
#REDIRECT Head_of_state
#REDIRECT Talk:Head_of_state
Though a term originally coined for Republican presidents, a head of state or chief of state is now universally known as the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution. In Charles de Gaulle's words, describing the role he envisaged for the French president when he wrote the modern French constitution, a head of state should embody "the spirit of the nation" to the nation itself and to the world: ''une certaine idée de la France'' (a certain idea about what France is). In a monarchy, the monarch is now deemed as the head of state. This is a relatively recent phenomenon; until the last few decades a sovereign was seen as the personal embodiment of the state, and therefore could not be head of themselves (hence the Canadian and U.K. constitutions make no mention of a "head of state"). Though some still maintain that calling a monarch head of state is incorrect, it has none-the-less become more and more fashionable to attach the label to monarchs. In a republic, the head of state is usually called the president, although some leaders have assumed other titles (See "titles" below), and some have simply used 'Head of State' as their only formal title. ==Presidential systems== [[Image:Bushtaxcuts.jpg|left|framed|U.S. President George W. Bush signs a bill into law at a public ceremony. As Head of State, the President's signature is required on all laws absent a supermajority of congress.]] ''Note - 'presidential' in this context does not automatically imply a president but simply a head of state, whether elected, hereditary or dictatorial who 'presides'.'' Different countries have different executive systems but in reality four general categories can be said to exist. Some constitutions or fundamental laws provide for a head of state who is not just ''in theory'' but ''in practice'' chief executive, operating separately from, and independent from, the legislature. This system is sometimes known as a ''presidential system'' because the government is answerable solely and exclusively to a 'presiding' activist head of state, and is selected by and on occasion dismissed by the head of state without reference to the legislature. It is notable that some presidential systems, while not providing for collective executive answerability to the legislature, may require legislative approval for individuals prior to their assumption of cabinet office and empower the legislature to remove a president from office (for example, in the United States). In this case the debate centres on the suitability of the individual for office, not a judgment on them when appointed, and does not involve the power to reject or approve proposed cabinet members ''en bloc'' so it is not ''answerability'' in the sense understood in a parliamentary system. Some presidential systems may also include a ''prime minister'' but as with the other ministers they are responsible to the President, not the legislature. In many such instances the office is of minimal political importance, sometimes even held by some administrative technocrat rather than a politician. A prime minister in a presidential system lacks the constitutional and political dominance of a prime minister in a parliamentary system and is often seen as simply a politically junior figure who may run the mechanics of government while allowing the President to set the broad national agenda. One could say that, whereas in parliamentary systems a prime minister may be master of his or her party and the government, prime ministers in presidential systems are usually the servants, with the head of state the master of the government who can hire and fire anyone, including the prime minister, at will. Presidential Systems of Governments are a notable feature of constitutions in the Americas, notably the United States. Though most presidents in the system are selected by democratic means (popular direct or indirect election, etc) the system also encompasses people who become head of state by other means, notably through military dictatorship or coup d'état. Some of the characteristics of a presidential system (ie, a strong dominant political figure with an executive answerable to them, not the legislature) can also be found among absolute monarchy. It is worth noting that modern presidential systems, most notably the United States, owe their origins to the contemporary eighteenth century British constitutional model in existence at the time of the enactment of the Constitution of the United States, in which the British monarch was still the dominant force and their government was not in a modern sense answerable to the legislature. Thus modern presidential systems are the lineal successors of the ''ancien regime'' governmental systems of eighteenth century Europe, whereas in Europe many states have evolved from a head of state-centred executive system (a presidential system) to a legislature-orientated one (a parliamentary system). In the 1870s in the United States in the aftermath of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and his near removal from office it was speculated that the United States too would move from a presidential system to a semi-presidential or even parliamentary one, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming the real centre of government as a quasi-prime minister. This did not happen and the presidency, having been damaged by two late nineteenth century assassinations (Lincoln and Garfield) and one impeachment (Johnson), reasserted its political dominance by the early twentieth century through such figures as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. ==Semi-presidential systems== Semi-presidential systems combine features of Presidential and Parliamentary systems, notably a requirement that the government be answerable to ''both'' the President and the legislature. The Constitution of the current French Fifth Republic provides for a prime minister who is chosen by the President but who nevertheless must be able to gain support in the Chamber of Deputies. Where in France a president is of one side of the political spectrum and the opposition is in control of the legislature, s/he often is forced to select someone from the opposition to become prime minister, a process known as ''Cohabitation (government)''. President François Mitterrand, a socialist, for example was forced to ''co-habit'' with the neo-gaullist (right wing) Jacques Chirac, who became his prime minister for a time in the 1980s. In the French system, in the event of co-habitation, the President is often allowed to set the policy agenda in foreign affairs and the Prime Minister run the domestic agenda. Other countries evolve into something akin to a semi-presidential system or indeed a full presidential system. Weimar Germany, for example, in its constitution provided for a popularly elected president with theoretically dominant emergency powers that were only intended to be exercised in emergencies and a cabinet appointed by him from the Reichstag (institution) which was expected in normal circumstances to be answerable to the Reichstag. Initially the President was merely a symbolic figure with the Reichstag dominant. However longterm political instability (where governments were collapsing every couple of months) led to a change in the power structure of the Republic, with the President's emergency powers called increasingly into use to prop up governments challenged by critical or even hostile Reichstag votes. By 1932, power had shifted to such an extent that the German President, Paul von Hindenburg was able to dismiss a chancellor and select his own person for the job even though the outgoing chancellor possessed the confidence in the Reichstag while the new chancellor did not. Subsequently President von Hindenburg used his power to appoint Adolf Hitler as Reich chancellor without consulting the Reichstag. ==Parliamentary systems' heads of state== In parliamentary system the head of state may be merely the ''nominal'' chief executive officer of the state, possessing theoretical executive power (hence the description of the United Kingdom monarch's government as Her Majesty's Government, a term indicating that the government is theoretically hers, not parliament's). In reality however, due to a process of constitutional evolution powers are ''usually'' exercised by a cabinet (government), presided over by a prime minister or ''President of the Government'' who is answerable to parliament. This answerability requires that someone be chosen from parliament who has parliament's support (or at least not parliament's opposition - a subtle but important difference). It also gives parliament the right to vote down the government, forcing it either to resign or seek a parliamentary dissolution. Governments are thus said to be ''responsible'' (ie, answerable) to parliament, with the government in turn accepting constitutional responsibility for offering constitutional Advice_(constitutional) to the head of state. In reality, numerous variants exist to the position of a head of state within a parliamentary system. The older the constitution, the more constitutional leeway may exist for a head of state to exercise greater powers over government, as many older parliamentary system constitutions in fact give heads of state powers and functions akin to presidential or semi-presidential systems, in some cases without containing reference to modern democratic principles of accountability to parliament or even to modern governmental offices. For example, the 1848 constitution of the Kingdom of Italy was sufficiently ambiguous and outdated to give King Victor Emmanuel III leeway to appoint Benito Mussolini to power in controversial circumstances. Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law, unwritten constitutional precedent, Orders-in-Council, letters patent, etc that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances (eg, the dismissal of the Australian prime minister, Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.) Other examples of heads of state in parliamentary systems using greater powers than normal due either to ambiguous constitutions or unprecedented national emergencies, such as King Leopold III of Belgium's decision to surrender on behalf of his state to the invading German army in 1940, against the will of His Government. Judging that his responsibility to the nation by virtue of his coronation oath required him to act, he believed that His Government's decision to fight rather than surrender was mistaken and would damage Belgium. (Leopold's decision proved highly controversial. After World War II, Belgium voted on whether to allow him back on the throne. It did so, but because of the ongoing controversy he ultimately abdicated the throne.) ==Non-executive heads of state== [[Image:marymca.jpg|frame|left|Mary McAleese, President of Ireland, an example of a non-executive head of state.]] A final category of head of state which could be loosely called the ''non-executive head of state'' model also exists. Its holders are excluded completely from the executive. In other words they do not possess even theoretical executive powers or any role, even formal, within the government. Hence their states' governments are not referred to by the traditional parliamentary model head of state Style - Manner of Address of ''His/Her Majesty's Government'' or ''His/Her Excellency's Government''. Within this general category, variants in terms of powers and functions may exist. The King of Sweden, since the passage of the modern Swedish constitution, the Instrument of Government in the mid 1970s, no longer has any of the parliamentary system head of state functions that had previously belonged to Swedish kings. But he still receives formal cabinet briefings monthly in the Royal Palace. In contrast the only contact the Irish president has with the Irish government is through a formal briefing session given by the Taoiseach (prime minister) to the President. However she has no access to documentation and all access to ministers goes through the Department of An Taoiseach (prime minister's office). Examples of this category invariably date from the twentieth century. The most notable examples of this category are the * President of Ireland * Kings of Sweden (since 1975) * President of the Federal Republic of Germany. * Emperor of Japan ==Complexities with categorisation== While clear categories do exist, it is sometimes difficult to choose which category some individual heads of state belong to. Constitutional change in Liechtenstein in 2003 gave its head of state, the Prince, unprecedented constitutional powers including a veto over legislation and power in theory to dismiss the cabinet. It could be argued that the strengthening of the Prince's powers vis-a-vis the legislature has moved Liechtenstein in the ''semi-presidential'' category. Similarly the original powers given to the List of Presidents of Greece under the 1974 Hellenic Republic constitution made Greece more akin to the French ''semi-presidential'' model. And the theoretical power of the British monarch to dismiss their government at will would suggest that the United Kingdom should belong to the ''semi-presidential'' category also. In reality the category to which each head of stateship belongs is assessed not by theory but by practice. In practice no British monarch has forced a government from office since the early nineteenth century, while the Greek Republic in reality even before the powers of the President of the Republic were curtailed operated as a standard parliamentary system. Unless and until a Prince of Liechtenstein exercises the theoretical powers they now possess, the principality would still remain categorised as a ''parliamentary system''. ==Roles of the head of state== [[Image:federalcouncil.jpg|framed|Swiss Federal Council - ''The seven-member collective Head of State of Switzerland'' (also depicted: Federal Chancellor)]] Depending on which category (above) a head of state belongs to, they may have some or all of the roles listed below. ===Chief diplomatic officer=== *The head of state ''accredits'' his or her country's Ambassador (diplomacy)s, through sending formal Letter of Credence to other heads of state. Without that accreditation, ''ipso facto'' an ambassador does not take up a role and receive diplomatic status. *He or she ''receives'' Letters of Credence, sent by other heads of state accrediting ''his''/''her'' ambassador to the state. *He or she signs international treaties on behalf of the state, or has them signed in his/her name by ministers. ::Example: under the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (constitution), Article 59 (1) states - :::''The Federal President shall represent the Federation in its international relations. He shall conclude treaties with foreign states on behalf of the Federation. He shall accredit and receive envoys.'' ===Chief executive officer=== In the vast majority of states, whether republics or monarchies, executive branch is vested, at least ''notionally'', in the head of state. In presidential systems the head of state is the actual, ''de facto'' chief executive officer. Under parliamentary systems the executive authority is ''theoretically'' exercised by the head of state but in practice exercised ''on the advice'' of the prime minister or cabinet. This produces such terms as ''Her Majesty's Government'' and ''His Excellency's Government''. Examples of parliamentary systems in which the head of state is notional chief executive include Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The few exceptions include the Republic of Ireland, where executive authority is explicitly vested in the cabinet, and Sweden. The head of state may also be described, although, again, in parliamentary systems this is only a notional designation, as ''commander-in-chief'' of the armed forces. ::Example 1 (presidential system): Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states: :::''The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'' ::Example 2 (Victorian era constitutional monarchy): Under Chapter II, Section 61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900: :::''The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.'' ::Example 3 (mid-20th century constitutional monarchy): According to Section 12 of the Constitution of Denmark 1953: :::''Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitution Act the King shall have the supreme authority in all the affairs of the Realm, and he shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers.'' ::Example 4 (modern republican parliamentary system): According to Article 26 (2) of the 1975 Constitution of Greece: :::''The executive power shall be exercised by the President of the Republic and by the government.'' [[Image:lettercreed.jpg|framed|Russian Head of State and President Vladimir Putin receives the Letters of Credence from the French ambassador.]] ===Chief appointments officer=== *He or she appoints all the key officials in the state, including members of the cabinet, the prime minister (if there is one), key judicial figures and all major office holders. In most parliamentary systems the prime minister is appointed with the consent of the legislature, and other figures are appointed on the prime minister's advice. Some countries have exceptions - under Article 4 of the Constitution of Sweden 1974, the constitution of Sweden grants to the parliamentary speaker the role of formally appointing the prime minister. In practice, this decision is often a formality. The last time a United Kingdom monarch actually had a choice over who to pick to be prime minister occurred in 1963, when Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom chose Alec Douglas-Home to succeed Harold Macmillan. In presidential systems such as that of the United States, appointments are nominated by the president's sole discretion, and this nomination if often subject to parliamentary confirmation (in the case of the U.S., the U.S. Senate has to approve cabinet nominees and judicial appointments by simple majority). *He or she may dismiss office-holders. In parliamentary systems, this is only done on the binding ''advice'' of another office-holder; for example, members of the Irish cabinet are dismissed by the President of Ireland ''on the advice'' of the Taoiseach (prime minister). In some instances, the head of state may be able to dismiss an office holder themselves. Many heads of state or their representatives have the ''theoretical power'' to dismiss any office-holder while it is exceptionally rarely used. Its use is sometimes controversial, such as when the Australian Governor-General dismissed the prime minister during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. In France, while the president cannot force the prime minister to tender the resignation of his government, he in practice can request it if the prime minister is from his own majority. In presidential systems, the president often has the power to fire ministers at his sole discretion. In the U.S., convention calls for cabinet secretaries to resign on their own initiative when called to do so. Albert_II_of_Belgium_-_''Head_of_State_of_the_Belgium">Image:AlbertII.JPG|framed|left|Albert II of Belgium - ''Head of State of the Belgium''
::Example 1 (semi-presidential system): Chapter 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states:
:::''The Prime Minister is appointed by the President with the consent of the National Assembly.''
