:: wikimiki.org ::

Constitutional Monarchy

Constitutional monarchy

A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchical government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges a hereditary or elected monarch as head of state. Modern constitutional monarchies usually implement the concept of trias politica, or "separation of powers", where the monarch is the head of the executive branch. Where a monarch holds absolute power, it is known as an absolute monarchy, and law within an absolute monarchy can often be quite different from law within a constitutional monarchy. Today, constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents theories of sovereignty which place sovereignty in the hands of the people, and those that see a role for traditions in the theory of government. Though the king or queen may be regarded as the head of state, it is the Prime Minister, whose power derives directly or indirectly from elections, who actually governs the country. Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative democracies, this has not always historically been the case. There have been monarchies which have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or quasi-fascist), as was the case in Italy, Japan and Spain, or those in which the government is run as a military dictatorship, as was the case in Thailand. Some constitutional monarchies are hereditary; others, such as that of Malaysia are elective monarchies.

Differences between constitutional and absolute monarchies

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries several European countries experimented with new forms of government. Two of these were absolutism and constitutional monarchies.

Monarchy

Absolutism is a government in which a king or queen rules with total power, in other words as a dictator. The initiation of absolutism was made possible because countries were experiencing turmoil under existing governments. Religious wars, the decline of the church, and a growing middle class created a situation that demanded a leader to rule with complete power so as to restore order. Under absolutism the monarchs that ruled a country had total control because they believed they had a “divine right”. They believed that right was given to them by God and bestowed upon them the power to control the country totally. They often defended their abuse of power by saying that it was God’s will for them to rule. Also in an absolute monarchy the monarch makes all economic decisions. For example, Louis XIV of France abused his control of money by spending it on his Palace of Versailles. According to Early Modern France 1560-1715, at the end of Louis XIV reign, the French Royal Family was in debt 2 billion livres or about 21 billion dollars. This type of carelessness has the power to destroy countries, and it almost did so to France. Although having a monarch in total control over the economy can be dangerous, it also can be advantageous if the monarch is responsible and knowledgeable on the subject of economics. When one monarch has total control, their personal values may overrule core ethics. This can cause a reduction of personal freedoms when the monarch favors one group over another. King Louis XIV demonstrated this when he kicked the Huguenots out of France by canceling the Edict of Nantes. Many People supported absolutism, including Thomas Hobbes. He wrote a book called Leviathan arguing that an absolute state is the best form of government. Hobbes, contrary to popular wisdom, which is inaccurate, supported either absolute monarchy or an absolute democracy. He did not only support an absolute monarch. Hobbes said that all humans were naturally selfish and that to leave the state of chaos this selfishness created, they would agree to a social contract which prohibited acts against the person or property of another, and which would be enforced by an absolute sovereign. (Most undergraduates confuse 'sovereign' with monarch. This is not what Hobbes meant.)

Liberal Monarchy

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen rules with limits to their power along with a governing body (i.e. Parliament). A constitutional monarchy was able to form in England because there was a lack of strong leadership. Abuse of power by the king caused the English to question the “divine right” of the king. Also strong nobles and members of Parliament started to oppose the king’s authority. Parliament subsequently took several steps to limit the power of the king. First, they forced Charles I to sign the Petition of Right that says the king must go through Parliament to enact new laws, taxes, etc. After signing the Petition of Right, Charles I immediately ignored it, precipitating the English Civil Wars, and the eventual beheading of the king for treason. This sent a message to future monarchs of England that they did not have absolute power. During Charles II reign Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act said that any prisoner taken by the king would be given a trial. This prevented the king from simply removing his enemies by sending them to jail. When James II took the throne many people did not appreciate it when he flaunted his Catholicism. Therefore Parliament flexed its muscles once again by asking William of Orange to overthrow the king. William and his wife Mary came from the Netherlands and overthrew James II without bloodshed. This was called the “Glorious Revolution”. Once William and Mary had gained control of the throne, they completely supported the constitutional monarchy. Together they signed the Bill of Rights, which severely limited the power of the king, and gave more freedom to his subjects. One supporter of constitutional monarchy was John Locke. He wrote in his “Treatises on Government” that a direct democracy is the best form of government. He wrote that people are able to improve and rule themselves, and that people have three main rights. These rights are life, liberty, and property, and it is the government’s job to protect these rights. He also wrote that if the government is unjust the people have the right to overthrow it. This evolution in thinking would eventually spawn such movements as universal suffrage and political parties. By the mid 20th Century, the political culture in Europe had shifted to the point where all constitutional monarchs had been reduced to the status of effective figureheads, with no effective power at all. Instead, it was the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister who had become the true rulers of the nation. In many cases even the monarchs themselves, who once sat at the very top of the political and social heiarchy, were given the status of "servants of the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian reality.

Constitutional Monarchies Today

Popularity

In most constitutional monarchies today, the monarchy exists only at the pleasure of the elected parliament. In many cases, a simple majority vote in parliament is considered sufficient to abolish the monarchy and replace it with some form of republican alternative. With the exception of post-war Italy, no modern, democratic constitutional monarchy has voted to abolish itself. Most have ended as a result of complications following the aftermath of war or invasion (such as Austria or Germany) or because of a violent anti-monarchial revolution (such as in Russia or Greece). Though many of Europe's past and present leftist parties contain anti-monarchy factions, to date few have openly declared a preference for flat-out monarchial abolition, and instead use their powers to curtail and reform alleged "un-democratic" or "prejudiced" elements of the monarchy. For example, in recent years the age-old tradition of "males first" order of succession to the throne has been abolished in most constitutional monarchies, allowing for eldest daughters to assume the throne before their brothers. The removal of formal reserve powers from the monarchy is another common measure in which a party may chose to "de-politicize" the monarchy, yet not scrap the entire institution. The most likely reason why modern constitutional monarchies continue to survive is that the individual royal families themselves have remained popular. Today, most contemporary royal families go out of their way to project a modern image to the citizenry of a monarchy that is both caring and interested in the people and their country. Many members of modern royal families frequently make donations or participate in charity events, visit poor or sick citizens, and make public appearances at high profile sporting or arts events. Such moves can help make a monarchy seem contemporarily relevant, especially when the royals themselves get involved within the community. As long as a monarchy can remain popular in the public eye, there is little reason for the politicians to meddle, and those who do can easily find themselves at the receiving end of harsh public criticism. Other defenders of constitutional monarchies argue that royal families promote tourism, and are a key tradition associated with patriotism and national pride. For example, in many constitutional monarchies the monarch's birthday is a national holiday, and an event marked with public patriotic events and parties. In recent years many royal families have also become popular targets of tabloid journalism and gossip, which although often argued as being intrusive and destructive, continues to prove that many find royals interesting simply as celebrities. A further argument speculates that abolishing a popular monarchy may be a pointless endeavor anyway, as even a "deposed" royal family could presumably still live their royal lifestyle and capture public attention, making any republican replacement seem illegitimate. Historically, when monarchies have been abolished the royal family was usually exiled to a foreign country to prevent their presence from interfering or distracting from the new republican government. However, such moves were usually done during periods of conflict and turmoil with the monarchy. If a democratic country was to abolish its monarchy today, an exile for the royal family would likely be denounced as cruel, and would thus not be seen as a practical option.

