Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by system of government/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Query

Dear WikiTeam, Thanks for putting together such comprehensive entry. I am a legal expert in international electoral assistance and observation, and I was wondering if your work was ever incorporated in a longer form resource publication, i.e. with case studies of examples of countries' constitutional history and transitions. International IDEA in Stockholm published a comparable Handbook on Electoral Systems. Please let me know if anything comes to mind. PS I believe Ukraine transitioned to a parliamentary system in 2007. Sincerely, [email protected]85.27.48.110 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it seems the President of Ukraine still wields significant influence per the articles on the President and the incumbent Viktor Yanukovych and Ukraine#The President, Parliament and the Government of Ukraine, so it's still fairly accurate to describe it as a semi-presidential system.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Benin

Why is Benin under Presidential minus PM when it has both? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 25 Tishrei 5772 03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia belong to the transitional section.

THe country got a transitional assembly, transitional president of assembly, transitional Prime Minister, transitional President and voted a law establishing transitional insitutions. Why is it edited back to presidential each time I put it in transitional ? Please explain your point of view.--Aréat (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tunisia has a transitional Government, but does not change its form of Government. MauriManya (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The transitional assembly was elected to write a new constitution, the old one being de facto no longer enforced since the assembly voted a law on transitional institutions. It is not know which form of government the assembly will make Tunisia, as it's well know Ennhadha want a parliamentary one and the others parties a semi parliamentary one.--Aréat (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
1 February, the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia has elected a "rapporteur de la commission chargée de la rédaction de la Constitution".--

French wikipedia has an article about the December 2011 constitutional law putting in place a transitional form of government which is semi-presidential http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_sur_l%27organisation_provisoire_des_pouvoirs_publics Aréat (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Why are Palestine and the Sahrawi Republic on the list but not Kosovo? ༆ (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was just forgotten: it is e.g. in de:WP. -- Aflis (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Angola

Is the president of Angola elected by the parliament based on 2010 constitution? If so then basis of executive legitimacy should be: "Presidency and ministry are subject to parliamentary confidence" Sorun (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Right now the president is still in the position of not having been elected: he won a relative majority in 1992, but according to the 1991/92 constitution, there should have been a second round (against the second most voted candidate), which never took place.

After the 2010 constitution was adopted, the first election - see Angolan legislative election, 2012 - will take place at the very end of this month. The "incumbent" president is nr. 1 of the list of candidates of the MPLA. If, as expected, this party will again win the elections, José Eduardo dos Santos will automatically become president again - and will then for the first time have been democratically elected. Aflis (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From CIA-Worldfactbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ao.html), it explains that: president indirectly elected by National Assembly for a five-year term (eligible for a second consecutive or discontinuous term) under the 2010 constitution. Does it clearly mean that the presidency is NOT independent of Legislature? It is (indirectly) subject to parliamentary confidence. It is similar to South Africa's system of government Sorun (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording chosen by the CIA World Factbook is wrong. According to the 2010 constitution, the National Assembly does not elect the President, neither directly nor indirectly. It simply takes note of the information by the Comissão Nacional Eleitoral (national election commission) as to which was the party that obtained more votes than any other, and who was nr. 1 of the list of candidates of that party. As expected, the MPLA obtained most of the votes (71%), and José Eduardo dos Santos is thus elected President. And he is entirely independent of parliamentary confidence. He has even legislative powers, as he can to some extent govern by presidential decree. -- Aflis (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dictatorships

Where are the dictatorships? Is this a joke? emijrp (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You're basically talking about "one-Party states", of which there are several listed in the article. Guy1890 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is totally outdated.

