electoral system. No party has a clear majority, and different choices may arise on whom invest the post of Prime Minister, depending of the alliances that can be put in place among the parties. At these moments, the Head of State can be the key, and not just the moderator, for a concrete option (but only in a reduced measure). This is what is happening now in Belgium, for example.

Also on the topic of Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries that retain the monarchy (at least the British one) can become a republic at any time they want, The Queen may technically be able to interfere when the country is in crisis but she cannot enforce rule if the government and populations of that country do not want to because they can just declare themselves a republic, independent of the monarchy, and ceasing all the powers she has over the country, therefore the Queen would only ever enact the laws that let her take a political role in a SERIOUS crisis, such as a coup or revolution. I doubt she would even interfere in the event of no clear majority winning an election as this happens quite a lot in New Zealand for example, who currently have a coalition government (even though Labour have 99% of the MPs in the government).

Are there any countrys which have a Prime Minister as head of state?

Of course not.
Anyway, the PotUS has about the same attributions of -let's say- both the italian President (head of state) and the italian PM, so I think that the USA might qualify, in a sort of way.

Not exactly.

The de jure head of state is the Queen of Australia. The crowns of the Commonwealth monarchies are legally distinct.

complete linky here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

Also on the topic of Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries that retain the monarchy (at least the British one) can become a republic at any time they want, The Queen may technically be able to interfere when the country is in crisis but she cannot enforce rule if the government and populations of that country do not want to because they can just declare themselves a republic, independent of the monarchy, and ceasing all the powers she has over the country, therefore the Queen would only ever enact the laws that let her take a political role in a SERIOUS crisis, such as a coup or revolution.

That's again not strictly true. The country could only legally declare itself a republic with the crown's assent. AFAIK in every Commonwealth realm the consent of the Queen is necessary for a Bill to be enacted. I also know that, in the UK at least, Parliament is not allowed to discuss the monarchy without prior consent of the Queen. If that is replicated in the Commonwealth then even the fact that the Royal Assent is necessary to make a Bill law would be irrelevant as they wouldn't be allowed to even begin discussing the Bill, let alone pass it, without the consent of the monarch.

The very WORDS "Prime Minister" mean that he is a guy who is working for somebody else (a "Minister"), that he is the leader among such "Ministers" (the "Prime"), but not the head of everything. The official head of state may, in fact, be pretty much a cipher, but if the PM is made the "head of state" the title is inappropriate and should be changed.

In America the president is both the head of the government and of the state so it's not inconceivable for a PM to do the same.

Inconceivable because of this here below:

The very WORDS "Prime Minister" mean that he is a guy who is working for somebody else (a "Minister"), that he is the leader among such "Ministers" (the "Prime"), but not the head of everything. The official head of state may, in fact, be pretty much a cipher, but if the PM is made the "head of state" the title is inappropriate and should be changed.

...and to be even more accurate,

minister: from minister, latin, meaning "servant". Compare with magister. MINister (same root as in MINus, MINor, MINimus). The prime minister is the literally the "first servant" of the State (or of the monarch).

I was going to say Israel, but I just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Israel

Nadkor

But surely in 99% of cases converting from a monarchy is an act of effective rebellion against the political structure of the country and therefore it is one of the few things that actually a country wouldn't need the monarchs consent to do (as they usually wouldn't give it), In the case of commonwealth countries it would probably mean they were rejected from the commonwealth but if a country really wanted to do it, I don't see how the Queen could actually do anything about it if the country just decided to become a republic and elect a president. As a democratically elected leader by the people of a country I don't see the majority of the west then saying that it's technically illegal.

Either way the Queen actually putting her foot down on something that the majority of the people in the country backed would be dangerous in any of the nations she reigns over.

Nadkor

But surely in 99% of cases converting from a monarchy is an act of effective rebellion against the political structure of the country and therefore it is one of the few things that actually a country wouldn't need the monarchs consent to do (as they usually wouldn't give it), In the case of commonwealth countries it would probably mean they were rejected from the commonwealth but if a country really wanted to do it, I don't see how the Queen could actually do anything about it if the country just decided to become a republic and elect a president. As a democratically elected leader by the people of a country I don't see the majority of the west then saying that it's technically illegal.

Either way the Queen actually putting her foot down on something that the majority of the people in the country backed would be dangerous in any of the nations she reigns over.

You're missing several things. The vast majority of Commonwealth realms aren't about to go into open rebellion against the monarchy. Even those who have a strong republican faction aren't going to launch into rebellion. The republicans in Commonwealth realms all accept that the only way to achieve a republic is through legal, political means. Your theory that they wouldn't need the monarch's consent to achieve a rebellion is entirely baseless; the consent is not just desired, but entirely required to complete the process. Without the consent of the monarch there can be no new law, without new law there can be no new constitution, and without no new constitution there can be no transition from monarchy to republic.

Further, your hypothesising that the monarch is unlikely to grant consent to the formation of a republic is without basis. Countries which previously were Commonwealth realms (or Dominions as they were proplerly known at the time) have become republics; India, and Pakistan, for example. Australia held a referendum on becoming a republic in 1999. As you see, there is no reason for a Commonwealth realm to be excluded from the Commonwealth just because they have become republics.