Previous monarchies

France functioned briefly as a constitutional monarchy during the French Revolution. It also was a constitutional monarchy under the reign of Louis XVIII and Charles X, but the latter's attempt at reinstating absolute monarchy led to his fall. Louis-Philippe of France was also a constitutional monarch. Napoléon Bonaparte, as Emperor of the French, was a constitutional monarch, though he had wide powers and also occasionally abused powers that he did not have. Prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran was technically a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, though his unconstitutional actions and use of secret police in the later part of his reign qualify him as far more of an absolute monarch. Portugal until 1910 was a constitutional monarchy and the last king was Manuel II of Portugal. The last monarchic constitution, promulgated in 1838, excluded from the succession one of the actual pretender head of the Royal House of Portugal, Duarte Pio of Bragança. Category:Forms of government zh-min-nan:Ū hiàn-hoat ê ông-kok ko:입헌 군주제 ms:Raja berperlembagaan ja:立憲君主制

Monarchy

:For related meanings see also Monarch (disambiguation) A monarchy, (from the Greek monos, "one," and archein, "to rule") is a form of government that has a monarch as Head of State. The distinguishing characteristic of monarchies is that the Head of State holds their office for life, unlike in a republic, where a president is normally elected for a certain amount of time. The term monarchy is also used to refer to the people and institutions that make up the royal establishment, or to the realm in which the monarchy functions. Elective monarchies, distinguished by the monarchs being appointed for life, have in most cases been succeeded by hereditary monarchies. In the hereditary system, the position of monarch involves inheritance according to an order of succession, usually within one royal family tracing its origin back to a historical dynasty or bloodline. In some cases the royal family may claim to hold authority by virtue of God's choosing, or other religious-based authority. In most countries with monarchies, the monarch serves as a symbol of continuity and statehood. Many states have a strong convention against the monarch becoming involved in partisan politics (the Central African Empire was an exception). In some cases, the symbolism of monarchy alongside the symbolism of democracy can lead to division over the apparently contradictory principles.

History

Monarchies are one of the oldest forms of government, with echoes in the leadership of tribal chiefs. Many monarchies began with the monarch as the local representative and temporary embodiment of the deity: (King of Babylon). The monarch often ruled at the pleasure of the deity and was overthrown or sacrificed when it became apparent that supernatural sanction had been withdrawn: emperors of China, Mayan kings, Achaemenid kings of Persia. Other monarchs derived their power by acclamation of the ruling or of the warrior caste of a clan or group of clans: kings of the Franks, Roman emperors. Even where law is simply the monarch's will, the king must rule by custom. Since 1800, many of the world's monarchies have ceased to have a monarch and become republics, or become parliamentary democracies. Democratic countries which retain monarchy have by definition limited the monarch's power, with most having become constitutional monarchies. In England, this process began with the Magna Carta of 1215, although it did not reach democratic proportions until after the Glorious Revolution in 1689. Among the few states that have absolute monarchies are Swaziland, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. In Jordan and Morocco, the monarch retains considerable power. There are also recent (2003) developments in Liechtenstein, wherein the regnant prince was given the Constitutional power to dismiss the government at will.

Types of monarchy

In an absolute monarchy, the monarch has power over every aspect of the state, and a constitution may be granted or withdrawn. Modern versions tend to survive only in societies with sufficient technology to allow the concentration and organization of power, but not to allow education and rapid communication to flourish. The economic structure of such monarchies is that of concentrated wealth, with the majority of the population living as agricultural serfs. In some cases, a hereditary monarchy exists, but actual power resides in the military. This has often historically been the case in Thailand and Japan. In Fascist Italy a monarchy coexisted with a fascist party for longer than such co-existences occurred in Romania, Hungary or Greece. Spain under Francisco Franco was officially a monarchy even though there was no monarch on the throne; upon his death, Franco was succeeded as head of state by King Juan Carlos. There have also been situations in which a dictator or a group has proclaimed himself monarch in a republican state, thus starting a self-proclaimed monarchy with no historical ties to a previous dynasty. The most famous example of this was Napoleon Bonaparte who made himself Emperor of France after assuming control of the French Republic. On several occasions throughout history, the same person has served as monarch of separate independent states, in a situation known as a personal union. An empire was traditionally ruled by a monarchy whose leader may have been known by different titles in his different realms. Several former colonies of the British Empire, such as Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and New Zealand, continue to recognize the British Monarch as their own, under a separate title for each country. In other cases, such as England and Scotland, a personal union was the precursor to a merger of the states.

Succession

The rules for selection of monarchs varies from country to country. In constitutional monarchies the rule of succession is generally embodied in a law passed by a representative body, such as a parliament. The order of succession in most European monarchical states of the 21st century is by primogeniture, meaning the eldest son of the monarch is first in line, followed by his male, then female siblings in order of age. In earlier times, the succession was often unclear and this led to a number of wars. Currently, there is some controversy over the succession laws of some monarchies in the European Union (EU), such as that of the United Kingdom (UK) or the Scandinavian monarchies, which require their monarch to be of a certain faith (in the UK under the Act of Settlement 1701). This has been challenged as violating EU rules that prohibit religious disqualification for positions of state authority. Some autocratic states can appear to have introduced inheritance for the head of state without declaring themselves to be monarchies, such as Syria and North Korea. See family dictatorship.

Destruction of monarchies

Monarchies can come to an end in several ways. There may be a revolution in which the monarchy is overthrown; or, as in Italy, there may be a referendum in which the electorate decides to form a republic. In some cases, as with England and Spain, the monarchy has been overthrown and then restored. Countries may regard themselves as monarchies without a named monarch, as Spain did from 1947 to 1975, and Hungary from 1920 to 1944. A person who claims to be the legitimate heir to a deposed monarchy is called a pretender. See also abolished monarchies for a list of recently abolished monarchies.

Unusual examples

Sometimes, component members of federal states are monarchies, even though the federal state as a whole is not; for example each of the emirates that form the United Arab Emirates has its own monarch (an emir). Another unique situation is Malaysia, in which the national king, called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Paramount Ruler, is elected for a five year term from and by the nine sultans who are the hereditary rulers of the States of the Malay peninsula. In addition to his spiritual role, the Pope is the monarch of the Vatican City. He is elected by (and customarily from among) the College of Cardinals. (Since the Catholic episcopate is celibate, naturally there can be no official hereditary succession to the papal throne.) Notwithstanding this the papacy has often been under the control of powerful Italian families. Several popes have been succeeded by near relatives, in some cases by their own sons (officially described as nephews). Andorra has two co-princes, of which one is the Bishop of Urgell in Spain, and the other is the President of France—a unique case where an independent country's monarch is democratically elected by the citizens of another country. Samoa is often erroneaously described as a monarchy. The president-for-life, or "o le Ao o le Malo" is Malietoa Tanumafili II, is a member of one of the three princely families. The Constitution designates him Head of State for life, but he will be succeeded by an elected president.

Current monarchies

(see also List of countries by system of government) In many countries that are legally republics, there is an heir to the throne who is recognized by part of the nation. A list of such countries is available in the pretender article.