This article is totally outdated! The only country that is called a "military junta state" here, is Fiji. Not even Egypt, Libya, Mali or Guinea-Bissau - which are (even after their main-articles) definitely military states at the time - are sorted in another form of government. Please correct this. Moreover, there are not enough reliable sources in this article, which would verify something else. --111Alleskönner (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC) PS: For urgent questions please write on my German user talk - thanks =)

Libya & Egypt aren't a military dictatorships anymore, not that either govt. is particularly stable at this time. Not all of Mali is under insurgent control, yet...nor is it the stated goal of many of the insurgent groups in Northern Mali to take over the entire country. They've had some trouble in Guinea-Bissau recently, but there have been elections there recently as well. I'll admit that I don't know that much about that particular country. Guy1890 (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fiji and Egypt

Fiji and Egypt are both military dictatorships are they not?--Lv171998 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fiji is, but Egypt isn't any more, not that the govt. of Egypt is very stable at the moment. Guy1890 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The military have taken power in Egypt. President Mohammed Morsi was deposed and the country is currently on turmoil. Egypt must be changed into the military junta states. 82.154.137.87 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Portugal

Hello, I have changed the category for Portugal, Portugal is not a Semi Presidential, It is Parliamentary Republic similar to Germany, Their president's role is largely ceremonial Sorun (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Portuguese Constitution grants wide powers to the President. Actually, if you accompanied last news about Portugal, you would know that it is now the President who is holding the Government. And also, former president Jorge Sampaio dismissed the Pedro Santana Lopes' Government in 2004. The wording chosen by the CIA World Factbook is wrong. 82.154.137.87 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If you can understand Portuguese, you may want to read Parte III da Constituição da República: Semipresidencialismo "on probation"? 85.240.82.65 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, similar to Germany? In Germany (like in Italy) the President is not independent from legislature, since he/she is appointed by the parliament and has also very limited powers. No comparison possible. B.Lameira (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Whom Chancellor Angela Merkel met in the last European Council Meeting? According to this link: http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/944156/20130627-trombinoscope.pdf Chancellor Merkel met President Francois Hollande of France....and yes....Prime Minister Pedro Coelho. So what is actually President Anibal Silva doing when his Prime Minister is attending such very important SUMMIT? I don't think Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande will fell respected if Portugal send only the 2nd top Executive for such important SUMMIT and talk with them about very important issues. If the only "reserve" or "discretionary" power the President has is dismissing the Government which historically only happened very rarely, isn't it similar to the Senate of the United States which can "dismiss" or "impeach" the President of the United States? Following the same logic, can we say the Senate of the United States have executive role simply because they can dismiss the Government? What happened to President of Poland? He/she is elected directly by the people and "constitutionally" has free choice in selecting the Prime Minister and dissolve the parliament. Yet, in this list we still categorize Poland as a Parliamentary Republic and not a Semi Presidential Sorun (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Read this: Semi-Presidentialism-Duverger's Concept — A New Political System Model. On this document, Duverger considers the Portuguese and French semi-presidential systems as being 'effective', unlike Austria, Iceland and Ireland, in which, these last ones are considered to be 'apparent'. B.Lameira (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
And if you are about to say about Finland and France, remember, Finland adopted a new constitution in 2000, making the president less powerful than the parliament. And for France, he considers the President as being 'all-powerful', resembling in some way a presidential republic. B.Lameira (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

North Korea and South Korea

I believe North Korea and South Korea are improperly listed; their entries for forms of government should be switched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.106.255 (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Georgia, Tunisia

Georgia is still in semi-presidential but is parliamentary since November. What about new Tunisia constitution ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.144.150 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The source indicated on country's infobox had a link pointing to a blog, that is against Wikipedia editing rules. Articles from political science academic experts and journalists would be better to explain in what measure the powers of the Georgian president have changed. About Tunisia, it would be pleasant to have some articles describing the powers of both the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister. B.Lameira (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Somalia

Shouldn't Somalia be tagged as "Anarchy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.63.166.6 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Egypt -- Upper and lower portions of this article not in sync

The two parts of this page are again out of sync, this time in relation to Egypt. The top table describes Egypt as a semi-presidential republic (as does the Egypt page itself), while further down Egypt is listed under military junta states. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Peru

President independent of legislature. Ministry subject to vote of confidence. See Articles 130 - 136 of Peruvian Constitution

Concerning Relations With the Legislative Branch

Dab14763 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The table is broken

The table is broken and Im not quite sure how to fix it. It has all of the later sections inside the Zimbabwe row of the table. Any ideas? Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Nykterinos (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia - "Semi-presidential republic" or "Presidential system with a prime minister"?