::Example 2 (parliamentary system): Article 13.1.1 of the Constitution of Ireland:
:::''The President shall, on the nomination of Dáil Éireann [the lower house], appoint the Taoiseach [prime minister].''
===Signing bills into law===
Most states require that all bill (proposed law)s passed by the house or houses of the legislature are signed into law by the head of state. In some states, such as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the head of state is in fact formally considered a tier of parliament. In presidential systems the head of state often has power to veto a bill. In most parliamentary systems, however, the head of state cannot refuse to sign a bill, but may, in granting a bill their assent, nevertheless indicate that it was passed in accordance with the correct procedures. The signing of a bill into law is formally known as promulgation. Some Commonwealth of Nations states call this procedure granting the Royal Assent.
::Example 1 (presidential system): Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution states:
:::''Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.''
::Example 2 (parliamentary system): Section 11.a.1. of the Basic Laws of Israel states:
:::''The President of the State shall sign every Law, other than a Law relating to its powers.''
In some parliamentary systems the head of state retains certain powers, in relation to bills, that they may exercise at their discretion. They may have authority to:
*Veto a bill until the houses of the legislature have reconsidered it, and approved it a second time.
*Reserve a bill to be signed later, or suspend it indefinitely (generally in states with the Royal Prerogative; this power is rarely is used).
*Refer a bill to the courts to test its constitutionality (e.g. the President of Ireland)
*Refer a bill to the people in a referendum (e.g. the President of Ireland may do so in certain circumstances).
===Supreme commander of the military===
*A head of state is generally the notional or literal commander-in-chief of a state's armed forces, holding the highest office in all military chain of command .
Example: Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states:
:::''The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.''
*In military dictatorships, or governments which have arisen from ''coups-de-état'', this position is obvious, as all authority in such a government derives from the application of military force.
===Summoning and dissolving the legislature===
*A head of state is often empowered to ''summon'' and ''dissolve'' the legislature. In most parliamentary systems, this is done on the advice of the prime minister or cabinet. In some parliamentary systems, and in some presidential systems, the head of state may on their own initiative do so. Some states, however, have fixed term parliaments, with no option of bringing forward elections (e.g. Article II, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution). In other systems there are fixed terms, but the head of state retains authority to dissolve the legislature in certain circumstances. Where a prime minister has lost the confidence of parliament, some states allow the head of state to refuse a parliamentary dissolution, where one is requested, forcing the prime minister's resignation.
::Example: Article 13.2.2. of the Constitution of Ireland states:
:::''The President may in absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach [prime minister] who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann''
==Symbolic role==
As the above quote by Charles de Gaulle indicates, one of the most important roles of the modern head of state is being a symbolic national symbol of the nation.
In most countries portraits of the head of state can be found in government offices, airports, libraries, and other buildings of the sort. The idea is to use these portraits to make the public aware of the symbolic connection to the government, a practice that dates back to mediaeval times. Sometimes this practice is taken to excess, and the head of state begins to believe that he is the ''only'' symbol of the nation. A personality cult thus ensues, where the image of the head of state is the only visual representation of the country, surpassing other symbols such as the flag, constitution, founding fathers, etc.
In diplomatic affairs, heads of state are often the first person to greet an important foreign visitor. They may also assume a sort of informal "host" role during the VIP's visit, inviting the visitor to a state dinner at his or her mansion or palace, or some other equally hospitable affair.
==Selection of heads of state==
[[Image:canadacourt2.jpg|framed|A large portrait of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, with Prince Philip, hanging in a Canadian courthouse. Queen Elizabeth is a multiple head of state, and is Queen of Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and eleven Commonwealth realms (1952-present)]]
A heads of state may acquire their position in a number of ways:
*The position of a monarch is usually hereditary. There are rare exceptions to this, such as the Pope.
*The head of state of a republic is usually elected, either:
**Directly: through popular election.
**Indirectly: by members of the legislature or of a special college of electors.
*A head of state who is an authoritarian ruler may seize power. Dictators often use democratic titles, though some proclaim themselves monarchs. Examples of the latter include Emperor Napoleon III of France and King Zog of Albania. Francisco Franco, who adopted the formal title ''Jefe del Estado'', or Chief of State, and established himself as regent for a vacant monarchy. Idi Amin made himself President for Life, and Kim Jong Il of North Korea is styled "the Dear Leader."
===Governors-general===
In some cases, where one person is head of state of multiple countries, they may be represented by a governor-general. Examples are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the monarch, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, resides in another of her kingdoms, the United Kingdom, and so is represented by a governor-general. The 16 member-states of the Commonwealth of Nations which have Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as Sovereign, including the United Kingdom, are known as Commonwealth Realm.
The Governor-General may fulfill many of the roles of a head of state, but is not legally the head of state, rather an appointed ''representative'' of the head of state that may act in her place in her absence from the state. A governor-general may be considered ''de facto'' head of state as the monarch rarely exercises the reserve powers of the crown. In some Commonwealth Realms such as Australia and Canada, the Governor-General is recognised as the de facto head of state and may, arguably by the de jure head of state. See, for example, the Queen of Canada .
In diplomatic situations, governors-general are often accorded the full status and privileges of a head of state.
===Titles===
Along with President, King, and Queen, a few Heads of State use different titles.
There are also a few nations in which the exact title and definition of the office of Head of State is vague. These include Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Ali Khamenei of Iran (the Supreme Leader).
The Emperor (Tennō) of Japan is defined as a symbol, not head, of state by the post-war constitution.
===Statistics===
*'''World's longest serving current Head of State: King Rama IX of Thailand (since 1946)
*World's longest serving current republican Head of State: President Fidel Castro of Cuba (since 1976)
*Nations with multiple people as Head of State: Switzerland (seven-member Federal Council of Switzerland); San Marino (two \"Captains-regent\"); Andorra (president of France and bishop of Urgell, Spain, co-princes); Bosnia and Herzegovina (three member presidency, from three different nations).
*Person who serves as Head of State in the most nations:''' Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom serves as Head of State in 16 different independent countries.
==Official residences==
Every head of state is provided with a state residence or residences, often called a 'palace'. Among the most famous such residences are:
*Stari Dvor - President of Serbia
*Palácio de Belém - President of Portugal
*Áras an Uachtaráin - President of Ireland
*Schloss Bellevue - President of Germany
*Cheong Wa Dae - President of South Korea
*Buckingham Palace - British monarch
*''Casa Rosada'' - President of Argentina
*Élysée Palace - President of France
*Hofburg Imperial Palace - President of Austria
*''Kokyo'' - Emperor of Japan
* Los Pinos - President of Mexico
*Moscow Kremlin - President of Russia
*''Palacio Real de Madrid'' - King of Spain
*Palace of the Vatican - Pope
*Quirinal Palace - President of Italy
*''Rashtrapati Bhavan'' - President of India
*White House - President of the United States
*''Malacanang Palace - President of the Philippines
*''Government House'' is a generic term used for gubernatorial residences in many nations. For example, the Governor-General of Australia resides in Government House, Canberra. However, the Governor General of Canada is an exception, as his or her primary residence is Rideau Hall. Declarations printed in the ''Canada Gazette'' by the Governor General of Canada are nonetheless given the title ''Government House''. However the residence of the first and second Governor-General of the Irish Free State was known as the Viceregal Lodge, the building's name under the preceding Representative of the Crown, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. (The building, which is now the residence of the President of Ireland, is now called ''Áras an Uachtaráin'').