External links

- [http://www.monarchy.net The Monarchist League]
- [http://www.royaltymonarchy.com Theodore's Royalty and Monarchy Page] Category:Forms of government Category:Political systems
- ja:君主制 ko:군주제

Monarch

:For other senses, see monarch (disambiguation). A monarch (see sovereign) is a type of ruler or head of state. Monarchs almost always inherit their titles and are rulers for life. Historically monarchs have been more or less absolute rulers, though modern monarchs are typically figureheads with little power. Monarchs usually represent a larger monarchical system which has established rules and customs regarding succession, duties, and powers. A nation ruled by a monarch is called a monarchy. The word "monarch" derives from Greek monos archein, meaning "one ruler," and referred to an absolute ruler in ancient Greece. With time, the word has been succeeded in this meaning by others, like autocrat or dictator, and the word monarch in modern usage almost always refers to a traditional system of hereditary rulership (but see the discussion on elective monarchies below).

Possible definitions of the term

Which rulers are considered monarchs today is partially a matter of tradition, so there are no hard and fast rules. There are, however, a number of characteristics that are commonly, though not universally, distinguishing for monarchs:
- Most monarchs hold their office for life, while most other rulers do not. A monarch may chose to resign his position through abdication, though this is a rare and dramatic practice.
- Exceptions to this include the French co-prince of Andorra, who is not appointed for life (he is the French President, elected for a five year period by the French people), but still generally considered a monarch because of the use of a traditionally monarchical title. (Though, a purist might regard Andorra as a diarchy.) Similarly, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) of Malaysia is considered a monarch although only holding the office five years at a time. On the other hand, several life-time dictators around the world have not been considered monarchs.
- Most monarchs are raised within a royal family where they are taught to expect and obey their future "duties," and they are, formally or informally, succeeded upon their death or abdication by members of their own family, usually their eldest son or eldest child. As a result, most stable monarchies have a long legacy of rule by a single family or bloodline.
- Once again, Malaysia is an exception, as is the Vatican City (the Pope bears the title "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City"). Also, the practice is not totally uncommon in systems which are not considered monarchical, such as family dictatorships.
- Most monarchs hold titles that are traditional among monarchs (see below). While this is a fairly arbitrary characteristic, it might just be the best distinction between monarchs and non-monarchs at the moment.

Different types of monarchs

Monarchy is the form of government involving a monarch. It can be either absolute or constitutional, and constitutional monarchies may even restrict the powers of the monarch to the point where he is little more than a near-powerless figurehead, which is a common modern practice. The word monarchy can also be used about a country which has such a system. Normally however, such countries identify themselves more narrowly depending on the actual title used by the monarch – e.g., as a kingdom, grand duchy, or principality. Elective monarchies were once common, although only a very small portion of the population was eligible to vote. As the impact of the feudal system diminished, many monarchs were eventually allowed to introduce hereditary succession, guaranteeing that the title and office will stay within the family. Today, almost all monarchies are hereditary monarchies in which the monarchs come from one royal family with the office of sovereign being passed from one family member to another upon the death or abdication of the incumbent. Existing elective monarchies include Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the Holy See. The former system of the election of the doge in Venice is also widely known. A sovereign is the monarch of a sovereign state. Although non-sovereign states have often had monarchs historically (not least within the Holy Roman Empire), all European monarchs since 1918 have been sovereigns. Outside Europe there still exist several monarchs of subnational entities however, most notably in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. A more obscure example is that of Kings of the French Wallis and Futuna territory. In a few cases a monarch is associated with a particular group (or nation) within a state, such as Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu of the Maori (the Maori Queen) and Osei Tutu II of the Ashanti.

European monarchical titles

In Europe, a monarch may traditionally bear any of several titles. Although monarchs have normally been male, each of these titles also has a female counterpart. This is used not only in the (historically rare) case that the monarch is female, but also for wives of monarchs (when there is need to distinguish between the two cases, terms like Queen regnant and Queen consort are used). The converse is not true however: the husband of a queen regnant is not automatically a king (e.g., the Duke of Edinburgh is not King Philip of the United Kingdom). The more frequent use of the word monarch in recent years arises from this possibility of a male or female ruler. Formerly, the ruler was expected to be male, therefore a terminology of masculine words developed, the feminine words expressing a different role. The word monarch covers both sexes so is more acceptable in a general discussion in a gender-conscious culture. The normal monarch title in Europe – i.e., the one used if the monarch has no higher title – is Prince. It was a common title within the Holy Roman Empire, along with a number of higher titles listed below. Such titles were granted by the Emperor, while the titulation of rulers of sovereign states was generally left to the discretion of themselves, most often choosing King. Such titulations could cause diplomatic problems, and especially the elevation to Emperor was seen as an offensive action. During the 19th and 20th centuries most small monarchies in Europe disappeared to form larger entities, and so King has become the most common title today.
- As popes are usually Catholic priests (technically not a requirement, see Pope - Election), a celibate office forbidden to women, there is no female equivalent. Legends of female popes (see Pope Joan) refer to them as "pope." Some European languages have a feminine form of the word pope, such as the French papesse (to pape) or German Päpstin (to Papst), used, among other things, for the High Priestess tarot card. Note that some of these titles have several meanings and do not necessarily designate a monarch. A Prince can be a person of royal blood (some languages uphold this distinction, see Fürst). A Duke can be a British peer. In Imperial Russia, a Grand Duke was a son or grand-son of the Tsar. Holders of titles in these alternative meanings did not enjoy the same status as actual monarchs of the same title. Within the Holy Roman Empire, there were even more titles that were occasionally used for monarchs although they were normally noble; Margrave, Count Palatine, Landgrave. An actual monarch with such low titles still outranked a noble Duke. Today, there are seven kingdoms, one grand duchy, and two principalities in Europe, excluding the peculiar case of Andorra.

Monarchical titles in use by non-monarchs

It is not uncommon that people who are not generally seen as monarchs nevertheless use monarchical titles. There are three cases of this:
- Claiming an existing title, challenging the current holder. This has been very common historically. For centuries, the British monarch used, among his other titles, the title King of France, despite the fact that he had no authority over French territory. There have also been numerous antipopes.
- Retaining the title of an extinct monarchy. This can be coupled with a claim that the monarchy was in fact never, or should never have been, extinct. An example of the first case is the Prince of Seborga. Examples of the second case are several deposed monarchs or otherwise pretenders to thrones of abolished monarchies, e.g., Leka, Crown Prince of Albania who is styled by some as the "King of Albania." Retaining the title of an extinct monarchy can, however, be totally free of claims of sovereignty, as when Juan Carlos I of Spain includes "King of Jerusalem" in his full title. When it comes to deposed monarchs, it is customary to continue the usage of their monarchical title (e.g., Constantine II, King of the Hellenes) as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office, for the duration of their lifetime. However the title then dies with them and cannot be used by anyone else unless the crown is restored constitutionally. (Some republicans take offence at this custom.) Monarchs who have freely abdicated lose their right to use their former title. However where a monarch abdicated under duress (e.g., Michael I of Romania), it is customary to see the abdication as invalid and to treat them as deposed monarchs entitled to use their monarchical style for their lifetime.
- Inventing a new title. This is common by founders of micronations, and also may or may not come with a claim of sovereignty. When it does, it is most often disregarded by state leaders. A notable example is Paddy Roy Bates, styling himself the "Prince of Sealand," but not recognized as such by any national government, thus failing at least the constitutive condition for statehood (see Sealand for a fuller discussion of his claims).