Russia is one of many countries that is a sham democracy. Here is some insight: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-once-almost-a-democracy/2011/08/12/gIQAMriNOJ_story.html 24.236.70.18 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This article says that Russia's system is presidential with a prime minister, but the Russia article says that Russia has a semi-presidential system. I don't know which is correct, but at least one of the entries is wrong. RW7890 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The German article says semi-presidential as well. So what is it to be? -- Aflis (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Both articles are correct, since they are claiming the same thing. Try reading the entry on semi-presidential systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The two parts of this article (the section headed "Alphabetical list of countries" and the section headed "Systems of Governance") now disagree. In the former, Russia is shown with a yellow background, meaning "Semi-presidential republics". In the latter, Russia is shown as "Presidential systems with a prime minister". Which is correct? Misha Wolf (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The heading of this Talk section tweaked to better reflect the content. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Argentina

I wasn't aware that Argentna was a caliphate, but according to the table it is one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.30.148 (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Austria - "de facto" vs "de iure" ceremonial head of state

Austria is listed as having a ceremonial head of state. While this is true de facto, the Federal President of Austria has extensive executive powers de iure (though extremely rarely exercised in practice). Among other powers, the president may deny approval of any law that has been passed by the parliament, on the grounds that the president considers the law to be in contradiction with the constitution. This effectively means a veto right, even if very rarely exercised. In addition to that, the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in war time (though the Second Republic has never been in a state of war since its proclamation -- in peace time, that power belongs to the Minister of Defense).

In other words, I suggest that ceremonial should be amended with (de facto). Note that this may also apply to other parliamentary republics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.7.170 (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran, Supreme Leader AND President?

I'm a bit confused about Iran. Over here it's put under Theocracy, that seems to be about right because of the Supreme Leader and all. But doesn't it also have a (more-or-less) democratically elected President and Parliament as well? Does that mean it's a Theo-Democracy / Demo-Theocracy? Is it correct to label it as just a Theocracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.168.117 (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the political system of Iran is very unique and defies conventional classification. I think a "traditional" Islamic theocracy would be a caliphate, and therefore a monarchy. The closest thing to that would be Saudi Arabia (even though it is not a caliphate in name). And of course the "Islamic State", if you care to consider that barbarian gang of bandits an actual state. Iran, on the other hand, has a peculiar kind of hybrid system with both elements of a theocracy and a semi-presidential republic. I think it should simply be classified as Iranian Islamic Republic, as this is a system that is unique to Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.7.170 (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Northern Cyprus is on the "List of countries", however it is not generally recognized as a country; its article states it "is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be part of the Republic of Cyprus." Governments in similar situations such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not listed here; Northern Cyprus should either be removed, or a section of the page could be started with these disputed territories. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I do now see my error in that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are listed; however, all three of these entities are not recognized countries and shouldn't be listed as such. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nearly useless

I think the attempts to maintain a neutral point of view have essentially neutered this article. There's no nuance at all here and the content is essentially useless. For example, Canada is described as merely a "constitutional monarchy," which, while technically true, does not adequately describe its system of government. By comparison, CIA World Factbook describes Canada's government as "a parliamentary democracy, a federation, and a constitutional monarchy". This provides a more complete picture. Also, I think describing countries like Cuba as "republics" is not accurate, despite the footnote about a "one-party system," unless this page is intended to list the type of government countries claim, rather than what they actually are. If I read this page alone, I'd think Canada was ruled by the Queen of England and Cuba had free and fair elections.

