The fact that politics is becoming "Presidentialistic" in Western Europe's parliamentary systems, and it appears as though people are electing their prime ministers is a different matte.r guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Ok, pretend for one second that you are explaining this to an alien who's just arrived on earth...
I thought the people of Italy just elected Prodi to be the Prime Minister. Is he beholden to the people or the President, who it appears has been chosen after the fact? Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
In France, like in the US, the head of state is an elected president who does have a lot of political power. That, among others, of appointing the executive.
Keep in mind my claim that Western Europe's Parliamentary systems are becoming pseudo-Presidentialistic [France is a separate case altogether].
So, in Italy it just so happens that the President's term expired close to the date of the parliamentary elections. It need not be that way. [France and the EU find themselves in the same situation, for some extrange reason: maybe this is another sign of presidentialization of the parliametary systems].
In Western European Republics [except France] the President is largely a figurehead just like the Monarchs in our Parliamentary monarchies. However, the president/monarch has some important ceremonial powers...
This is why when people elect their parliaments, they vote for their local party or candidate with the national party leader in mind as prime minister. Tony Blair was on the ballot only in one constituency, as was Prodi, as was Villepin. not nationwide.
Imagine for a minute that the US electors were actually (as opposed to just numerically) your congresspeople. Then people would have to vote for their local member of congress with a view to who they want in the white house [except on midterm elections].
It is possible for a government to fall without triggering an election. The PM would go to the king/President and resign. Then the King/Prez would decide whether to call an election or ask someone else to form an alternative ruling coalition. This happened in italy all the time: 4-year parliaments with 3 or 4 different prime ministers. Similarly, Villepin could resign without triggering an election. The UMP still has a huge majority in the national Assembly.
Is that confusing enough? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Am I detecting a note of objection to "Presidentialistic" government from you? To me it seems to provide, at least in the US case (the French Pres seems to have more power -by law, not in the way Bush does, which is not legal- than the US President) a nice set of checks and balances and avoid a "tyranny of the majority." Try not to read these words in the context of current events. I propose it is not the structure of our government but the nature of our economy, education system, campaign finance insanity, etc. that has led to our current problems.
Also, I have a big problem likening a Monarch to a President, not because of their function, but because of how they've obtained their position. (Though in this regard, Bush is more like Monarch, as he was not truly democratically elected...) Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
The French, American and Russian systems are Presidentialistic by design, and there's nothing wrong with that.
As for likening a monarch to a president...
Our Republican constitutions [except the French] are patterned after the Parliamentary Monarchies they replaced. The figurehead presidents have very similar powers [actual and ceremonial] as the old Kings used to have under the late 19th century/early 20th century parliamentary monarchy constitutions, which are still very similar to modern parliamentary monarchy constitutions.
Honestly, the US President and his cabinet look just like an 18th century enlightened despot king and his cabinet, and it is not coincidental that Alexander Hamilton thought the President should be elected for life. That was the first attempt by a bunch of people educated in a parliamentary monarchy to come up with a republican constitution.
Republican constitutions mimic the monarchic constitutions they replace. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
A President my be the public face of a nation and go through the same cermonial protocol as Kings, but that's nothing to do with the way they govern or are held to account. If this is what defines the nature of the executive, there would be no difference between Dictators, Military juntas, Kings, Presidents, PMs, Governors, etc. Which is not the case.
As to the way in which we've co-opted aspects of monarchy, it is a matter of evolution. Christians co-opted pagan holidays, but I think it is fair to say that pagans and Christians have very different world views. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Oh, come on. I'm not aware of any Monarch being elected or impeached by Parliament (without radically changing the nature of the country's political system.)
And speaking more of the modern age, the king of Sweden is often seen as perpetually running against a republic. If the royal family became unpopular and the peoples support waned, there would be a republic. With a figurehead president. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
There have also been republics with institutions not very different from monarchies. The English in their republican phase tried having a non-hereditary chief executive. Under the Instrument of Government (1653) the Council of State elected a Lord Protector for life. Later on in the Commonwealth the Lord Protector was given power to nominate an heir, which Oliver Cromwell did by selecting his eldest surviving son. The term of office of Lord Protector Richard Cromwell was short and unhappy.
Oliver Cromwell did not have the pretensions of the Stuart Kings to be an absolute monarch, but his practical powers were much the same. He also had the benefit of a more efficient state and a disciplined regular army to ensure that his power could be exercised more effectively.
The point I am trying to make is that when a country forms a new government it tends to be similar to the old one. The differences are either cosmetic or reactions to some aspects of the old system (absolute King and Lord Protector in seventeenth century England; constitutional monarch and President subject to checks and balances in eighteenth century America).
The evolution of Parliamentary government in nineteenth and twentieth century Europe, gradually made the head of government more important than the Chief of State.
There is a modern tendency, which France gave institutional form to by giving additional power to the Chief of State, to emphasise one person (usually the Head of government) more than the government as a whole or the Parliament.
The problem with the modern British executive is not the Monarch but the Prime Minister; whose power has grown, is growing and ought to be diminished.
Ceremonial Presidents, in contrast, can't be impeached (nor have the opportunity to give reason for), and are expected to be impartial once ascending to the job (just like constitutional Monarchs). The veto power (if they have it) is their sole 'real' power, though usually conditional: e.g. a Presidential veto effectively means that the law is sent to constitutional court or back to Parliament for a second vote.
Another thing the others haven't mentioned that ceremonial Presidents are usually (but not everywhere) chosen by Parliaments (joint sessions of two houses if there is a two-house Parliament), not popular vote. Proponets see the thus limited (and Monarch-like) legitimacy as something positive: the President would be less likely to want to usurp the PM's policy authority. View it as checks and balances. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
US system with executive President:
(British, Dutch, Scandinavian, Spanish) parliamentary democracy:
Parliamentary democracy with Parliament-elected ceremonial President (Germany, Italy, Hungary etc.):
Parliamentary democracy with popularly elected weak ceremonial President (Portugal, Slovakia etc.):
Parliamentary democracy with both PM and strong (some executive powers) President (France, Poland, Russia):
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If not then I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the American model. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Americans will usually say "administration" where Europeans say "government", I now realize. In Europe I think "administration" is synonimous with "state bureaucracy" and not restricted to the Cabinet or the heads of national government agencies.
I must not have made myself clear. I don't have a problem with American, French, or Russian presidentialism. I do have a problem with the presidentialisation [i.e., personalisation of politics on the party leaders and of admninistration on the prime minister] of our parliamentary systems.
I suggest that you google "Blair presidential style" to see what I mean. It is entirely possible that calling this "presidentialisation" is a popular misinterpretation of the American system, but that's another story.
Dodo should really turn this into a diary so we can hash it out there. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
In this connection, I am not entirely happy with DoDo's diagrams because generally there should be "proposes" arrows from the head of state down to the PM and from the President/PM down to the rest of the cabinet, and "approves" arrows up from the parliament to the PM and/or cabinet.
In many bicameral systems there are also members of the upper house who are not popularly elected [as was the case in the US initially]: senators "by royal designation", "nominated by the provincial/state government", "lifetime senators"...]. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Didn't I omit that only in the case of the American system? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Maybe the orange arrows pointing into the middle of the brack arrows?
It just didn't seem clear to me. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The irritating thing about the Parliamentary system is that Blair, for example, can't be voted out of office by the public at large without voting out the whole Labour party. If Labour stays in power he could theoretically continue as PM forever.