Other monarchical titles

In China, "king" is the usual translation for the term wang, which designated the sovereign before the Qin dynasty and during the Ten Kingdoms period. During the early Han dynasty, China had a number of small kingdoms, each about the size of a county and subordinate to the Emperor of China. When a difference exists, male titles are placed to the left and female titles are placed to the right of the slash.

By region

- Africa
- Chieftain - Leader of a "primitive" people
- Pharaoh - early Egypt
- Negus - Ethiopia
- Oba - Yoruba people of Nigeria
- Americas
- Cacique - Aboriginal Hispaniola
- Hueyi Tlatoani - Aztec Empire
- Ajaw - Maya
- Inca - Tahuantinsuyu (Inca Empire)
- Asia
- Druk Gyalpo —heriditary title given to the king of Bhutan
- Chogyal — "Divine Ruler" — ruled Sikkim till 1975
- Hwangje - States that unified Korea
- Wang - States of Korea that do not have control over all of Korea
- Badshah - India (emperor)
- Huangdi - Imperial China
- Maharaja/Maharani - India
- Nawab, Wali - Muslim rulers of principalities or princes under Mughal (Mogul) or British Indian Empires
- Nizam - Hyderabad, India
- Susuhanan - the Indonesian princely state of Surakarta until its abolition
- Sultan - Aceh, Brunei Darussalam
- Meurah -Aceh before Islam
- Yang Dipertuan Agong - king of Malaysian Federations, elected each 5 years among the reining monarch in Malaysia.
- Tenno or Mikado - Japan
- Wang - pre-Imperial China
- Europe
- Arqa / Thagavor - Armenian king
- Germanic king
- Βασιλεύς-Greek
- Vezér - Ancient Hungarian
- Fejedelem - Ancient/Medieval Hungarian
- Vojvod (Serbian) / Vajda (Hungarian) - Serbian / Hungarian / Romany Title
- Rí and Ard Rí - Respectively King and High King in Ireland.
- Kniaz'/Knyaginya (generally translated as "prince") - Kievan Rus'
- Tsar/Tsaritsa - Imperial Russia
- Kunigaikshtis (Kunigaikštis) - Lithuanian,duke as in Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
- Middle East
- Bei
- Caliph - Islamic holy title
- Emir - Arabic holy title
- Khan - Mongol Emperor or Turkish, Afghan, Pashtun or other Central Asian chieftain
- Malik/Malika - Arabic leader
- Pharaoh - Ancient Egypt
- Shah - Persia/Iran, Afghanistan
- Shahenshah - Persia/Iran, "King of Kings" or emperor
- Shaikh - Arabic leader
- Sultan/Sultana - Arabic King
- Oceania
- Chieftain - Leader of a "primitive" people
- King - there were/are also kings in Oceania (i.e. Tonga,Wallis and Futuna, Nauru)
- Houeiki - Chief status in the Tongan traditional system.

General monarch titles

- Autocrat - General term for absolute monarch.
- Emperor/Empress - Empire
- Grand Duke/Grand Duchess - Grand Duchy
- King/Queen - Kingdom
- Prince/Princess - Sovereign Principality
- Sovereign Duke/Count/Baron - Sovereign Duchy/County/Barony - (Grand)Children have the title Princely-, like Princely-Lord

Succession

Succession from one monarch to another varies from country to country. Traditionally, hereditary succession within members of one family has been most common. The usual hereditary succession has based on some cognatic principles and on seniority, though also merits have influenced. Thus, the most common hereditary system in feudal Europe was based on cognatic primogeniture, where a lord was succeeded by his eldest son, and failing sons, by either daughters or by sons of daughters. The system of tanistry was semi-elective and gave weight also to merits and capability. The Quasi-Salic succession provided firstly male members of the family to succeed, and secondarily males also from female lines. In most feudal fiefs, females (such as daughters and sisters) were allowed to succeed, brothers failing, but usually the husband of the heiress became the real lord and most often also got title, iure uxoris. Great Britain and Spain are today continuing this old model of succession law, in form of cognatic primogeniture. In more complex medieval cases, the sometimes conflicting principles of proximity and primogeniture battled, and outcomes could have been idiosyncratic. As the average life span increased (lords limited their own participation in dangerous battles, and society's more wealthy had increasingly better sustenance and living conditions, which improved general health among princes), primogeniture began to win the battle against proximity, tanistry, seniority and election. Later, when lands were strictly divided among noble families and tended to remain fixed, agnatic primogeniture (practically the same as Salic Law) became the most usual: succession going to the eldest son of the monarch; if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the nearest male relative through male line. Some countries however accepted female rulers early on, so that if the monarch had no sons, the throne would pass to the eldest daughter. (This, cognatic primogeniture, was the rule that let Elizabeth II become Queen.) In 1980, Sweden became the first European monarchy to abolish this preference for males altogether, declaring equal primogeniture or full cognatic primogeniture, so that the eldest child of the monarch now ascends to the throne, be that child male or female. Other kingdoms (Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1991 and the Netherlands) have followed. In some monarchies, e.g. Saudi Arabia, succession to the throne has passed to the monarch's next eldest brother, and only to the monarch's children after that (= agnatic seniority). In some other monarchies (e.g. Jordan), the monarch chooses who will be his successor, who need not necessarily be his eldest son.

Current monarchs

NOTE: The table comprises all sovereign monarchs of the world today, but is severely incomplete with regard to the non-sovereign monarchs.

External links

- [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm A Glossary of European Noble, Princely, Royal and Imperial Titles]
- [http://www.archontology.org Archontology]
- Monarch Monarch Category:Titles zh-min-nan:Ông ko:군주 ja:君主

Separation of powers

Separation of powers is a model of democracy that involves the separation of political power between 3 branches of the state: The Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. In the "separation of powers" model, each branch is prevented from exerting power in the field of responsibility of another branch. Nonetheless each branch of the state may be empowered to exert checks on the actions of the other branches.

Checks and balances

The phrase "checks and balances" was also coined by Montesquieu. In a system of government with competing sovereigns (such as a multi-branch government or a federal system), "checks" refers to the ability, right, and responsibility of each power to monitor the activities of the other(s); "balances" refers to the ability of each entity to use its authority to limit the powers of the others, whether in general scope or in particular cases. Keeping each independent entity within its prescribed powers can be a delicate process. Public support, tradition, and well-balanced tactical positions do help maintain such systems. The essential difference between the separation of powers as developed in common law theory and in France was that in the former, the checks and balances inherent in the mixed constitution and in Montesquieu's analysis were incorporated into the doctrine. In France, on the other hand, the judges were regarded as sources themselves of tyranny and not liberty as in England, and the hostility of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to any check or limit on the popular will, combined to establish the 'non-interference' model of the separation of powers.

The three-branch system

Case study: The United States

Main article: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution Famously, the framers of the United States Constitution are said to have taken the best of many concepts including the then-new concept of the separation of powers in drafting the constitution. The concept is also prominent in the state governments of the United States; as colonies of Britain, the founding fathers felt that the American states had suffered an abuse of the broad power of the monarchy. As a remedy, the American Constitution limits the powers of the federal government through several means, but in particular by dividing up the power of the government among three competing branches of government. Each branch checks the actions of the others and balances their powers in some way. The following table describes the various "checks and balances" in details.