That's my two cents, with which others will no doubt disagree. But frankly, I think anyone examining this page honestly would agree the content is nearly useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.93.102 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

"The Georgian government, the United Nations and the majority of the world's governments consider Abkhazia a part of Georgia's territory, though Georgia does not control it. Under Georgia's official designation it is an autonomous republic, called the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia." - It's quote from article about Abkhazia. Same about South Ossetia. Why are these territories listed in this article ? Does anyone knows ? --77.92.247.221 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Transitional systems

I think that voice is void now. Burkina Faso is having elections, just like Egypt (legislative) and Eritrea is a consolidated one party state for (has been like this since its independence), so there is no transition to anything until Afewerki will die or be ousted. Excellent article anyway. MaXiMiLiAnO (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Political analyst, activist.

Dependencies and special status territories

I see that territories like Puerto Rico, Macau and Hong Kong are not mentioned in this list, even once, just not to be speaking about territories like Greenland, Faroe Islands and New Caledonia. I think that the list could have a section to explain the situation and system of government of these territories. -- B.Lameira (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not change the colours used here

An editor has decided to change colours on the image File:Forms of government.svg without seeking consensus. I have also left a message on its corresponding talk page. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

The UAE are not a constitutional monarchy at all, but a federation of seven absolute monarchies or a federal absolute elective monarchy. In the map it is right, in the overview it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.91.136.41 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland

Could somebody change - who knows how - the colour from green to grey (in the List and on the map)? It's a mistake which was multiplied in the last time by some wiki-user. Thank you --83.79.30.124 (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Until it is made, as this message is almost one year old, let's put Switzerland in blue, as Green has the info "Presidency and ministry are subject to parliamentary confidence" right to it, which isn't correct at all as for Switzerland.--Aréat (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I also agree, the text information is more correct if the colour is maintained blue, because, in the directorial system, the president and the government are not subject to parliamentary confidence, much alike the European Union institutions. It would be logical to create a new colour especially for these type of governments. 82.154.137.87 (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"Council is independent of legislature, and is neither elected by popular vote or the parliament" The last one is not correct, because the council is elected by the parliament (the Federal Assembly which consists of members from National Council and Council of States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.91.136.41 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

President of the People's Republic of China is ceremonial, not executive

This article states that President of the People's Republic of China is executive, but this claim is not true. According to the wiki article on President of the People's Republic of China as well as under current Constitution from 1982 this office is ceremonial.

"Under the present Chinese constitution, the Presidency is a prestigious but largely ceremonial position holding few powers in its own right. The office of the President is a prestigious one. The President is the Head of the State. The office was first held by Mao, but abolished during the Cultural Revolution. The Constitution of 1982 restored powers and functions of the President of the People's Republic of China and recognizes him as the Head of the State. This office does not have executive authority comparable to the President of the United States; most of its powers are ceremonial. The President of the PRC can therefore be compared with the President of India or the Queen of the United Kingdom."Lucullus19 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What, the Chinese president is every year one of the most powerful people in the world, not the prime minister, according to Forbes. This counts for China and for other communist single-party countries. This is because they're heads of the communist parties. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
But your mentioned status of chinese president as one of most powerful people in the world holds only due to combination of other offices which chinese president holds simultaneously. If a person holds only presidency, he would not be much powerful. According to still valid Constitution from 1982 presidency is only ceremonial office. Tradition of president as the chinese paramount leader due to combination of other offices was introduced only informally by Jiang Zemin in 1993 and is still followed up today by his successors.Lucullus19 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Myanmar

In Myanmar presidency is elected by parliament and ministry may be subject to parliamentary confidence. The Presidential Electoral College, a three committee body, elects the president. Afterwards he is accountable to the legislature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.183.166 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken note of this, Myanmar is a mixed presidential-parliamentary republic or, in a simplistic way, a parliamentary republic (with a president chosen by the legislature). I have already corrected the list and related articles of systems of government. --B.Lameira (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

I was casually looking at this page and saw that the legend of the map only lists 2 colors of the many it should have. saw the article history and noticed that some random IP edited it to be like that. Or it is supposed to be like that? Excuse my bad english.190.73.17.24 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

'Prime examples' of what?