==See also==
*Governor-General
*Head of government
*Heads of state timeline
*List of national leaders
*List of official residences
*Monarch
*President
*Prime Minister
Institutions of government
Heads of state
Positions of authority
li:Sjtaotshouf
simple:Head of state
zh-min-nan:Kok-ka ê thâu-lâng
I think the pictures look much better with black borders. When they are alone, they look all boring, and merge with the text.- user:J.J. Borders are not generally used in modern layout. The general view is that they look clumsy and as if they are are cut out that was pasted in (which is what they ''used'' to be, namely a blank square to which an image could be added). The standard method is generally to leave them out if at all possible, because they are not needed and look like a pre-modern computerisation stick'n'paste job. They also ''shift'' on some browsers, causing ''major'' problems that can be avoided on their removal. Their absence leaves a ''much'' cleaner, less amateurish and less pre-computerisation looking page, as well as avoiding browsers problems, which is why they are being removed. User:Jtdirl 11:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC) BTW many browsers (eg Safari) are designed not even to show them, because they are generally viewed as something that really shouldn't be shown if at all possible. ---- = Governor-General = Quite apart from the grammatical/vocabulary problem ("when vocabulary duty's to be done, to be done"), I think "Though the governor-general may fulfill many of the roles of a head of state, s/he is not a head of state themselves, but the representative of the head of state" needs tidying up - for instance, this is not true of Australia. But I don't want to improve the Australian side of things at the expense of accidentally misrepresenting how it is elsewhere. So, before I jump in with both feet, I want to offer other experts the opportunity to get it better expressed than I can myself ("be 'umble, Uriah, be 'umble"). PML. Actually it is. The Governor-General of Australia is ''not'' a head of state, a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans. The Queen of Australia is the Australian head of state, the Governor-General her representative. User:Jtdirl 17:46, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC) :You have been misinformed. It is universally agreed by republicans here in Australia that monarchists and others have agreed with them on this sort of thing. Only, they deceive themselves (or are trying to manufacture a spurious consensus on something that would affect the substantive discussion). You will get a better view of what monarchists really think from the published statements of David Flint, and of independent views from the statements of Harry Evans (Clerk of the Senate). Monarchists are always having to stop this line being put out in media releases from our public service. Please note, I don't want to assert the truth of either position but to find a form of words that notes the unresolved ambiguity instead of buying into the spurious consensus. PML. No. Actually I am 100% certain. This is my main area of expertise and I have extensively researched it. In doing the research I consulted among others * 2 Professors of Political Science in Australia * 2 former Governors-General of Australia * read documents by both monarchists and republicans * read the reports of the Republic Advisory Committee * spoke to the Attorney-General's office * spoke to the Prime Minister's office * read the Australian constitution * oh and, also spoke to constitutional advisors on Commonweath and Australian affairs to her Majesty the Queen and was supplied with factual information by Her Majesty's Press Office. :It is the likes of that that the monarchists have to pull up, before their views become accepted as established; you cannot take that as an authority (any more than either the monarchists or the republicans). PML. All are 100% agreed (from Malcolm Turnbell to George Winterton to Sir Ninian to the Queen) that ''NUMBER 1:'' ''The Governor-General is not the Australian head of state, never has been.'' ''NUMBER 2:'' ''The Queen of Australia and no one else on the planet is the Australian head of state. There not one iota of doubt. It is a 100% rock solid certainty.'' But then Chapter 1, Part 1 Section 2 of the constitution does state that
''A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's ''representative'' in the Commonweath, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.'' The Governor-General fufils many of the functions and duties of a head of state but ''is not one''. He is, to use the word of the above section, the "representative" of one. And if today an ambassador arrives in Canberra today to present his credentials, they will not be addressed to the Governor-General. The GG will be given an envellope addressed to "Her Majesty the Queen of Australia". And the GG, in the name of the Queen, will welcome the ambassador and accept the credentials. And if the following day his head of state turns up on a state visit, at the state banquet no-one will toast the Governor-General. They will toast the ''Queen'' because she, not the GG is the head of state. If the GG was, the letters would be addressed to him, the toast would be to him. User:Jtdirl 06:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC) :We appear to be talking at cross purposes (and, by the bye, I have also reviewed the area thoroughly). You appear to be addressing the question "is the G-G a Head of State?". I was addressing the meta-question, "is that generally accepted and not disputed?". As it happens, regardless of the merits of the first question, it has not actually been settled - it is still a matter of controversy and any republican who says different is speaking incorrectly on behalf of monarchists. So, I want to find a form of words that, while not causing problems with Head of State issues, also does not make the POV assertions implied by assuming it's "nem con". After all, the whole point of "myth" is not whether it is true or false but rather whether it is a fact that it is a belief having an effect on the world at large. I think I ought to find the monarchist sites that manifest this belief, and place it before you - I think they cite the Harry Evans' comment I referred to earlier. PML. ::Here we go, slap bang at the beginning of the current version of http://www.norepublic.com.au we find http://www.norepublic.com.au/Media%20Releases/Release_Flint_Jun2203.htm - PML. The Governor-General is not a head of state. ''evidence'' # The Australian constitution # ''All'' letters of Credence from ''all'' diplomatics to Australia and ''all'' diplomats from Australia # Buckingham Palace # The Governor-General's office # Two past governors general # The Prime Minister's Office # Report of the Republic Advisory Committee # The Professor of Law in the University of New South Wales # The Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow in the School of Politics and Public Policy, Griffith University It is not a "some people think . . . " issue. It is a demonstrable fact. :Hang on a bit, do you see where you're sliding around, grasping related but distinct aspects the topic? Earlier you put "...a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans...", which is at least as demonstrably untrue. You see, you just there just now started talking about demonstrable fact, but you earlier used words to the effect of "undisputed fact". I am not trying to buy into whether you are right on the Head of State issue, at least not just yet, I am seeking a wording that shows it is still a matter of controversy. Monarchists plainly do not all accept that the Queen is Head of State - we have their own published statements to that effect. I'm going to put forward a draft rewording, but I don't want to attempt that until it is clear just what it is I am trying to achieve by it - namely, showing that opinion is divided on the subject. As to whether opinion is sound, well, ordinarily that would matter rather more, but in this whole area what counts is more what impels people than whether they are formulating a consistent position by the standards of Wikipedia's contributors. It's certainly POV to make out that this is a matter of general agreement, and false to boot. PML. After all, some people think George Bush is not the legal President of the United States. Much as I disapprove of most of his policies, it is a statement of fact that he is. Some people claim Mary McAleese is not the legal president of Ireland. They can claim it all they like, it is a fact she is. :It is a fact that those groups don't matter; but there are groups that matter on this point. PML. Some people claim Italy and Albania aren't republics; they are. Some websites claim Queen Elizabeth II is actually the world's mastermind in the drugs trade! They can claim it all they want, but it is a demonstrable fact that she isn't, just as it is a demonstrable fact that the Governor-General is ''not'' a head of state and other than through a change in the law and Letters Patent cannot become so. If the constitution says one thing, and a few websites say something else, there is no debate. The constitution is ''the'' source. ::Er... no, most emphatically. Constitutions merely express, they do not create. :::I guess you aren't a constitutional lawyer if you think that. ''Of course'' constitutions create. The constitutional of the Fifth French Republic created a presidency of the Fifth Republic. The constitution of Ireland ''created'' a President of Ireland, a national parliament, a courts system, fundamental rights, etc. In some cases they basically created a new version of institutions that had existed already, having been created in the 1922 constitutions. No wonder you are confused about the head of state issue, PML, if you have such a confused understanding of constitutions. :-) User:Jtdirl ::::I was afraid I was being too brief to be clear. JTDIRL, you have fallen into a common intellectual trap, that you are less prone to than some but still fall for sometimes. The constitution isn't the document. What goes in the document does indeed feed into what happens, but it's not the constitution itself. I was referring to the way that, whenever actual frameworks get out of step with the documents, it is the documents that are wrong - tautologically. To take one example, the constitution of Ireland did not so much create all those things as directed that they be created; to read that as "creating" is correct at one level, wrong at another - it is an immediate/ultimate cause thing, and it depends on just which question you are asking. The only reason I brought that whole thing up just there was as a reminder that constitutions are not documents. And by the bye, it is more helpful to ask what people think they mean than to tell them they don't know what they are talking about; I am sure you know that old rhetorical technique, the "Cork question". PML. In the event that it was out of step with real events, it would be wrong, ipso facto. But we haven't got as far as exploring that yet; and in any case, it is still a matter of interpretation, since the constitution is silent on a great many things (including the Head of State question). :::No it isn't silent on the head of state issue. *sigh* User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) Add in every legal diplomatic document ever written, the Queen, a monarchist prime minister, a republican academic, the Governor-General and two of his precedessors and the case is closed. After all, if those sources don't know the facts, who else will? User:Jtdirl 13:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::That appears to be a peculiar inversion of an argument from authority. I hope and trust that in due course, after researching the matter, we will. Just for now, I want to dispel the insidious part, the misinformation that republicans seem to have slipped in pretending that the matter has been agreed, in terms they themselves have put forward. It is not only disputed, it is also disputed by a material group, which makes it significant even though the POV aspect has to be allowed for - a significance previous analogies with cranks failed to parallel. PML. :::That is complete balderdash. It not a republican invention. Her Majesty the Queen is not a republican. The Prime Minister is an open monarchist. The constitution predates the current republican debate by a century. All three and ''every other authoritative source'' agree on three things: * Australia is a constitutional monarchy; * The head of state of Australia is Queen Elizabeth. * She is represented by a Governor-General who is not, could not and cannot be a head of state. User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::::Sigh. One, no, not every other authoritative source agrees. That is precisely the fact I brought out in my reference over there. Two, I am not saying it is a republican invention, I am saying that it is a republican misrepresentation when they falsely tell others that the matter is agreed that way. PML. :The sites that reference Australians for Constitutional Monarchy seem to be glossing over the fact that it is the Queen who is the Head of State. As a Canadian and loyal subject of the Crown who has received two law degrees from McGill University I can state catagorically that the Governor-General of Canada is NOT the head of state, but merely her representative. ::Ah - that's where I came in. I wanted to find a form of words that didn't impose Australian context elsewhere. Possibly they are glossing over it; and then again, possibly they are merely using normal Australian usage which it would be wrong to use more generally or more technically (terms of art, and that). After all, it is the usage in the 1975 constitutional crisis article right here in wikipedia. The monarchists do make the point that it is not a technical term within the constitution anyway. PML. :::All this means in english??? User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::::Well, the monarchist material itself is clearer than I can make things in the time and space available. That's why I provided the link. PML. My review of Australian constitutional history and law has not convinced me that there is any argument (even a minority argument) that the Governor General is the Head of State. Even Australian Republicans agree with this position: [http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm Australian Republian Movement FAQ, Head of State]. ::Also the point - it is typically the republicans who have misrepresented this as the consensus Australian view. It's not "even" they admit it, it's something they want to make into a fact of discussion as a support of other things. First and foremost, before even addressing its accuracy, I wanted to shoot down this attempt to set the ground of debate (they also often pretend that citing republican ex-G-Gs is an independent source). For what it's worth, the term "head of state" has settled along the monarchist lines in the discussion of the 1975 constitutional crisis - the usage isn't merely that of cranks. As far as crankiness goes, I wanted to establish that monarchist views are substantively represented; even if, especially if, we are cranks, our views have material consequences and should be acknowledged as facts of the developing situation. ::I suspect JTDIRL was misreading what I meant, and I can see where I was unclear: rather than addressing the point about H of S just there and then, I meant to convey that JTDIRL had been misinformed about whether this view of the nature of a Head of State was "a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans"; the former G-Gs involved are republicans, so this is double counting rather than an independent view, and it's plain wrong about the monarchists - as borne out by the reference I gave. ::I'm going to draft a version I'm happier with and post it here for comment in a day or so. PML. ::OK - here's an attempt:- :::In some cases, one person holds multiple crowns. Technically, these may be considered headships of state, and the crown may be represented in each state by a governor-general. Though the governor-general may fulfil many of the functions and responsibilities of a head of state, he or she is not a head of state in his or her own right but rather the representative of the Crown. See, for example, the Queen of Canada. However, for certain purposes - including