Branch	Constitutional Powers	Executive counterbalance	Legislative counterbalance	Judicial counterbalance
Executive (President)	Operational command of government services and contracts Sole power to wage war (operational command of the military) Responsibility for negotiating treaties Power to appoint judges, diplomats, cabinet, and department heads Police powers of arrest, detainment, and search Prosecutes crimes Collects taxes	Civilian and military chains of command constrain low-level executive officials to obey the policies of high-level officials. Extensive bureaucracy limits ability of executive to make extensive changes in operational practices.	Power to determine what laws exist Power to write laws to constrain the internal operation of government Power to write laws limiting searches, arrests, and detentions Power to make laws concerning what regulations may be declared by the executive power to declare war Responsibility for ratifying treaties (Senate) Responsibility for confirming executive appointments (Senate) Power to set the budget of the executive Power to impeach and remove executive officers (two-thirds majority) Power to set limits	Acts as a neutral mediator when the executive brings criminal or civil enforcement actions, and has the power to stop inappropriate enforcement Issues warrants for searches and arrests May declare actions of the executive to be illegal and/or unconstitutional Determines which laws apply to any given case
Legislative (Congress)	Power to write laws Power to enact taxes, authorize borrowing, and set the budget Sole power to declare war Various other powers of the federal government Subpoena (investigative) power	May veto laws (but this may be overridden by a two-thirds majority in both houses) May refuse to enforce certain laws May refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes Sole power to wage war (operational command of the military) Responsibility for making declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgating lawful regulations and executive orders Executive privilege (refusal to submit to legislative subpoena) Use of the bully pulpit to propose and advocate for laws	Each house is responsible for policing its own members. Powers internal to the legislature are split between its two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Only the House may originate spending bills. Only the House may impeach the President, but only the Senate may remove him or her from office. Only the Senate approves treaties and nominees. Each house can prevent the other from passing any law.	May declare laws unconstitutional and unenforceable Determines which laws apply to any given case
Judicial (Supreme Court)	Sole power to interpret the law and apply it to particular disputes Power to determine the disposition of prisoners Appointed for life Power to compel testimony and the production of documents	Responsibility to appoint judges Power to grant pardons to federal offenders	Sole power to pass Constitutional amendments (by two-thirds majority and with the consent of three-quarters of the states) Power to determine the size and structure of the courts Power to determine the budgets of the courts Responsibility for confirming judicial nominees Power to impeach and remove judges Power to determine courts' jurisdiction (except Supreme Court's original jurisdiction)	The appeals process enforces uniform policies in a top-down fashion, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case being reviewed.) May only rule in cases of an actual dispute brought between actual petitioners Polices its own members

Maintaining balance

The independence of the executive and legislative branches is partly maintained by the fact that they are separately elected, and are held directly accountable to the public. There are also judicial prohibitions against certain types of interference in each others' affairs. (See "separation of powers" cases in the List of United States Supreme Court cases.) Judicial independence is maintained by life appointments, with voluntary retirement, and a high threshold for removal by the legislature. The legal mechanisms constraining the powers of the three branches depend a great deal on the popular sentiment of the people of the United States. Popular support establishes legitimacy, and makes possible the physical implementation of legal authority. National crises (such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, pre-Pearl Harbor World War II, the Vietnam War) have been the times at which the principle of separation of powers has been most endangered, through official "misbehavior" or through the willingness of the public to sacrifice such principles if more pressing problems are solved. In the present day, the American state is remarkably stable, and all three branches have largely enjoyed their sovereign powers continuously since the founding of the republic. The system of checks and balancing is also self-reinforcing. Potential abuse of power is deterred and the legitimacy and sustainability of any power grab is undermined by the ability of the other two branches to take corrective action. This is intended to reduce opportunities for tyranny and to increase the general stability of the government. However, as James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Bicameralism was, in part, intended to reduce the relative power of the legislature, by turning it against itself, by having "different modes of election and different principles of action." (This is one of the arguments against the popular election of Senators, which was instituted by the Seventeenth Amendment.) But when the legislature is unified, it wields dominant, unbalanced, power over the other branches. The words "checks" and "balances" never actually appear together in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers, except once, in Federalist 9, where Alexander Hamilton was referring to the balancing features of the proposed bicameral system.

Fourth branch: Independent executive agencies

The federal executive is a very large bureaucracy, and due to civil service rules, most mid- and low-level employees do not change when a new person becomes President. (New high-level officials are usually appointed and must be confirmed by the Senate.) Moreover, semi-independent agencies (such as the Federal Reserve or the Federal Communications Commission) may be created by the legislature within the executive, which exercise legally defined regulatory powers. High-level regulators are appointed by the President and confirmed by the legislature, and must follow the law and perhaps certain lawful executive orders. But they often sit for long, fixed terms and enjoy reasonable independence from other policy makers. Because of its importance to modern governance, the regulatory bureaucracy of the executive is sometimes referred to as a "fourth" branch of government.

Fourth branch: The press

The press has also been described as a "fourth power" because of its considerable influence over public opinion (which it wields by widely distributing facts and opinions about the various branches of government). Public opinion in turn affects the outcome of elections. The press is also sometimes referred to as the Fourth Estate, a term of historical French origin, which is not related to the modern three-branch system of government. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of the press, a principle which was later extended to state and local governments, in addition to the federal government.

State and local governments

The American states mirror the executive/legislative/judicial split of the federal government. Major cities tend to do so as well, but in general, the arrangements for local and regional governments vary widely. Because the judicial branch is often a part of a state or county government, the geographic jurisdiction of local judges is often not coterminous with municipal boundaries. In many American states and local governments, executive authority and law enforcement authority are separated by allowing citizens to directly elect public prosecutors (district attorneys and state attorneys-general). In some states, judges are also directly elected. Many localities also separate special powers from their executive and legislative branches, through the direct election of police chiefs, school boards, transit agency boards, park commissioners, insurance commissioners, and the like. Juries (groups of randomly selected citizens) also have an important role in the check-and-balance system. They have the sole authority to determine the facts in most criminal and civil cases, acting as a powerful buffer against arbitrary enforcement by the executive and judicial branches. In many jurisdictions they are also used to determine whether or not a trial is warranted, and in some places Grand Juries have independent investigative powers with regard to government operations.

Three-branch systems around the world

Parliamentary systems

The United States uses a presidential system of government, but around the world, a more common system is the parliamentary system. In parliamentary democracies, the executive branch is dependent or is in some sense part of the legislature.