The sentence "The central government may or may not be (in theory) a creation of the regional governments; prime examples are Switzerland and the United States" makes no sense. Are Switzerland and the US prime examples of the central government BEING - or NOT BEING - a creation of the regional governments? The inserted "(in theory)" doesn't make this any clearer.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Guyana

Shouldn't Guyana go under Mixed Republican Systems, since its president is elected by the legislature? ZFT (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, because there is no election in parliament for president. A similar case occurs in Angola. --B.Lameira (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Top 5 non democratic countries of the world::"

This section probably does not belong at the top of the page, and indeed may not even belong on this page at all. If it does belong on this page, it should probably be listed further down, perhaps in the sections about monarchies and one-party states. The fact that the author of this edit focused on these 5 countries without providing an explanation about why these nations are less democratic than, say, a military junta, or citing sources about how they know this information, suggests a lack of Neutral Point of View. 173.11.50.93 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by system of government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries by system of government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

Please adjust the description of Thailand in the sortable table - it is currently under military junta rule (not an absolute monarchy as is currently shown) 2A0C:5BC0:40:1058:8D70:5E3C:F979:8014 (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LeoFrank  Talk 05:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

New/old map

All watchers of this page, please take a look of what’s going on at c:File_talk:Forms_of_government.svg#New/old_map. I’m trying to get the map locked, after I clean it up and slave it to what’s on this page. English language discussions about this subject should be held here, and the map should reflect those, while Commons discussions (in whatever language, in theory) should focus on the graphic aspects, not on content. Tuvalkin (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Why did you drop the constitutional provisions for government have been suspended (military dictatorship) category? This article does list the two countries (Sudan, Thailand) that were coloured as such before your edit as being military dictatorships. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If we agree content-wise then why do we need further discussion? At the file talk page only you and Antemister responded, despite the conversation being there for anyone to see and reply for over a fortnight. As you disregarded Antemister's suggestion and no one else seems interested in these changes (pro or con) and we agree on these changes why bother discussing it any further? If someone disagrees with these changes they're free to revert them, or challenge them. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fuse809: As told before, the map (now again, after reversion and protection):
  • reflects the list at § List of countries — therefore not giving a special status to TH and SD (although it should), and including Somaliland; and
  • includes a typo, my fault, namely .bu instead of .bi (which needs to be fixed in Commons)
Tuvalkin (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Doing any (content-related) changes regarding the map itself, it is necessary to have a sound underlying database. And that isn't sound, from my point of view. At first, the general question here, on what sources is that whole list here is based on? For many countries, the system of government is trivial, but cording to which critera unclear/bordercase are treated? is there an authoritive database? There is the Cheibub one, but it is not up-to-date and classifies only countries with a more or less democratic system of governemnt. The second one, up-to-date, is Robert Elgies database on semi-presidential systems, which already includes the disambiguation desired by Fuse809 (I guess that then parliamentary and presidential systems can be easily separated after the exclusion of border-cases. And once again, which source classifies these systems described Presidency is elected by legislature; ministry may be, or not be, subject to parliamentary confidence as system of government next to parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential systems? That questions needs to be answered first.--Antemister (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Change map colors?

Maybe in the future the map (and its legend) should use the same colors as in List of countries by system of government#List of countries? It will be really easy to change. Tuvalkin (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Many edits are being made to this page today, at least some of which are clearly vandalism. How do we put a stop to this? Misha Wolf (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the United Arab Emirates have its own category?

Isn't the UAE not a constitutional monarchy, but rather a federation of absolute monarchies? --GCarty (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kiribati: how do we change what is shown in the UN member states and observers table?