ordinary speech - the governors-general themselves may be considered heads of state. This is complicated by the fact that the situation is evolving in all these countries, reflecting changes in their connection to the "mother country"; a considerable school of thought ([http://www.norepublic.com.au/Media%20Releases/Release_Flint_Jun2203.htm]) in Australia does consider the governor-general to be head of state. One way to distinguish the situation is that the governors-general hold offices but the monarch does not - offices are "under" the Crown. Examples are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, ordinarily resides in another of her kingdoms, the United Kingdom, and so is represented by a governor-general. ::I hope this moves us on. PML. :The fact that a monarchist group thinks that the Governor General is head of state is unconvincing to me. If there are republican groups that believe it is so, I would like to find such people and examine their arguments. If it is just crackpots who think so, I do not think that the NPOV approach requires that we discuss every crackpot theory that is posted on the internet, this is an encyclopedia of knowledge not of crackpot theories. If there is a recognized group that has a reasonable theory about the republican nature of the Governor general, then yes, I think that would merit mention and even a seperate page, perhaps. User:Alex756 04:27, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC) Frankly PML's rewrite blurs fact and fiction, :Hold on there, it is precisely that join I am seeking to find, so we don't end up doing that. Case in point: you yourself made the demonstratedly false claim that all parties agree with the idea that the Queen is Head of State; regardless of whether she really is or not, clearly it is not a consensus view. We can probably find a way of working around that, and exploring the consensus separately from the reality; and that is what I am trying to do. PML. treats demonstrable constitutional fact as opinion, and suggests that demonstrable facts be given equality with crackpot theories widely dismissed as garbage. :With such respect as is due, that is not what I am trying to do. If it were, I would have gone straight to editing rather than put forward a draft for comment. One, regardless of whether the theories are crackpot or not, they are a real and present fact and - what is more - a material one. (Read Edward Augustus Freeman on the subject.) Two, I am trying to deal separately with opinions and systems, presenting the factuality of each differently. The parts where I disagree with your understanding of the systems relate - as far as I can see - to your confusion of constitutional law with the whole of what constitutions are; again, we can leave that out, here, in this article, if we are careful enough to work around it. PML. Wiki is an encyclopædia, not a home for crackpot theories held on the extreme fringe. We had another example of this some months ago when one person continually kept trying to change all Australian articles to state that "Australia is a republic". Now we have a monarchist trying to insist that the Governor-General is a head of state. Neither is correct and each is demonstrably not correct. Why is it that the Australian articles keep attracting such absurd theories? User:Jtdirl 21:42, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) :May I suggest you take up that particular argument over this point here with the ACM spokesmen, and do not take it upon yourself to dismiss their views merely for not matching what you have been told they are? Specifically, you have stated that the Australian constitution does touch on the "Head of State"; I incline to believe the monarchists when they say that it touches on the Crown and the G-G, but that the "Head of State" only comes in once you add in some more framework. In other words, you get out whatever you bring in, after a process of interpretation. Now, I put these comments in here in search of a way round sticking in interpretation. If you see a way to do that that achieves it more cleanly than my draft above, feel free to suggest it; but do not leave in something that rests on the assumption that "Head of State" means all those things, when that very point is still unresolved. I'm not asking for it to be resolved my way round either, just that open questions shouldn't be made to go by default. PML. ::There ''are no'' open questions. The Queen is the head of state. Period. A governor-general is not. Period. A governor-general fulfils head of state functions on behalf of the Queen or based on her or her own constitutional powers and functions, which come to the office in its royal representational, not state representational, role. As such he or she is the ''de facto'' head of state, which means they in effect ''act'' as a head of state. But they are not the ''de jure'' head of state, ie, they are ''not'' legally a head of state. As to the '' false claim that all parties agree with the idea that the Queen is Head of State'' THEY DO. The constitution does. Letters Patent do. The Queen does. The republicans do. The monarchists do. The governors-general, past and present, do. The Republic Advisory Committee does. The Australian embassy in Dublin does. Each and every one of the 128 states with diplomatic representation in Canberra do. The provincial states do. Judges do. Law texts do. Top academics do. No-one says she isn't. ::People sometimes call a governor-general a ''de facto'' head of state. What that means is that in practical reality he or she fulfils many of the ''functions'', both practical and in some cases symbolic, of the head of state. But no-one but a few isolated fringe people claim a governor-general is a ''de jure'' head of state. This article is about a ''de jure'' head of state, not a de facto head of state, ie, who ''is'' a head of state, not who ''acts'' like a head of state but isn't legally one. I can fulfil the functions of my professor of Politics if I stand in and take his lectures, if I deal with his correspondence when he is away. But that doesn't make me ''a'' professor of politics, merely a stand-in. In legal terms, all a governor-general is is ''a stand-in'' for the head of state, a ''de facto'' head of state while carrying out those functions. But he or she is not legally the head of state in his or her capacity. If they were, diplomats would not address letters of credence to the Queen, the Queen's authority would not be used in the exercise of constitutional functions, the Queen would not appoint the governor-general and have the power to remove him or her. Heads of state cannot appoint and dismiss each other. How bluntly does it have to be pointed out to you that you are wrong, that you are confused about what a head of state is. Alex is correct (below) in making that distinction, between a ''de facto'' head of state and a ''de jure'' one. A ''de jure'' head of state is a head of state, a ''de-facto'' a form of stand-in who fulfils many of the functions of a head of state, from the representational (on behalf of the Queen) to the symbolic (on behalf of Australia). But being ''de facto'' isn't enough. Donald Regan was often called the "de facto American prime minister". But that did not mean America had a prime minister. John Prescott has been the ''de facto'' British Prime Minister for the last couple of weeks while Blair has been on holidays. But that did not mean he ''was'' the prime minister, merely that he ''acted'' in effect as prime minister, as a stand-in for the absent prime minister. User:Jtdirl 15:09, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC) :I have found links to Governor-General being called the de facto Head of State in Australia; this by a well known and well respected Australian constitutional law professor: "Prof Williams, of the University of NSW, agreed with Opposition Leader Simon Crean that Prime Minister John Howard should consult more widely before making the next appointment. "The Governor-General today is seen as our defacto head of state," he said. "He or she is not merely a representative of the Queen and if a person is that important, we need the people to be involved, I think, perhaps even through a nominations process that will put people forward to the Prime Minister." ([http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6494358%255E1702,00.html 1]). I am not Australian and this is enough authority for me, as someone knowledgeable about commonwealth legal history, and a loyal subject of Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada; I do not think this in anyway mis-states the office of the Governor-General. I think citizens of most Commonwealth countries would agree that even though the Elizabeth II is our Queen, that the Governor-General plays that role in a de facto manner — this is not to suggest that the Rt. Hon. Adrianne Clarkson is the de jure head of state, but she does fulfil those duties and in Canada is seen as representing all Canadians — is that not what a head of state is in popular terms? Also, the Queen does not interfere with what a Governor-General does; she does not set their agenda, they have, in fact, wide authority within their jurisdiction to do as they wish. They do not consult the Queen before making such decisions. An example is the role that the Governor-General plays as the Royal Visitor of McGill University, she actually makes judicial decisions that bind the University, she makes them, not the Queen — just like any other judge who is also just a representative of the Crown. User:Alex756 04:12, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Just to make it clear I still beleive that the Queen is the de jure Head of State of commonwealth countries, and the Governor-General, as her representative, is the de facto head of state —. even after reading [http://www.norepublic.com.au/essays/Essay_GG_HoS.htm Sir David Smith's paper] on the subject. Is that confusing enough for you folks? Maybe there should be some material on Constitution of Talk:Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act about this debate. That would seem to be the most appropriate place for such a country specific issue, not here, where we are talking about head of state in a more general way.User:Alex756 ::Many countries in the Commonwealth have other heads of state. The independent Commonwealth countries with the Queen as the head of state (apart from the United Kingdom) all have a governor-general as her representative, and they are sometimes referred to as her "realms". I suppose that if the Queen went to live in the Bahamas, the UK would have to appoint a governor-general. :::Probably not, the UK would probably appoint Councillors of State under the Regency Act to perform the Royal functions. This is the practice when the Queen is absent from the realm. An alternative would be to appoint a Regent under the Act but the conditions for that would probably not be satisfied. == Governor-General at head-of-state rank == I read somewhere that Australia was considering asking other countries to give their governor-general the diplomatic precedence of a head of state. I wish I knew where, and how far this has progressed, because it would make a very good addition to this article. By the way I appreciate that a governor-general is not a head of state, but the idea that they might have the same diplomatic status seems intriguing. These nicities of diplomatic protocol seem hard to track down. :As a matter of fact the Governors-General of Commonwealth Realms (which include Australia) make and receive overseas visits as head of state and have done since the 1930s. The Queen represents the UK when making visits abroad, the Governor-General of Australia represents Australia. Both receive the same salutes, honours etc. User:Skyring 01:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC) ::The Queen sometimes represents Her other realms when abroad. For instance, I recall that during a Royal visit to the USA the banquest for the Americans was held at the Canadian Embassy not the UK embassy. ---- On a COMPLETELY different note... "As the above quote by Charles DeGaulle indicates, " Maybe I'm being stupid, but does anyone know what quote that refers to? Has it maybe gotten lost over the revisions? It is in the start of the article. When academic and encyclopædic texts, ''above'' does not mean ''directly'' above; it means an earlier part of the text, whether 1 line or 100 lines earlier makes no difference. User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) When writing generically about governor-generals, the office is not capitalised, when writing about a specific office of governor-general, or whether national or in a supra-national context, in British English is it capitalised. Only in American english and in Manuals of Style that follow AE is it lowercased. The article is written in British english and under wiki rules something written in BE is left in BE and follows BE style. User:Jtdirl 22:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) I removed the following which is factually incorrect: ''It should be noted that - as with translations from one language to another - one cannot make a direct equivalent from one system to another (e.g. people from countries with a republican orientation are wont to suppose that monarchs hold an "office", by analogy with the position of heads of state in republics). Nevertheless, a certain de facto equivalence is imposed by the necessity of interaction of differing states, tending to cause different systems to converge to some extent.'' A head of state's position ''is'' an office, often called an ''office of state''. In a republic, an elected/selected ''officer'' exercises the office. In a monarchy, the functions of the office are fulfilled by the monarch, along with other functions in other areas unique to monarchies. Queen Elizabeth, for example, fulfils HoS office functions when using constitutional powers, functions and duties, roles which the British Parliament by Act of Parliament could give to another official, (Speaker, Prime Minister, Prince Regent, etc). 'Monarchy' and 'head of state' are not the same. A monarchy is provides a means by which the head of state office functions are exercised in a particular constitution. One should not call ''monarchy'' an office because it isn't. But the monarch as head of state fills an office of state, a subtle but important difference. User:Jtdirl 20:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) -------- There is a picture which is captioned "The Federal Council of Switzerland The seven-member collective Head of State of Switzerland." The picture shows nine people, not seven. Either a correction or an explanation is needed. User:Dominus 08:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) :check :Image:Federalcouncil.jpg -- User:Docu ------ Can we come to something resembling a consensus on which HoS's get their pictures in this article? Please? User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 01:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I added a bunch of new pictures of contemporary HoS's doing HoS things. As opposed to just boring portraits. user:J.J. ::Sounds good to me. I just don't want this to turn into a Wik-style rv-fest :( User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 01:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ------ user:avala added a link to: :''Beli Dvor - King of Serbia'' Isnt Serbia a republic? Either this is a historical king or one not currently recognised. In either case some note of explanation should be included. I've removed the link until someone (more knowledgeable than me) takes care of this. -User:Iota | User_talk:Iota 22:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Crown Prince lives there. King also lived but then Serbia became republic in Yugoslavia. In those times president Tito lived there. It is considered as head of state house. There is also "Mir Vila" house which is supposed to be home for president. It was made for Tito`s birthday but he died earlier. Since then only Milosevic has lived there. All other presidents refused to move in. User:Avala 14:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==Featured Article Nomination (not promoted)== === (Contested -- Jun 30) Head of state === I haven't edited this one but just stumbled upon it a few days ago. What a fantastic article! As someone from a country that doesn't separate out the head of state function, it made for fascinating reading. The superb images, erudite quotes and well-analyzed breakdown of functions add a very professional flavor to the article, in my opinion. --User:TreyHarris 06:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) *Minor quibble - Under CEO, it mentions Sweden is somehow different is terms of executive power, but doesn't mention how. User:Burgundavia 07:58, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC) * Object. Image problems: ** King Albert image has no source information ** Putin image has source information, but it is not clear if there is permission to use the image. ** Swiss council image has no source information ** Bush signing image has vague source information, but it is not clear if there is any permission to use the image. ** Jeronimo 08:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) :A pity. I don't know how to rectify the objection (it's actionable, just not ''by me''), and if I swapped out the photos with others, ''I'd'' no longer support the article as a FA--the great photos were one of the things that drew me to nominate it. So I suppose I had better withdraw the nomination. Too bad there's not a "not a FA, but you should read this anyway" page. ;-) --User:TreyHarris 15:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::I think we can overcome this. All five photos were uploaded by User:J.J.. I've asked him if he can help with adding more detail about image origin. I think this has got to be a case of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. Images of heads of state are not likely to cause copyright problems; we can claim fair use as required. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 16:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) *Support User:Avala 19:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support, assuming the image problems are solved. User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester 20:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) * Object. Good article 1) The article has a "bulleted" style, presenting the information primarily as lists. Lists are great for presenting certain types of information,(for example the "Official residences" section) but I think they make a poor style for structuring an encyclopedia article. 2) Slightly over italicisation of things for emphasis when it's not necessary (I can probably fix these myself). 3) Need some history of the "head of state"; (of course, people have had rulers for as long as we can remember, but this article is about a more specific concept). User:Matt Crypto 15:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) = "Presidential System" = Surely there's a better term than this? By far the majority of presidential systems around the world have a separate office of Prime Minister. I think it's useful to make the distinction, but the way the article currently reads makes it sound like most republics follow the american presidential model, which is demonstrably false. :I don't know much about all this, but how abaou semi-presidential systems? User:Dustinasby 10:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm afraid the correct term ''is'' presidential system. It is irrelevant whether there is a prime minister or not. The definition of whether a system is a presidential system is not is - is the executive answerable to the # head of state alone - if so it is a ''presidential system'' # head of state ''and'' parliament - then its a ''semi-presidential system'' # parliament - then it is a ''parliamentary system''. Some presidential systems have prime ministers, some don't. In most presidential systems the PM is a minor figure, a constitutional functionary and administrator who does the day to day dog work for the president. In parliamentary systems in contrast the PM ''is'' the key player, the head of government who leads government, chooses ministers, etc. PMs in presidential systems are servants, not masters. PMs in parliamentary systems are masters, not servants. I have corrected the article to remove some inaccuracies that seemed to have cropped into the text and expanded the information. User:Jtdirl 15:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Thanks, that's a whole lot clearer than the presidential system article. User:Ben Arnold 05:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) == "Parliament" vs. "Legislature" == Are all legislatures automatically parliaments? Which is the more general term? :Legislature. Parliament implies a Westminster system. - User:Sekicho 03:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC) In common parlance ''parliament'' is often used as a generic term for any legislature so we needn't be too strict about this. But, yes, in general the term ''legislature'' should be prefered for this kind of encyclopedia article. User:Iota 23:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Wrong, totally and utterly wrong. To claim that this idiosyncratic and culturocentric usage is "common parlance" simply to claim an absolute and outright lie. All parliaments are legislatures. Not all legislatures are parliaments. The US Congress is NOT a parliament. To speak of a "parliament" is to SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE bodies like the US Congress. User:Dogface 15:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Whose common parlance? Compare [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=define%3Alegislature&btnG=Search] and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=define%3parliament&btnG=Search] and tell me which one is more general... - User:Sekicho 23:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC) :It's not an important point so i won't argue it further here, but please don't shout (i.e. use capitals) or use inflaminatory language. Reasonable people can disagree you know. :On a separate point don't change the spellings in the article to US English. The rest of the article is in non-US English and it is the Wikipedia convention to leave it that way User:Iota 02:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) == QUESTION == In the text it is mentioned that presidents that acquire presidency by military means or by coup d'état are also considered as having a government running a presidential system. However, in the page "Lists of government" it says that presidential systems are a form of democracy (which dictatorships are clearly not), so where do you get the source that states that presidential systems also encompass governments where presidents have gained power via a coup d'état for example (i.e. by undemocratic means)?
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Head_of_State:
Head_of_State
Head_of_State
Head_of_state
Head_of_state
Head_of_State_(movie)
Head_of_state_of_Ghana
Head_of_state_of_Rhodesia
Head of State
#REDIRECT Head_of_state
Head of State
#REDIRECT Talk:Head_of_state
Head of state
Though a term originally coined for Republican presidents, a head of state or chief of state is now universally known as the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution. In Charles de Gaulle's words, describing the role he envisaged for the French president when he wrote the modern French constitution, a head of state should embody "the spirit of the nation" to the nation itself and to the world: ''une certaine idée de la France'' (a certain idea about what France is). In a monarchy, the monarch is now deemed as the head of state. This is a relatively recent phenomenon; until the last few decades a sovereign was seen as the personal embodiment of the state, and therefore could not be head of themselves (hence the Canadian and U.K. constitutions make no mention of a "head of state"). Though some still maintain that calling a monarch head of state is incorrect, it has none-the-less become more and more fashionable to attach the label to monarchs. In a republic, the head of state is usually called the president, although some leaders have assumed other titles (See "titles" below), and some have simply used 'Head of State' as their only formal title. ==Presidential systems== [[Image:Bushtaxcuts.jpg|left|framed|U.S. President George W. Bush signs a bill into law at a public ceremony. As Head of State, the President's signature is required on all laws absent a supermajority of congress.]] ''Note - 'presidential' in this context does not automatically imply a president but simply a head of state, whether elected, hereditary or dictatorial who 'presides'.'' Different countries have different executive systems but in reality four general categories can be said to exist. Some constitutions or fundamental laws provide for a head of state who is not just ''in theory'' but ''in practice'' chief executive, operating separately from, and independent from, the legislature. This system is sometimes known as a ''presidential system'' because the government is answerable solely and exclusively to a 'presiding' activist head of state, and is selected by and on occasion dismissed by the head of state without reference to the legislature. It is notable that some presidential systems, while not providing for collective executive answerability to the legislature, may require legislative approval for individuals prior to their assumption of cabinet office and empower the legislature to remove a president from office (for example, in the United States). In this case the debate centres on the suitability of the individual for office, not a judgment on them when appointed, and does not involve the power to reject or approve proposed cabinet members ''en bloc'' so it is not ''answerability'' in the sense understood in a parliamentary system. Some presidential systems may also include a ''prime minister'' but as with the other ministers they are responsible to the President, not the legislature. In many such instances the office is of minimal political importance, sometimes even held by some administrative technocrat rather than a politician. A prime minister in a presidential system lacks the constitutional and political dominance of a prime minister in a parliamentary system and is often seen as simply a politically junior figure who may run the mechanics of government while allowing the President to set the broad national agenda. One could say that, whereas in parliamentary systems a prime minister may be master of his or her party and the government, prime ministers in presidential systems are usually the servants, with the head of state the master of the government who can hire and fire anyone, including the prime minister, at will. Presidential Systems of Governments are a notable feature of constitutions in the Americas, notably the United States. Though most presidents in the system are selected by democratic means (popular direct or indirect election, etc) the system also encompasses people who become head of state by other means, notably through military dictatorship or coup d'état. Some of the characteristics of a presidential system (ie, a strong dominant political figure with an executive answerable to them, not the legislature) can also be found among absolute monarchy. It is worth noting that modern presidential systems, most notably the United States, owe their origins to the contemporary eighteenth century British constitutional model in existence at the time of the enactment of the Constitution of the United States, in which the British monarch was still the dominant force and their government was not in a modern sense answerable to the legislature. Thus modern presidential systems are the lineal successors of the ''ancien regime'' governmental systems of eighteenth century Europe, whereas in Europe many states have evolved from a head of state-centred executive system (a presidential system) to a legislature-orientated one (a parliamentary system). In the 1870s in the United States in the aftermath of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and his near removal from office it was speculated that the United States too would move from a presidential system to a semi-presidential or even parliamentary one, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming the real centre of government as a quasi-prime minister. This did not happen and the presidency, having been damaged by two late nineteenth century assassinations (Lincoln and Garfield) and one impeachment (Johnson), reasserted its political dominance by the early twentieth century through such figures as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. ==Semi-presidential systems== Semi-presidential systems combine features of Presidential and Parliamentary systems, notably a requirement that the government be answerable to ''both'' the President and the legislature. The Constitution of the current French Fifth Republic provides for a prime minister who is chosen by the President but who nevertheless must be able to gain support in the Chamber of Deputies. Where in France a president is of one side of the political spectrum and the opposition is in control of the legislature, s/he often is forced to select someone from the opposition to become prime minister, a process known as ''Cohabitation (government)''. President François Mitterrand, a socialist, for example was forced to ''co-habit'' with the neo-gaullist (right wing) Jacques Chirac, who became his prime minister for a time in the 1980s. In the French system, in the event of co-habitation, the President is often allowed to set the policy agenda in foreign affairs and the Prime Minister run the domestic agenda. Other countries evolve into something akin to a semi-presidential system or indeed a full presidential system. Weimar Germany, for example, in its constitution provided for a popularly elected president with theoretically dominant emergency powers that were only intended to be exercised in emergencies and a cabinet appointed by him from the Reichstag (institution) which was expected in normal circumstances to be answerable to the Reichstag. Initially the President was merely a symbolic figure with the Reichstag dominant. However longterm political instability (where governments were collapsing every couple of months) led to a change in the power structure of the Republic, with the President's emergency powers called increasingly into use to prop up governments challenged by critical or even hostile Reichstag votes. By 1932, power had shifted to such an extent that the German President, Paul von Hindenburg was able to dismiss a chancellor and select his own person for the job even though the outgoing chancellor possessed the confidence in the Reichstag while the new chancellor did not. Subsequently President von Hindenburg used his power to appoint Adolf Hitler as Reich chancellor without consulting the Reichstag. ==Parliamentary systems' heads of state== In parliamentary system the head of state may be merely the ''nominal'' chief executive officer of the state, possessing theoretical executive power (hence the description of the United Kingdom monarch's government as Her Majesty's Government, a term indicating that the government is theoretically hers, not parliament's). In reality however, due to a process of constitutional evolution powers are ''usually'' exercised by a cabinet (government), presided over by a prime minister or ''President of the Government'' who is answerable to parliament. This answerability requires that someone be chosen from parliament who has parliament's support (or at least not parliament's opposition - a subtle but important difference). It also gives parliament the right to vote down the government, forcing it either to resign or seek a parliamentary dissolution. Governments are thus said to be ''responsible'' (ie, answerable) to parliament, with the government in turn accepting constitutional responsibility for offering constitutional Advice_(constitutional) to the head of state. In reality, numerous variants exist to the position of a head of state within a parliamentary system. The older the constitution, the more constitutional leeway may exist for a head of state to exercise greater powers over government, as many older parliamentary system constitutions in fact give heads of state powers and functions akin to presidential or semi-presidential systems, in some cases without containing reference to modern democratic principles of accountability to parliament or even to modern governmental offices. For example, the 1848 constitution of the Kingdom of Italy was sufficiently ambiguous and outdated to give King Victor Emmanuel III leeway to appoint Benito Mussolini to power in controversial circumstances. Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law, unwritten constitutional precedent, Orders-in-Council, letters patent, etc that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances (eg, the dismissal of the Australian prime minister, Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.) Other examples of heads of state in parliamentary systems using greater powers than normal due either to ambiguous constitutions or unprecedented national emergencies, such as King Leopold III of Belgium's decision to surrender on behalf of his state to the invading German army in 1940, against the will of His Government. Judging that his responsibility to the nation by virtue of his coronation oath required him to act, he believed that His Government's decision to fight rather than surrender was mistaken and would damage Belgium. (Leopold's decision proved highly controversial. After World War II, Belgium voted on whether to allow him back on the throne. It did so, but because of the ongoing controversy he ultimately abdicated the throne.) ==Non-executive heads of state== [[Image:marymca.jpg|frame|left|Mary McAleese, President of Ireland, an example of a non-executive head of state.]] A final category of head of state which could be loosely called the ''non-executive head of state'' model also exists. Its holders are excluded completely from the executive. In other words they do not possess even theoretical executive powers or any role, even formal, within the government. Hence their states' governments are not referred to by the traditional parliamentary model head of state Style - Manner of Address of ''His/Her Majesty's Government'' or ''His/Her Excellency's Government''. Within this general category, variants in terms of powers and functions may exist. The King of Sweden, since the passage of the modern Swedish constitution, the Instrument of Government in the mid 1970s, no longer has any of the parliamentary system head of state functions that had previously belonged to Swedish kings. But he still receives formal cabinet briefings monthly in the Royal Palace. In contrast the only contact the Irish president has with the Irish government is through a formal briefing session given by the Taoiseach (prime minister) to the President. However she has no access to documentation and all access to ministers goes through the Department of An Taoiseach (prime minister's office). Examples of this category invariably date from the twentieth century. The most notable examples of this category are the * President of Ireland * Kings of Sweden (since 1975) * President of the Federal Republic of Germany. * Emperor of Japan ==Complexities with categorisation== While clear categories do exist, it is sometimes difficult to choose which category some individual heads of state belong to. Constitutional change in Liechtenstein in 2003 gave its head of state, the Prince, unprecedented constitutional powers including a veto over legislation and power in theory to dismiss the cabinet. It could be argued that the strengthening of the Prince's powers vis-a-vis the legislature has moved Liechtenstein in the ''semi-presidential'' category. Similarly the original powers given to the List of Presidents of Greece under the 1974 Hellenic Republic constitution made Greece more akin to the French ''semi-presidential'' model. And the theoretical power of the British monarch to dismiss their government at will would suggest that the United Kingdom should belong to the ''semi-presidential'' category also. In reality the category to which each head of stateship belongs is assessed not by theory but by practice. In practice no British monarch has forced a government from office since the early nineteenth century, while the Greek Republic in reality even before the powers of the President of the Republic were curtailed operated as a standard parliamentary system. Unless and until a Prince of Liechtenstein exercises the theoretical powers they now possess, the principality would still remain categorised as a ''parliamentary system''. ==Roles of the head of state== [[Image:federalcouncil.jpg|framed|Swiss Federal Council - ''The seven-member collective Head of State of Switzerland'' (also depicted: Federal Chancellor)]] Depending on which category (above) a head of state belongs to, they may have some or all of the roles listed below. ===Chief diplomatic officer=== *The head of state ''accredits'' his or her country's Ambassador (diplomacy)s, through sending formal Letter of Credence to other heads of state. Without that accreditation, ''ipso facto'' an ambassador does not take up a role and receive diplomatic status. *He or she ''receives'' Letters of Credence, sent by other heads of state accrediting ''his''/''her'' ambassador to the state. *He or she signs international treaties on behalf of the state, or has them signed in his/her name by ministers. ::Example: under the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (constitution), Article 59 (1) states - :::''The Federal President shall represent the Federation in its international relations. He shall conclude treaties with foreign states on behalf of the Federation. He shall accredit and receive envoys.'' ===Chief executive officer=== In the vast majority of states, whether republics or monarchies, executive branch is vested, at least ''notionally'', in the head of state. In presidential systems the head of state is the actual, ''de facto'' chief executive officer. Under parliamentary systems the executive authority is ''theoretically'' exercised by the head of state but in practice exercised ''on the advice'' of the prime minister or cabinet. This produces such terms as ''Her Majesty's Government'' and ''His Excellency's Government''. Examples of parliamentary systems in which the head of state is notional chief executive include Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The few exceptions include the Republic of Ireland, where executive authority is explicitly vested in the cabinet, and Sweden. The head of state may also be described, although, again, in parliamentary systems this is only a notional designation, as ''commander-in-chief'' of the armed forces. ::Example 1 (presidential system): Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states: :::''The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'' ::Example 2 (Victorian era constitutional monarchy): Under Chapter II, Section 61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900: :::''The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.'' ::Example 3 (mid-20th century constitutional monarchy): According to Section 12 of the Constitution of Denmark 1953: :::''Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitution Act the King shall have the supreme authority in all the affairs of the Realm, and he shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers.'' ::Example 4 (modern republican parliamentary system): According to Article 26 (2) of the 1975 Constitution of Greece: :::''The executive power shall be exercised by the President of the Republic and by the government.'' [[Image:lettercreed.jpg|framed|Russian Head of State and President Vladimir Putin receives the Letters of Credence from the French ambassador.]] ===Chief appointments officer=== *He or she appoints all the key officials in the state, including members of the cabinet, the prime minister (if there is one), key judicial figures and all major office holders. In most parliamentary systems the prime minister is appointed with the consent of the legislature, and other figures are appointed on the prime minister's advice. Some countries have exceptions - under Article 4 of the Constitution of Sweden 1974, the constitution of Sweden grants to the parliamentary speaker the role of formally appointing the prime minister. In practice, this decision is often a formality. The last time a United Kingdom monarch actually had a choice over who to pick to be prime minister occurred in 1963, when Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom chose Alec Douglas-Home to succeed Harold Macmillan. In presidential systems such as that of the United States, appointments are nominated by the president's sole discretion, and this nomination if often subject to parliamentary confirmation (in the case of the U.S., the U.S. Senate has to approve cabinet nominees and judicial appointments by simple majority). *He or she may dismiss office-holders. In parliamentary systems, this is only done on the binding ''advice'' of another office-holder; for example, members of the Irish cabinet are dismissed by the President of Ireland ''on the advice'' of the Taoiseach (prime minister). In some instances, the head of state may be able to dismiss an office holder themselves. Many heads of state or their representatives have the ''theoretical power'' to dismiss any office-holder while it is exceptionally rarely used. Its use is sometimes controversial, such as when the Australian Governor-General dismissed the prime minister during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. In France, while the president cannot force the prime minister to tender the resignation of his government, he in practice can request it if the prime minister is from his own majority. In presidential systems, the president often has the power to fire ministers at his sole discretion. In the U.S., convention calls for cabinet secretaries to resign on their own initiative when called to do so. Albert_II_of_Belgium_-_''Head_of_State_of_the_
| Country | Title |
|---|---|
| Kuwait, Qatar | Emir |
| Japan | Emperor |
| Liechtenstein, Monaco | Prince |
| Luxembourg | Grand Duke |
| Vatican City | Pope |
| San Marino | Captain Regent |
| Oman | Sultan | The Netherlands (historical) | stadholder |
Head of state
I think the pictures look much better with black borders. When they are alone, they look all boring, and merge with the text.- user:J.J. Borders are not generally used in modern layout. The general view is that they look clumsy and as if they are are cut out that was pasted in (which is what they ''used'' to be, namely a blank square to which an image could be added). The standard method is generally to leave them out if at all possible, because they are not needed and look like a pre-modern computerisation stick'n'paste job. They also ''shift'' on some browsers, causing ''major'' problems that can be avoided on their removal. Their absence leaves a ''much'' cleaner, less amateurish and less pre-computerisation looking page, as well as avoiding browsers problems, which is why they are being removed. User:Jtdirl 11:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC) BTW many browsers (eg Safari) are designed not even to show them, because they are generally viewed as something that really shouldn't be shown if at all possible. ---- = Governor-General = Quite apart from the grammatical/vocabulary problem ("when vocabulary duty's to be done, to be done"), I think "Though the governor-general may fulfill many of the roles of a head of state, s/he is not a head of state themselves, but the representative of the head of state" needs tidying up - for instance, this is not true of Australia. But I don't want to improve the Australian side of things at the expense of accidentally misrepresenting how it is elsewhere. So, before I jump in with both feet, I want to offer other experts the opportunity to get it better expressed than I can myself ("be 'umble, Uriah, be 'umble"). PML. Actually it is. The Governor-General of Australia is ''not'' a head of state, a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans. The Queen of Australia is the Australian head of state, the Governor-General her representative. User:Jtdirl 17:46, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC) :You have been misinformed. It is universally agreed by republicans here in Australia that monarchists and others have agreed with them on this sort of thing. Only, they deceive themselves (or are trying to manufacture a spurious consensus on something that would affect the substantive discussion). You will get a better view of what monarchists really think from the published statements of David Flint, and of independent views from the statements of Harry Evans (Clerk of the Senate). Monarchists are always having to stop this line being put out in media releases from our public service. Please note, I don't want to assert the truth of either position but to find a form of words that notes the unresolved ambiguity instead of buying into the spurious consensus. PML. No. Actually I am 100% certain. This is my main area of expertise and I have extensively researched it. In doing the research I consulted among others * 2 Professors of Political Science in Australia * 2 former Governors-General of Australia * read documents by both monarchists and republicans * read the reports of the Republic Advisory Committee * spoke to the Attorney-General's office * spoke to the Prime Minister's office * read the Australian constitution * oh and, also spoke to constitutional advisors on Commonweath and Australian affairs to her Majesty the Queen and was supplied with factual information by Her Majesty's Press Office. :It is the likes of that that the monarchists have to pull up, before their views become accepted as established; you cannot take that as an authority (any more than either the monarchists or the republicans). PML. All are 100% agreed (from Malcolm Turnbell to George Winterton to Sir Ninian to the Queen) that ''NUMBER 1:'' ''The Governor-General is not the Australian head of state, never has been.'' ''NUMBER 2:'' ''The Queen of Australia and no one else on the planet is the Australian head of state. There not one iota of doubt. It is a 100% rock solid certainty.'' But then Chapter 1, Part 1 Section 2 of the constitution does state that
''A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's ''representative'' in the Commonweath, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.'' The Governor-General fufils many of the functions and duties of a head of state but ''is not one''. He is, to use the word of the above section, the "representative" of one. And if today an ambassador arrives in Canberra today to present his credentials, they will not be addressed to the Governor-General. The GG will be given an envellope addressed to "Her Majesty the Queen of Australia". And the GG, in the name of the Queen, will welcome the ambassador and accept the credentials. And if the following day his head of state turns up on a state visit, at the state banquet no-one will toast the Governor-General. They will toast the ''Queen'' because she, not the GG is the head of state. If the GG was, the letters would be addressed to him, the toast would be to him. User:Jtdirl 06:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC) :We appear to be talking at cross purposes (and, by the bye, I have also reviewed the area thoroughly). You appear to be addressing the question "is the G-G a Head of State?". I was addressing the meta-question, "is that generally accepted and not disputed?". As it happens, regardless of the merits of the first question, it has not actually been settled - it is still a matter of controversy and any republican who says different is speaking incorrectly on behalf of monarchists. So, I want to find a form of words that, while not causing problems with Head of State issues, also does not make the POV assertions implied by assuming it's "nem con". After all, the whole point of "myth" is not whether it is true or false but rather whether it is a fact that it is a belief having an effect on the world at large. I think I ought to find the monarchist sites that manifest this belief, and place it before you - I think they cite the Harry Evans' comment I referred to earlier. PML. ::Here we go, slap bang at the beginning of the current version of http://www.norepublic.com.au we find http://www.norepublic.com.au/Media%20Releases/Release_Flint_Jun2203.htm - PML. The Governor-General is not a head of state. ''evidence'' # The Australian constitution # ''All'' letters of Credence from ''all'' diplomatics to Australia and ''all'' diplomats from Australia # Buckingham Palace # The Governor-General's office # Two past governors general # The Prime Minister's Office # Report of the Republic Advisory Committee # The Professor of Law in the