Case study: United Kingdom

See also: Constitution of the United Kingdom Separation of powers has never been a prominent part of the political thought of the United Kingdom. The Executive is drawn from the Legislature, and is subordinate to it. Since the Executive is drawn from the leadership of the dominant party in parliament, party discipline often results in a de facto situation of Executive control of the Legislature, although in reality MPs can reject their leadership and vote against them. The House of Lords is the highest court of appeal for civil matters in the United Kingdom and for criminal matters for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These appeals are heard by Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) who, in effect, are a committee of the House of Lords. This means that the highest court of appeal is part of the House of Lords and thus part of the legislature. At times, various Home Secretaries have taken decisions which in other countries are judicial, such as the release, or continued detention, of prisoners. Thus it can be seen that in the United Kingdom the three "powers" are not separated, but are entwined. However, this has never threatened British civil government. In contrast, many countries which have adopted separation of powers (especially in Latin America) have suffered from instability (coups d'etat, military dictatorships etc.). Some observers believe that no obvious case exists in which such instability was prevented by the separation of powers. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept in British constitutional law that a parliament has ultimate authority over all affairs of government, including the monarch and the courts. In theory, this seems to be in direct opposition to the concept of separation of powers. In the British system, however, there is a considerable amount of de facto independence among agents exercising various functions, and Parliament is limited by various legal instruments, international treaties and constitutional conventions. The Crown has distinct functions in its different spheres. Curiosities - such as the Lord Chancellor having an executive, legislative, and judicial role; and the House of Lords being a legislative chamber, but including some senior judges - are in the process of reform. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 seeks to bring stronger separation of powers to the British system. Some have defended the current system on the grounds that it discourages judges from making law by judicial rather than legislative means.

Taiwan (Republic of China) : Five branches

Some countries take the doctrine further than the three-branch system. The government of the Republic of China, for example, has five branches: the Executive Yuan, Legislative Yuan, Judicial Yuan, Control Yuan, and Examination Yuan. (Some European countries have rough analogues to the Control Yuan in the forms of ombudsmen, separate from the executive and the legislature.) However, as Taiwan is a young democracy, the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch is often poorly defined. In practice, there are a number of problems with the current system in Taiwan. The president has neither the power to veto nor the ability to dissolve the legislature and call new elections. Therefore if there are no negotiations between the legislature and the president, and the president's party does not have a majority in the legislature, there is almost complete political paralysis. http://www.fpri.org/enotes/asia.20020418.rigger.taiwanpoliticalparalysis.html

The press around the world

Main articles: Freedom of the press, public broadcasting Media freedom is generally considered to be a core supporting mechanism for democratic governments, and it is found in all strong democracies, regardless of the organizational principle of the "branches" of government. Many governments financially support public broadcasting in one way or another, but in strong democracies, even these media outlets enjoy strong editorial independence from the government. An independent press acts as a powerful check against all forms of government, because it provides information about its activities to the public.

Criticisms

In parliamentary systems such as the United Kingdom the three "powers" are not separated. However, this has not threatened British stability. In contrast, many countries which have adopted separation of powers (especially in Latin America) have suffered from instability (coups d'etat, military dictatorships etc.). Some observers believe that no obvious case exists in which such instability was prevented by the separation of powers. It is possible that the existence of a strong independent executive encourages instability, because it is less concensus-orientated than a parliamentary system, and because it accustoms the population political elite to a excessively dominant individual leader. The categories of the functions and corresponding powers of government are inclined to become blurred when it is attempted to apply them to the details of a particular constitution. Some hold that the true distinction lies not in the nature of the powers themselves, but rather in the procedure by which they are exercised. There is no current constitutional system which adopts a complete separation of powers, in the sense of a distribution of the three functions among three independent sets of organs with no overlapping or coordination. Some of the early American States and the French Constitution of 1791 tried strictly to give effect to this doctrine but failed.

Related restraint-of-power concepts

- Federalism - (also known as vertical separation of powers) Preventing abuse by dividing governing powers, the separation is usually between municipal, provincial and national governments. See also subsidiarity.
- Rule of law - Prevents arbitrary exercise of thr executive power, preserves general and minority rights, and promotes stability and predictability.
- Democracy and civil society - Attempts to constrain elected branches of government to act in the public interest, not in self-interest.
- Separation of church and state or Laïcité - Ensures freedom of religion by preventing government interference in its practice. Also constrains the power of government by maintaining freedom of conscience and belief.
- Civilian control of the military - Helps prevent dictatorship through military rule.
- Central bank

External links

- Wikibooks: [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Three_Branches The Three Branches]
- [http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html Separation of Powers Topic at USConstitution.net]
- Historical [http://air.fjc.gov/history/topics/topics_ji_bdy.html impeachments] of federal judges.
- A [http://www.institutionalreform.org survey instrument] to reveal the relative strengths of different spheres of government and society to guard against political corruption Category:Political science ms:Pembahagian kuasa ja:権力分立

Absolute monarchy

Absolute monarchy is an idealized form of government, a monarchy where the ruler has the power to rule his or her country and citizens freely with no laws or legally-organized direct opposition telling him or her what to do, although some religious authority may be able to discourage the monarch from some acts and the sovereign is expected to act according to custom. There is no constitution or body of law above what is decreed by the sovereign. As a theory of civics, absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth. In theory, an absolute monarch has total power over his or her people and land, including the aristocracy and sometimes the clergy (see caesaropapism), but in practice, absolute monarchs have often found their power limited. Some monarchies have powerless or symbolic parliaments and other governmental bodies that the monarch can alter or dissolve at will. Despite effectively being absolute monarchies, they are technically constitutional monarchies due to the existence of a constitution and national canon of law.

Theories and History

The theory of absolute monarchy developed in the late Middle Ages from feudalism during which monarchs were still very much first among equals among the nobility. With the creation of centralized administrations and standing armies backed by expensive artillery, the power of the monarch gradually increased relative to the nobles, and from this was created the theory of absolute monarchy.

Divine Rights

Early Absolutists advocated the theory of Divine Right of Kings to justify their position. In the 16th century, monarchs took advantage of the clergy's weakness during the Reformation to impose their will. They declared to have the ability to decide the religion of their subjects. Henry VIII of England seized the property of the Catholic church while France claimed "Gallican liberties". These new monarchs claimed to be responsible solely to God. They attempted to eliminate or marginalize customs, institutions, and laws that held their predecessors in check.

Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes believed that all the people should invest their power and rights in one sovereign ruler. He also argued the ruler has the ability to decree anything for the sake of the people. People may not argue with the rulers rulings.

Enlightened Despotism

In France, the monarchy was able to eventually centralise its powers and sideline Parliament and nobles. A classic example of an absolute monarchy is that of Louis XIV of France. During the Enlightenment, the theory of absolute monarchy was supported by the French philosophes as a form of enlightened despotism. The philosophes argued that only an enlightened monarch can introduce progressive reforms to curtail feudalism and reactionary clergy. However, it must be pointed out that while Louis XV and Louis XVI were absolute monarchs in theory, they had to contend with many private interests, some of which opposed reforms, such as the great nobility and the parlements. Enlightened despotism was discredited with the fall of Napoleon. The popularity of the notion of absolute monarchy declined substantially after the French Revolution and American Revolution, which promoted theories of government based on popular sovereignty.

Modern examples

The remaining absolute monarchies in the modern world are in Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Swaziland. One might also add the Vatican City state (headed by an elected monarch who has absolute power). In Jordan and Tonga, the monarch (although not absolute) retains considerable power. In Nepal, King Gyanendra dismissed Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba due to the ongoing conflict with the Maoists, and formed his own cabinet [http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/01/nepal.govt/], but claims democracy will return in 3 years. In Liechtenstein, nearly two-thirds of the tiny principality's electorate have agreed to give Prince Hans Adam veto power he asked for. Although this does not make Hans Adam an absolute monarch, it makes him closer to being an absolute monarch than almost all other royals in Europe. Many of the nations in the Middle East, such as Qatar, and Kuwait, are said to be absolute monarchies as well, as their monarchs continue to hold great power under their respective constitutions. However, in these cases there are also parliaments and other council bodies that advise and curtail the monarch's effective authority.