As for your conjecture that the majority of western countries would ignore the illegalities of such a move, I again think you are missing a point. It is impossible for a Commonwealth realm to make that move without the consent of the crown. This is no matter of the monarchy possibly not wanting it, this is a matter of it being entirely unconstitutional for such a situation to arise. Not just illegal, unconstitutional. You suggest that a country may just "decide" to become a republic and just elect a president, but you are missing the fact that there would be no basis for such an act. Every single step in that process would, without the consent of the monarch, be ultra vires.

What you are suggesting as a process for obtaining a republic is politically, legally, and constitutionally impossible. As a result, not only would the obvious western countries (the UK, Canada, NZ, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden etc.) object, many other western countries would raise strong objections and would urge the republican movement in whatever country to go through the legal constitutional process rather than declaring themselves to be a republic, should the monarch refuse to give consent.

That's again not strictly true. The country could only legally declare itself a republic with the crown's assent. AFAIK in every Commonwealth realm the consent of the Queen is necessary for a Bill to be enacted. I also know that, in the UK at least, Parliament is not allowed to discuss the monarchy without prior consent of the Queen. If that is replicated in the Commonwealth then even the fact that the Royal Assent is necessary to make a Bill law would be irrelevant as they wouldn't be allowed to even begin discussing the Bill, let alone pass it, without the consent of the monarch.

While what you say has some truth behind it, in Australia the Governor General acts as the Queen's representative thus it is him that gives the consent to be able to bass bills, the only time that the Queen has this power is if she is on Australian soil. So the G-G could effectively do this without the Queen, unless she makes a quick dash down to Australia house.

While we can discuss all of this and the technicalities the fact of the matter is that the Queen allows commonwealth countries to run themselves, and she hardly if ever interferes.

Also on the topic of Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries that retain the monarchy (at least the British one) can become a republic at any time they want, The Queen may technically be able to interfere when the country is in crisis but she cannot enforce rule if the government and populations of that country do not want to because they can just declare themselves a republic, independent of the monarchy, and ceasing all the powers she has over the country, therefore the Queen would only ever enact the laws that let her take a political role in a SERIOUS crisis, such as a coup or revolution. I doubt she would even interfere in the event of no clear majority winning an election as this happens quite a lot in New Zealand for example, who currently have a coalition government (even though Labour have 99% of the MPs in the government).

Labour having 99%? hell no they don't :D

one of the checks and balances in commonwealth nations, is while the government pays the soldiers, the officers serve the queen. What this means is if uncle Helen decides to invade england and grab the crown, HM the Queen can tell them not to. And despite a lot of NZ political figures being republicans, the majority of those serving in the armed forces happen to be monarchists.

A lot of the checks and balances comes down to WHO will the public obey, the Head of State, or the Head of the Executive branch (Parliment).

While what you say has some truth behind it, in Australia the Governor General acts as the Queen's representative thus it is him that gives the consent to be able to bass bills, the only time that the Queen has this power is if she is on Australian soil. So the G-G could effectively do this without the Queen, unless she makes a quick dash down to Australia house.

I'm pretty sure I raised that point earlier in the thread. Anyhow, what I say doesn't have some truth in it, it has every truth in it.

While we can discuss all of this and the technicalities the fact of the matter is that the Queen allows commonwealth countries to run themselves, and she hardly if ever interferes.

Which is something I don't think anybody has brought into question in this thread.

I'm pretty sure I raised that point earlier in the thread. Anyhow, what I say doesn't have some truth in it, it has every truth in it.

Won't you saying that in order for the republic to come through the Queen has to sign the bill? I was saying that the G-G signs the bill, as a representative as the Queen, however, the G-G may be a republican and could sign it even if the Queen didn't want it. The only way she is able to stop this is either dismiss the G-G and/or get onto Australian soil (such as Australia House near The Strand) and refuse to sign it herself.

Which is something I don't think anybody has brought into question in this thread.

I never said they had, I was just pointing out something.

Won't you saying that in order for the republic to come through the Queen has to sign the bill? I was saying that the G-G signs the bill, as a representative as the Queen, however, the G-G may be a republican and could sign it even if the Queen didn't want it. The only way she is able to stop this is either dismiss the G-G and/or get onto Australian soil (such as Australia House near The Strand) and refuse to sign it herself.

Nope, that's not correct. The Queen has up to one year after the Governor-General gives assent to overrule him/her.

Labour having 99%? hell no they don't :D



I thought that there was only one non-Labour party member in the governing co-alition, if I'm wrong then I apologise.

I think Nadkor missed what I REALLY meant. I didn't mean in the CURRENT climate, what I meant was should there be a monarch sometime in the future that decides to take it upon themselves to actually take back more powers in countries like New Zealand and Australia and to some extent Britain, and this was against the people's wishes then nothing is actually physically STOPPING them declare a republic.

It may be unconstitutional but should a republic be established that constitution would be invalid as long as the judiciary in that country accepted the republic. And yeah some countries might object but at the end of the day there isn't ALL that much THEY can legally do to force a country back into the monarchs powers. Republics tend to be seen in a more favourable light than monarchies and even constitutional monarchies.

It would all just come down to what the people, including the military, the judiciary, the government, the civil servants really backed, the monarchy or the republic.

This is all hypothesis, I know that commonwealth countries can basically become a republic whenever they want, what my hypothesis was was that if there happened to be a monarch sometime in the future that tried to use his or her back up powers illegally. Because if a country doesn't have the right to change its head of state if they act AGAINST the country then what is the point of that country being independent, de jure or otherwise?