University of New South Wales # The Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow in the School of Politics and Public Policy, Griffith University It is not a "some people think . . . " issue. It is a demonstrable fact. :Hang on a bit, do you see where you're sliding around, grasping related but distinct aspects the topic? Earlier you put "...a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans...", which is at least as demonstrably untrue. You see, you just there just now started talking about demonstrable fact, but you earlier used words to the effect of "undisputed fact". I am not trying to buy into whether you are right on the Head of State issue, at least not just yet, I am seeking a wording that shows it is still a matter of controversy. Monarchists plainly do not all accept that the Queen is Head of State - we have their own published statements to that effect. I'm going to put forward a draft rewording, but I don't want to attempt that until it is clear just what it is I am trying to achieve by it - namely, showing that opinion is divided on the subject. As to whether opinion is sound, well, ordinarily that would matter rather more, but in this whole area what counts is more what impels people than whether they are formulating a consistent position by the standards of Wikipedia's contributors. It's certainly POV to make out that this is a matter of general agreement, and false to boot. PML. After all, some people think George Bush is not the legal President of the United States. Much as I disapprove of most of his policies, it is a statement of fact that he is. Some people claim Mary McAleese is not the legal president of Ireland. They can claim it all they like, it is a fact she is. :It is a fact that those groups don't matter; but there are groups that matter on this point. PML. Some people claim Italy and Albania aren't republics; they are. Some websites claim Queen Elizabeth II is actually the world's mastermind in the drugs trade! They can claim it all they want, but it is a demonstrable fact that she isn't, just as it is a demonstrable fact that the Governor-General is ''not'' a head of state and other than through a change in the law and Letters Patent cannot become so. If the constitution says one thing, and a few websites say something else, there is no debate. The constitution is ''the'' source. ::Er... no, most emphatically. Constitutions merely express, they do not create. :::I guess you aren't a constitutional lawyer if you think that. ''Of course'' constitutions create. The constitutional of the Fifth French Republic created a presidency of the Fifth Republic. The constitution of Ireland ''created'' a President of Ireland, a national parliament, a courts system, fundamental rights, etc. In some cases they basically created a new version of institutions that had existed already, having been created in the 1922 constitutions. No wonder you are confused about the head of state issue, PML, if you have such a confused understanding of constitutions. :-) User:Jtdirl ::::I was afraid I was being too brief to be clear. JTDIRL, you have fallen into a common intellectual trap, that you are less prone to than some but still fall for sometimes. The constitution isn't the document. What goes in the document does indeed feed into what happens, but it's not the constitution itself. I was referring to the way that, whenever actual frameworks get out of step with the documents, it is the documents that are wrong - tautologically. To take one example, the constitution of Ireland did not so much create all those things as directed that they be created; to read that as "creating" is correct at one level, wrong at another - it is an immediate/ultimate cause thing, and it depends on just which question you are asking. The only reason I brought that whole thing up just there was as a reminder that constitutions are not documents. And by the bye, it is more helpful to ask what people think they mean than to tell them they don't know what they are talking about; I am sure you know that old rhetorical technique, the "Cork question". PML. In the event that it was out of step with real events, it would be wrong, ipso facto. But we haven't got as far as exploring that yet; and in any case, it is still a matter of interpretation, since the constitution is silent on a great many things (including the Head of State question). :::No it isn't silent on the head of state issue. *sigh* User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) Add in every legal diplomatic document ever written, the Queen, a monarchist prime minister, a republican academic, the Governor-General and two of his precedessors and the case is closed. After all, if those sources don't know the facts, who else will? User:Jtdirl 13:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::That appears to be a peculiar inversion of an argument from authority. I hope and trust that in due course, after researching the matter, we will. Just for now, I want to dispel the insidious part, the misinformation that republicans seem to have slipped in pretending that the matter has been agreed, in terms they themselves have put forward. It is not only disputed, it is also disputed by a material group, which makes it significant even though the POV aspect has to be allowed for - a significance previous analogies with cranks failed to parallel. PML. :::That is complete balderdash. It not a republican invention. Her Majesty the Queen is not a republican. The Prime Minister is an open monarchist. The constitution predates the current republican debate by a century. All three and ''every other authoritative source'' agree on three things: * Australia is a constitutional monarchy; * The head of state of Australia is Queen Elizabeth. * She is represented by a Governor-General who is not, could not and cannot be a head of state. User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::::Sigh. One, no, not every other authoritative source agrees. That is precisely the fact I brought out in my reference over there. Two, I am not saying it is a republican invention, I am saying that it is a republican misrepresentation when they falsely tell others that the matter is agreed that way. PML. :The sites that reference Australians for Constitutional Monarchy seem to be glossing over the fact that it is the Queen who is the Head of State. As a Canadian and loyal subject of the Crown who has received two law degrees from McGill University I can state catagorically that the Governor-General of Canada is NOT the head of state, but merely her representative. ::Ah - that's where I came in. I wanted to find a form of words that didn't impose Australian context elsewhere. Possibly they are glossing over it; and then again, possibly they are merely using normal Australian usage which it would be wrong to use more generally or more technically (terms of art, and that). After all, it is the usage in the 1975 constitutional crisis article right here in wikipedia. The monarchists do make the point that it is not a technical term within the constitution anyway. PML. :::All this means in english??? User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) ::::Well, the monarchist material itself is clearer than I can make things in the time and space available. That's why I provided the link. PML. My review of Australian constitutional history and law has not convinced me that there is any argument (even a minority argument) that the Governor General is the Head of State. Even Australian Republicans agree with this position: [http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm Australian Republian Movement FAQ, Head of State]. ::Also the point - it is typically the republicans who have misrepresented this as the consensus Australian view. It's not "even" they admit it, it's something they want to make into a fact of discussion as a support of other things. First and foremost, before even addressing its accuracy, I wanted to shoot down this attempt to set the ground of debate (they also often pretend that citing republican ex-G-Gs is an independent source). For what it's worth, the term "head of state" has settled along the monarchist lines in the discussion of the 1975 constitutional crisis - the usage isn't merely that of cranks. As far as crankiness goes, I wanted to establish that monarchist views are substantively represented; even if, especially if, we are cranks, our views have material consequences and should be acknowledged as facts of the developing situation. ::I suspect JTDIRL was misreading what I meant, and I can see where I was unclear: rather than addressing the point about H of S just there and then, I meant to convey that JTDIRL had been misinformed about whether this view of the nature of a Head of State was "a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans"; the former G-Gs involved are republicans, so this is double counting rather than an independent view, and it's plain wrong about the monarchists - as borne out by the reference I gave. ::I'm going to draft a version I'm happier with and post it here for comment in a day or so. PML. ::OK - here's an attempt:- :::In some cases, one person holds multiple crowns. Technically, these may be considered headships of state, and the crown may be represented in each state by a governor-general. Though the governor-general may fulfil many of the functions and responsibilities of a head of state, he or she is not a head of state in his or her own right but rather the representative of the Crown. See, for example, the Queen of Canada. However, for certain purposes - including ordinary speech - the governors-general themselves may be considered heads of state. This is complicated by the fact that the situation is evolving in all these countries, reflecting changes in their connection to the "mother country"; a considerable school of thought ([http://www.norepublic.com.au/Media%20Releases/Release_Flint_Jun2203.htm]) in Australia does consider the governor-general to be head of state. One way to distinguish the situation is that the governors-general hold offices but the monarch does not - offices are "under" the Crown. Examples are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, ordinarily resides in another of her kingdoms, the United Kingdom, and so is represented by a governor-general. ::I hope this moves us on. PML. :The fact that a monarchist group thinks that the Governor General is head of state is unconvincing to me. If there are republican groups that believe it is so, I would like to find such people and examine their arguments. If it is just crackpots who think so, I do not think that the NPOV approach requires that we discuss every crackpot theory that is posted on the internet, this is an encyclopedia of knowledge not of crackpot theories. If there is a recognized group that has a reasonable theory about the republican nature of the Governor general, then yes, I think that would merit mention and even a seperate page, perhaps. User:Alex756 04:27, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC) Frankly PML's rewrite blurs fact and fiction, :Hold on there, it is precisely that join I am seeking to find, so we don't end up doing that. Case in point: you yourself made the demonstratedly false claim that all parties agree with the idea that the Queen is Head of State; regardless of whether she really is or not, clearly it is not a consensus view. We can probably find a way of working around that, and exploring the consensus separately from the reality; and that is what I am trying to do. PML. treats demonstrable constitutional fact as opinion, and suggests that demonstrable facts be given equality with crackpot theories widely dismissed as garbage. :With such respect as is due, that is not what I am trying to do. If it were, I would have gone straight to editing rather than put forward a draft for comment. One, regardless of whether the theories are crackpot or not, they are a real and present fact and - what is more - a material one. (Read Edward Augustus Freeman on the subject.) Two, I am trying to deal separately with opinions and systems, presenting the factuality of each differently. The parts where I disagree with your understanding of the systems relate - as far as I can see - to your confusion of constitutional law with the whole of what constitutions are; again, we can leave that out, here, in this article, if we are careful enough to work around it. PML. Wiki is an encyclopædia, not a home for crackpot theories held on the extreme fringe. We had another example of this some months ago when one person continually kept trying to change all Australian articles to state that "Australia is a republic". Now we have a monarchist trying to insist that the Governor-General is a head of state. Neither is correct and each is demonstrably not correct. Why is it that the Australian articles keep attracting such absurd theories? User:Jtdirl 21:42, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) :May I suggest you take up that particular argument over this point here with the ACM spokesmen, and do not take it upon yourself to dismiss their views merely for not matching what you have been told they are? Specifically, you have stated that the Australian constitution does touch on the "Head of State"; I incline to believe the monarchists when they say that it touches on the Crown and the G-G, but that the "Head of State" only comes in once you add in some more framework. In other words, you get out whatever you bring in, after a process of interpretation. Now, I put these comments in here in search of a way round sticking in interpretation. If you see a way to do that that achieves it more cleanly than my draft above, feel free to suggest it; but do not leave in something that rests on the assumption that "Head of State" means all those things, when that very point is still unresolved. I'm not asking for it to be resolved my way round either, just that open questions shouldn't be made to go by default. PML. ::There ''are no'' open questions. The Queen is the head of state. Period. A governor-general is not. Period. A governor-general fulfils head of state functions on behalf of the Queen or based on her or her own constitutional powers and functions, which come to the office in its royal representational, not state representational, role. As such he or she is the ''de facto'' head of state, which means they in effect ''act'' as a head of state. But they are not the ''de jure'' head of state, ie, they are ''not'' legally a head of state. As to the '' false claim that all parties agree with the idea that the Queen is Head of State'' THEY DO. The constitution does. Letters Patent do. The Queen does. The republicans do. The monarchists do. The governors-general, past and present, do. The Republic Advisory Committee does. The Australian embassy in Dublin does. Each and every one of the 128 states with diplomatic representation in Canberra do. The provincial states do. Judges do. Law texts do. Top academics do. No-one says she isn't. ::People sometimes call a governor-general a ''de facto'' head of state. What that means is that in practical reality he or she fulfils many of the ''functions'', both practical and in some cases symbolic, of the head of state. But no-one but a few isolated fringe people claim a governor-general is a ''de jure'' head of state. This article is about a ''de jure'' head of state, not a de facto head of state, ie, who ''is'' a head of state, not who ''acts'' like a head of state but isn't legally one. I can fulfil the functions of my professor of Politics if I stand in and take his lectures, if I deal with his correspondence when he is away. But that doesn't make me ''a'' professor of politics, merely a stand-in. In legal terms, all a governor-general is is ''a stand-in'' for the head of state, a ''de facto'' head of state while carrying out those functions. But he or she is not legally the head of state in his or her capacity. If they were, diplomats would not address letters of credence to the Queen, the Queen's authority would not be used in the exercise of constitutional functions, the Queen would not appoint the governor-general and have the power to remove him or her. Heads of state cannot appoint and dismiss each other. How bluntly does it have to be pointed out to you that you are wrong, that you are confused about what a head of state is. Alex is correct (below) in making that distinction, between a ''de