Examples in the Past

An absolute monarch is one who has total control over his or her country and who claims that they rule by divine right. In order to be a successful absolute monarch, one must keep one’s threats far away and out of power, so as to ensure full political control. In addition, a monarch must have complete control over the religious groups of the country. This has been dictated by the past, as the rulers who follow these guidelines have prospered and maintained their power while those who didn’t were overthrown or killed. Charles the First, Louis the 14th and Peter the Great were all absolute monarchs who demonstrated, to different degrees, what is required to maintain total control. Louis XIV was a successful absolute monarch. He ruled over France with divine right and ensured that he was all-powerful. He maintained rule over his country for such a long time because of two reasons. First, he made sure his threats and people who disagreed with him were far from his power base. Whenever he felt threatened by a noble or person, Louis would send that person to a rural area of Europe in order to keep them from causing trouble. By eliminating the people who threatened him in this way, he was able to create a strong and stable set of delegated nobles nearby who only supported him. The other reason he was able to maintain full control of France was because he was the head of the Catholic Church in France. Because religion was a strong force in every household back then, having control over the church allowed Louis to have even more control over the people. He ordered that all non-Catholics either be converted or sentenced to death so that he could keep his country pure and unified, which would ultimately allow for a long reign. Another absolute monarch was Charles the First. Charles was not as successful a monarch as Louis XIV and only ruled over England for a short while before his own military overthrew and executed him. This is because he did not adhere to the guidelines for being a strong absolute ruler. Charles I allowed his threats to remain too close to him. His main threat was parliament, who disagreed with him often and made sure that he could not be in total control. By allowing parliament to exist, Charles could not fully rule over England as he would have liked. The other problem with his reign was that he could not manage and unify all the religious groups in England. While the head of the Anglican Church, or the Church of England, Charles could not manage to control the rebel Protestants and Puritans, which caused him a lot of trouble through protesting and riots. By allowing these minorities to continue rebelling, he lost power over England because he could not unify it. Finally, the parliament and military decided that he was detrimental to the country and ordered that he be executed. Finally, Peter the Great was an absolute monarch who was very successful in ruling over all of Russia for a long time. Peter the Great did this mainly through violence and threats of violence. If he believed that someone was a threat to his power, he quickly had them killed. People had to be very careful about disparaging him as, if he found out about it, Peter would have them executed. While this was a very strict, cruel and violent way of eliminating threats from his power base, it worked. As for religion, Peter had a lot of influence on the dominant church in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church. After deciding he needed to be in charge of religion, he banished the patriarch of the church and created the Holy Synod, a group of people who ruled over Russian religion. Peter appointed a spokesperson for himself as the head of this body, and now had a great deal of control over the church’s dealings. Although feared by many, Peter maintained control over Russia for his entire life and made it into a more powerful country. Overall, absolute monarchs must follow certain guidelines in order to create and maintain a successful rule over their country. Louis XIV and Peter the Great each secured full political control over their country, by eliminating threats, as well as full religious control over the church, both of which allowed for long reigns. It is evident that if a ruler does not have utilize these methods, they will not have absolute power and will most likely be overthrown, as Charles the First was.

Representative democracy

Representative democracy is a form of democracy and theory of civics in which voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. Modern liberal democracies are important examples of representative democracy. In the United States the term is often synonymous with "republic." Another form of representative democracy involves impartial selection of representatives through sortition. A representative democracy may involve more powers given to the legislators than under a constitutional monarchy or participatory democracy, so almost all constitutions provide for an independent judiciary and other measures to balance representative power:
- A representative democracy may provide for recall of elected representatives that voters become dissatisfied with.
- It may also provide for some deliberative democracy (e.g., Canadian Royal Commission) or
- direct democracy (e.g., referendum) measures. However, these are not always binding and usually require some legislative action - legal power usually remains firmly with representatives.
- Sometimes there is an "upper house" that is not directly elected, such as the Canadian Senate, which was in turn modelled on the UK House of Lords. A European medieval tradition of selecting representatives from the various estates (effectively, social classes, but not as we know them today) to advise/control monarchs led to relatively wide familiarity with representative systems. Edmund Burke in his speech to the electors of Bristol classically analysed their operation in Britain and the rights and duties of an elected representative. Representative democracy came into particular general favour in post-industrial revolution nation states where large numbers of subjects or (more recently) citizens evinced interest in politics, but where technology and population figures remained unsuited to direct democracy. Globally, in 2003, a majority of the world's people live in representative democracies (including constitutional monarchies with a strong representative branch)—the first time in history that this has been true. Representative democracy has been the most successful form of civics since absolute monarchy. Indeed, many (perhaps most) absolute monarchies were overthrown by the advocates of representative democracy, either in a revolution or through a gradual process of reform that saw the monarch lose most of his/her powers. Normally each representative is elected by, and responsible to, a particular subset of the total electorate: this is called his or her constituency. Most modern representative democracies incorporate elements of direct democracy: for example Switzerland always had a strong tradition in this sense. For other countries the reservations against direct democracy are often still stronger. In the European Union, for example, such differences between countries became apparent in the different approval procedures for the new European constitution. In some countries the constitution could only be accepted by referendum; in other countries such referendums are not compulsory and/or not binding, while yet other countries held no referendum at all.

Prime Minister

A prime minister may be either:
- chief or leading member of the cabinet of the top-level government in a country having a parliamentary system of government; or
- the official, in countries with a semi-presidential system of government, appointed to manage the civil service and execute the directives of the President. President (1940-1945, 1951-1955)]] In parliamentary systems like the Westminster system, the prime minister is the head of the government while the position of head of state is largely ceremonial. In some monarchies the prime minister exercises powers (known as the Royal Prerogative) which are constitutionally vested in the Crown and can be exercised without the approval of parliament. As well as being Head of Government, a prime minister may have other roles or titles—the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for example, is also First Lord of the Treasury. Prime ministers may take other ministerial posts—for example during the Second World War Winston Churchill was also Minister of Defence.

Prime ministers in republics and in monarchies

The post of prime minister is one which may be encountered both in constitutional monarchies (such as Belgium, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom), and in republics in which the head of state is an elected (such as France) or unelected official (such as Germany) with varying degrees of real power. This contrasts with the presidential system, in which the President (or equivalent) is both the head of state and the head of the government. See also "First Minister" , "Premier", "Chief Minister" "Chancellor" and "Taoiseach": alternative titles usually equivalent in meaning to "prime minister." In some presidential or semi-presidential systems such as those of France, Russia, South Korea, or Taiwan the prime minister is an official generally appointed by the President but approved by the legislature and responsible for carrying out the directives of the President and managing the civil service. In these systems, it is possible for the president and the prime minister to be from different political parties if the legislature is controlled by a party different from that of the president. When it arises, such a state of affairs is usually referred to as (political) cohabitation.

Entry into office

In parliamentary systems a prime minister can enter into office by a number of means.
- by appointment by the head of state without the need for confirmation by parliament; Examples: New Zealand, the United Kingdom, where the monarch appoints a prime minister without the need for confirmation from parliament, which gets its first chance to indicate its view on the new government in the vote on the Speech from the Throne, in which the new government outlines its legislative programme. The method of prime ministerial appointment by the British sovereign is known as Kissing Hands. In Austria the chancellor takes office immediately after appointment and swear in by the Federal president.
- appointment by the head of state after parliament nominates a candidate; Example: The Republic of Ireland where the President of Ireland appoints the Taoiseach on the nomination of the Dáil Éireann.)
- appointment by the head of state after the majority parliamentary party nominates a candidate; Example: the Australian federal government, Canada, India, and New Zealand.
- the head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment as prime minister; Example: Spain, where the King sends a nomination to parliament for approval. Also Germany where under the Basic Law (constitution) the Bundestag votes on a candidate nominated by the Federal President. In these cases, parliament can choose another candidate who then would be appointed by the head of state.)
- the head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence; (Example: Italy.)
- direct election by parliament (the premiers of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut);
- direct election by the public (Example: Israel, 1996-2001.); The prime minister is elected in a general election, with no regard to political affiliation.
- appointment by a state office holder other than the head of state or his/her representative; Example: Under the modern Instrument of Government 1974, which came into force in 1975, the power of commissioning someone to form a government was moved from the Monarch of Sweden to the Speaker of Parliament, who, once it has been approved, formally makes the appointment. Though most prime ministers are 'appointed', they are generally, if inaccurately, described as 'elected'.

Prime ministers and constitutions

Monarch of Sweden in the 1970s]] The position, power and status of prime ministers differ depending on the age of the constitution in individuals. Britain's constitution, being uncodified and largely unwritten, makes no mention of a prime minister. Though it had de facto existed for centuries, its first mention in official state documents did not occur until the first decade of the twentieth century. Australia's Constitution makes no mention of a prime minister of Australia. The office has a de facto existence at the head of the Executive Council. Ireland's constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann (1937) provided for the office of taoiseach in detail, listing powers, functions and duties. Germany's Basic Law (1949) lists the powers, functions and duties of the federal Chancellor.

Exit from office

Contrary to popular and journalistic myth, most prime ministers in parliamentary systems are not appointed for a specific term of office and in effect may remain in power through a number of elections and parliaments. For example, Margaret Thatcher was only ever appointed prime minister on one occasion, in 1979. She remained continuously in power until 1990, though she used the assembly of each House of Commons after a general election to reshuffle her cabinet. Some states, however, do have a term of office of the prime minister linked to the period in office on the parliament. Hence the Irish Taoiseach is formally 'renominated' after every general election. (Some constitutional experts have questioned whether this process is actually in keeping with the provisions of the Irish constitution, which appear to suggest a taoiseach should remain in office, without the requirement of a renomination, unless s/he has clearly lost the general election.) The position of prime minister is normally chosen from the political party that commands majority of seats in the lower house of parliament. renomination from 1966-1977 and 1980-1984]] In parliamentary systems, governments are generally required to have the confidence of the lower house of parliament (though a small minority of parliaments, by giving a right to block Supply to upper houses, in effect make the cabinet responsible to both houses, though in reality upper houses, even when they have the power, rarely exercise it). Where they lose a vote of confidence, have a motion of no confidence passed against them, or where they lose Supply, most constitutional systems require either: a) a letter of resignation or b) a request of a parliamentary dissolution. The latter in effect allows the government to appeal the opposition of parliament to the electorate. However in many jurisdictions a head of state may refuse a parliamentary dissolution, requiring the resignation of the prime minister and his or her government. In most modern parliamentary systems, the prime minister is the person who decides when to request a parliamentary dissolution. Older constitutions often vest this power in the cabinet. (In Britain, for example, the tradition whereby it is the prime minister who requests a dissolution of parliament dates back to 1918. Prior to then, it was the entire government that made the request. Similarly, though the modern 1937 Irish constitution grants to the Taoiseach the right to make the request, the earlier 1922 Irish Free State Constitution vested the power in the Executive Council (the then name for the Irish cabinet).

Titles

A number of different terms are used to describe prime ministers. The German prime minister is actually titled Federal Chancellor while the Irish prime minister is called the Taoiseach. In many cases, though commonly used, "prime minister" is not the official title of the office-holder; the Spanish prime minister is the President of the Government (Presidente del Gobierno). Other common forms include President of the Council of Ministers (for example in Italy, Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri), President of the Executive Council, or Minister-President. In federations, the head of government of a state or province is most commonly known as the Premier or Chief Minister.

Style of a prime minister

The title prime minister is a job title that does not form part of the prime minister's name. It is therefore poor style to refer to “Prime Minister Blair”, just as it would be strange to call someone “Bus Driver Edwards”. The correct form is "Prime Minister Tony Blair" or "Tony Blair, Prime Minister". This mistake is particularly common in the United States, where a high office title is often adopted as if it were a military rank. The title of prime minister is lost when the officer holder ceases to be prime minister. This is not the case for some comparable positions in the United States, which can cause some confusion. When former Prime Minister of New Zealand Jim Bolger became the Ambassador to the United States, he was referred to as “Prime Minister Bolger”, which was both poor style and factually incorrect. Commonwealth Realm prime ministers are often Privy Counsellors entitled to the style the right honourable. In the New Zealand Parliament's debating chamber the Prime Minister is referred to as the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, rather than by name. In non-Commonwealth countries the prime minister may be entitled to the style of Excellency like a President.

Articles on prime ministers

Lists of prime ministers

The following table groups the list of past and present prime ministers and details information available in those lists.

External links

- [http://www.pm.gov.au/ website of the Prime Minister of Australia]
- [http://www.primeminister.gov.bb/ website of the Prime Minister of Barbados]
- [http://www.premier.fgov.be/ website of the Prime Minister of Belgium]
- [http://pm.gc.ca/ website of the Prime Minister of Canada]
- [http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/ website of the Prime Minister of France]
- [http://www.primeminister.gr/gr/ website of the Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic (Greece)]
- [http://www.kormany.hu/archivum/index.en.html website of the Prime Minister of Hungary]
- [http://eng.forsaetisraduneyti.is/ website of the Prime Minister of Iceland]
- [http://pmindia.nic.in website of the Prime Minister of India]
- [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp website of the Taoiseach of Ireland]
- [http://www.pmo.gov.il/ website of the Prime Minister of Israel]
- [http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html website of the Prime Minister of Japan]
- [http://www.opm.go.kr/warp/webapp/home/en_home website of the Prime Minister of South Korea]
- [http://www.pmo.gov.my website of the Prime Minister of Malaysia]
- [http://www.ministerpresident.nl/ website of the Prime Minister of The Netherlands]
- [http://www.primeminister.govt.nz/ website of the Prime Minister of New Zealand]
- [http://odin.dep.no/smk/engelsk/index-b-n-a.html website of the Prime Minister of Norway]
- [http://www.kprm.gov.pl/ website of the Prime Minister of Poland]
- [http://www.predsednik.gov.yu/ website of the Chairman of Serbia and Montenegro Council]
- [http://www.gov.si/pv/index.php?lng=eng website of the Prime Minister of Slovenia]
- [http://www.la-moncloa.es/webIngles/asp/inicio.asp website of the President of the Government of Spain]
- [http://www.pmoffice.go.th website of the Pr