facto'' head of state and a ''de jure'' one. A ''de jure'' head of state is a head of state, a ''de-facto'' a form of stand-in who fulfils many of the functions of a head of state, from the representational (on behalf of the Queen) to the symbolic (on behalf of Australia). But being ''de facto'' isn't enough. Donald Regan was often called the "de facto American prime minister". But that did not mean America had a prime minister. John Prescott has been the ''de facto'' British Prime Minister for the last couple of weeks while Blair has been on holidays. But that did not mean he ''was'' the prime minister, merely that he ''acted'' in effect as prime minister, as a stand-in for the absent prime minister. User:Jtdirl 15:09, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC) :I have found links to Governor-General being called the de facto Head of State in Australia; this by a well known and well respected Australian constitutional law professor: "Prof Williams, of the University of NSW, agreed with Opposition Leader Simon Crean that Prime Minister John Howard should consult more widely before making the next appointment. "The Governor-General today is seen as our defacto head of state," he said. "He or she is not merely a representative of the Queen and if a person is that important, we need the people to be involved, I think, perhaps even through a nominations process that will put people forward to the Prime Minister." ([http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6494358%255E1702,00.html 1]). I am not Australian and this is enough authority for me, as someone knowledgeable about commonwealth legal history, and a loyal subject of Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada; I do not think this in anyway mis-states the office of the Governor-General. I think citizens of most Commonwealth countries would agree that even though the Elizabeth II is our Queen, that the Governor-General plays that role in a de facto manner — this is not to suggest that the Rt. Hon. Adrianne Clarkson is the de jure head of state, but she does fulfil those duties and in Canada is seen as representing all Canadians — is that not what a head of state is in popular terms? Also, the Queen does not interfere with what a Governor-General does; she does not set their agenda, they have, in fact, wide authority within their jurisdiction to do as they wish. They do not consult the Queen before making such decisions. An example is the role that the Governor-General plays as the Royal Visitor of McGill University, she actually makes judicial decisions that bind the University, she makes them, not the Queen — just like any other judge who is also just a representative of the Crown. User:Alex756 04:12, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Just to make it clear I still beleive that the Queen is the de jure Head of State of commonwealth countries, and the Governor-General, as her representative, is the de facto head of state —. even after reading [http://www.norepublic.com.au/essays/Essay_GG_HoS.htm Sir David Smith's paper] on the subject. Is that confusing enough for you folks? Maybe there should be some material on Constitution of Talk:Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act about this debate. That would seem to be the most appropriate place for such a country specific issue, not here, where we are talking about head of state in a more general way.User:Alex756 ::Many countries in the Commonwealth have other heads of state. The independent Commonwealth countries with the Queen as the head of state (apart from the United Kingdom) all have a governor-general as her representative, and they are sometimes referred to as her "realms". I suppose that if the Queen went to live in the Bahamas, the UK would have to appoint a governor-general. :::Probably not, the UK would probably appoint Councillors of State under the Regency Act to perform the Royal functions. This is the practice when the Queen is absent from the realm. An alternative would be to appoint a Regent under the Act but the conditions for that would probably not be satisfied. == Governor-General at head-of-state rank == I read somewhere that Australia was considering asking other countries to give their governor-general the diplomatic precedence of a head of state. I wish I knew where, and how far this has progressed, because it would make a very good addition to this article. By the way I appreciate that a governor-general is not a head of state, but the idea that they might have the same diplomatic status seems intriguing. These nicities of diplomatic protocol seem hard to track down. :As a matter of fact the Governors-General of Commonwealth Realms (which include Australia) make and receive overseas visits as head of state and have done since the 1930s. The Queen represents the UK when making visits abroad, the Governor-General of Australia represents Australia. Both receive the same salutes, honours etc. User:Skyring 01:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC) ::The Queen sometimes represents Her other realms when abroad. For instance, I recall that during a Royal visit to the USA the banquest for the Americans was held at the Canadian Embassy not the UK embassy. ---- On a COMPLETELY different note... "As the above quote by Charles DeGaulle indicates, " Maybe I'm being stupid, but does anyone know what quote that refers to? Has it maybe gotten lost over the revisions? It is in the start of the article. When academic and encyclopædic texts, ''above'' does not mean ''directly'' above; it means an earlier part of the text, whether 1 line or 100 lines earlier makes no difference. User:Jtdirl 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) When writing generically about governor-generals, the office is not capitalised, when writing about a specific office of governor-general, or whether national or in a supra-national context, in British English is it capitalised. Only in American english and in Manuals of Style that follow AE is it lowercased. The article is written in British english and under wiki rules something written in BE is left in BE and follows BE style. User:Jtdirl 22:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) I removed the following which is factually incorrect: ''It should be noted that - as with translations from one language to another - one cannot make a direct equivalent from one system to another (e.g. people from countries with a republican orientation are wont to suppose that monarchs hold an "office", by analogy with the position of heads of state in republics). Nevertheless, a certain de facto equivalence is imposed by the necessity of interaction of differing states, tending to cause different systems to converge to some extent.'' A head of state's position ''is'' an office, often called an ''office of state''. In a republic, an elected/selected ''officer'' exercises the office. In a monarchy, the functions of the office are fulfilled by the monarch, along with other functions in other areas unique to monarchies. Queen Elizabeth, for example, fulfils HoS office functions when using constitutional powers, functions and duties, roles which the British Parliament by Act of Parliament could give to another official, (Speaker, Prime Minister, Prince Regent, etc). 'Monarchy' and 'head of state' are not the same. A monarchy is provides a means by which the head of state office functions are exercised in a particular constitution. One should not call ''monarchy'' an office because it isn't. But the monarch as head of state fills an office of state, a subtle but important difference. User:Jtdirl 20:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) -------- There is a picture which is captioned "The Federal Council of Switzerland The seven-member collective Head of State of Switzerland." The picture shows nine people, not seven. Either a correction or an explanation is needed. User:Dominus 08:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) :check :Image:Federalcouncil.jpg -- User:Docu ------ Can we come to something resembling a consensus on which HoS's get their pictures in this article? Please? User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 01:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I added a bunch of new pictures of contemporary HoS's doing HoS things. As opposed to just boring portraits. user:J.J. ::Sounds good to me. I just don't want this to turn into a Wik-style rv-fest :( User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 01:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ------ user:avala added a link to: :''Beli Dvor - King of Serbia'' Isnt Serbia a republic? Either this is a historical king or one not currently recognised. In either case some note of explanation should be included. I've removed the link until someone (more knowledgeable than me) takes care of this. -User:Iota | User_talk:Iota 22:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Crown Prince lives there. King also lived but then Serbia became republic in Yugoslavia. In those times president Tito lived there. It is considered as head of state house. There is also "Mir Vila" house which is supposed to be home for president. It was made for Tito`s birthday but he died earlier. Since then only Milosevic has lived there. All other presidents refused to move in. User:Avala 14:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) ==Featured Article Nomination (not promoted)== === (Contested -- Jun 30) Head of state === I haven't edited this one but just stumbled upon it a few days ago. What a fantastic article! As someone from a country that doesn't separate out the head of state function, it made for fascinating reading. The superb images, erudite quotes and well-analyzed breakdown of functions add a very professional flavor to the article, in my opinion. --User:TreyHarris 06:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) *Minor quibble - Under CEO, it mentions Sweden is somehow different is terms of executive power, but doesn't mention how. User:Burgundavia 07:58, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC) * Object. Image problems: ** King Albert image has no source information ** Putin image has source information, but it is not clear if there is permission to use the image. ** Swiss council image has no source information ** Bush signing image has vague source information, but it is not clear if there is any permission to use the image. ** Jeronimo 08:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) :A pity. I don't know how to rectify the objection (it's actionable, just not ''by me''), and if I swapped out the photos with others, ''I'd'' no longer support the article as a FA--the great photos were one of the things that drew me to nominate it. So I suppose I had better withdraw the nomination. Too bad there's not a "not a FA, but you should read this anyway" page. ;-) --User:TreyHarris 15:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::I think we can overcome this. All five photos were uploaded by User:J.J.. I've asked him if he can help with adding more detail about image origin. I think this has got to be a case of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. Images of heads of state are not likely to cause copyright problems; we can claim fair use as required. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 16:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) *Support User:Avala 19:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Support, assuming the image problems are solved. User:Jdforrester User_talk:Jdforrester 20:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) * Object. Good article 1) The article has a "bulleted" style, presenting the information primarily as lists. Lists are great for presenting certain types of information,(for example the "Official residences" section) but I think they make a poor style for structuring an encyclopedia article. 2) Slightly over italicisation of things for emphasis when it's not necessary (I can probably fix these myself). 3) Need some history of the "head of state"; (of course, people have had rulers for as long as we can remember, but this article is about a more specific concept). User:Matt Crypto 15:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) = "Presidential System" = Surely there's a better term than this? By far the majority of presidential systems around the world have a separate office of Prime Minister. I think it's useful to make the distinction, but the way the article currently reads makes it sound like most republics follow the american presidential model, which is demonstrably false. :I don't know much about all this, but how abaou semi-presidential systems? User:Dustinasby 10:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm afraid the correct term ''is'' presidential system. It is irrelevant whether there is a prime minister or not. The definition of whether a system is a presidential system is not is - is the executive answerable to the # head of state alone - if so it is a ''presidential system'' # head of state ''and'' parliament - then its a ''semi-presidential system'' # parliament - then it is a ''parliamentary system''. Some presidential systems have prime ministers, some don't. In most presidential systems the PM is a minor figure, a constitutional functionary and administrator who does the day to day dog work for the president. In parliamentary systems in contrast the PM ''is'' the key player, the head of government who leads government, chooses ministers, etc. PMs in presidential systems are servants, not masters. PMs in parliamentary systems are masters, not servants. I have corrected the article to remove some inaccuracies that seemed to have cropped into the text and expanded the information. User:Jtdirl 15:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Thanks, that's a whole lot clearer than the presidential system article. User:Ben Arnold 05:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) == "Parliament" vs. "Legislature" == Are all legislatures automatically parliaments? Which is the more general term? :Legislature. Parliament implies a Westminster system. - User:Sekicho 03:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC) In common parlance ''parliament'' is often used as a generic term for any legislature so we needn't be too strict about this. But, yes, in general the term ''legislature'' should be prefered for this kind of encyclopedia article. User:Iota 23:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Wrong, totally and utterly wrong. To claim that this idiosyncratic and culturocentric usage is "common parlance" simply to claim an absolute and outright lie. All parliaments are legislatures. Not all legislatures are parliaments. The US Congress is NOT a parliament. To speak of a "parliament" is to SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE bodies like the US Congress. User:Dogface 15:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Whose common parlance? Compare [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=define%3Alegislature&btnG=Search] and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=define%3parliament&btnG=Search] and tell me which one is more general... - User:Sekicho 23:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC) :It's not an important point so i won't argue it further here, but please don't shout (i.e. use capitals) or use inflaminatory language. Reasonable people can disagree you know. :On a separate point don't change the spellings in the article to US English. The rest of the article is in non-US English and it is the Wikipedia convention to leave it that way User:Iota 02:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) == QUESTION == In the text it is mentioned that presidents that acquire presidency by military means or by coup d'état are also considered as having a government running a presidential system. However, in the page "Lists of government" it says that presidential systems are a form of democracy (which dictatorships are clearly not), so where do you get the source that states that presidential systems also encompass governments where presidents have gained power via a coup d'état for example (i.e. by undemocratic means)?
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Head_of_State:
Head_of_State
Head_of_State
Head_of_state
Head_of_state
Head_of_State_(movie)
Head_of_state_of_Ghana
Head_of_state_of_Rhodesia
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