Kiribati's president is not elected by the legislature, the voters elect them. After a parliamentary election, their newly elected parliament assembles for the first time and nominates from its midst 3-4 MPs for the position of president and then the voters decide which candidate becomes president through plurality voting. I've gone to the template page for Template:Form of government row and I cannot see a way of changing how it defines countries based on the colour argument fed to it, but this clearly needs to happen in order for this article to be accurate in how it describes Kiribati. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

the situation of the Constitution of Kiribati is not as clear as you [may] described it. First, te Beretitenti (official name of the Head of State and Head of Government) must be elected as MP. Then the Constitution let the Maneaba ni Maungatabu the decision of which MPs, not less than 3, no more than 4, will run for Presidency election, just after the first meeting session of the Maneaba. Then the elected president remains MP, and could receive a no confidence motion during all his mandate. That point means that we are in a typical Westminster system. Many presidents of Kiribati have lost confidence during their terms: Ieremia Tabai, Teatao Teannaki, Teburoro Tito amongst them. But the popular vote of course made him as an executive president in a parliamentary system. And to make the situation ever more complicated, Sir John Muria accepted this year, in 2020, for the first time since 1978 (first election of Chief Minister Ieremia Tabai) that only 2 candidates run for presidential election, not respecting the writing of the Constitution (32(2)). This strange and unique election with only two candidates reinforced the status of a bipartisan election, with 22 MPs on each side (44 MPs and 1 nominated in Rabi Island that never sworn in since April 2020, because he is stranded there) was easily won by Taneti Maamau. Kiribati is of course a parliamentary regime, since 1979, but with an executive government as the British one, but no “king” or “Queen”. The official name of Head of State is Presidency (the real meaning of te Beretitenti in Gilbertese language (“ti” is the only possible writing for “si” sound: /Peresitensi/). An unknown IP always modify my sourced improvements about Kiribati, telling I do not know about politics (not very politely) — [10:43, 26 August 2020‎ 5.197.146.74 talk‎ 47,539 bytes -72‎ “→‎Directly elected head of state: Then stop making up. You don't know politics.“] --Arorae (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

@Aréat: instead of reverting your edit, I've decided to discuss your assertion that having the ministry accountable to the legislature makes Zimbabwe a semi-presidential system. I disagree, what makes a country semi-presidential is having:

  • A president that, while not head of government, is head of state, has significant powers and is directly elected.
  • A prime minister that is accountable to the legislature and heads the executive branch. They may or may not be dismissable by the president (depending on whether the country is president-parliamentary or premier-presidential).

Zimbabwe does not fit this mould. For starters, the president there is head of government as well as head of state, which automatically makes the country fully presidential. There is also no prime minister in Zimbabwe, although the ministry excluding the president is accountable to the legislature. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 01:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aréat: it seems you have no objections to what I've said, so if you don't respond to this by 02:00 13 November 2020, I'll restore my edit to the article. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 10:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that China was cut off and was spelled like "China, People's Republic of" in the UN Members and Observers States table. I couldn't edit the table, even though I tried. What about deleting "People's Republic of" and just keeping China somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupcake547 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Belarus, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan de jure are not fully presidential republics

They are de jure semi-presidential systems. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan have presidents, which are NOT listed in their constitutions as heads of the executive branch of power. In fact, belarussian and kazakh heads of government, styled as prime ministers, are listed as heads of the executive branch. I suppose that Belarus and Kazakhstan are de jure president-parliamentary systems, like Russia and Azerbaijan, because the president both in Belarus (article 84.6 of the constitution) and Kazakhstan (article 44.3 of the constitution) chooses the prime minister and the cabinet without the confidence vote from the parliament, but must have the support of the parliament majority for their choice. In order to remove a prime minister or the whole cabinet from power, the president can dismiss them or the assembly can remove them by a vote of no confidence. And de jure existing parliamentary vote of no confidence to the government is very important to identify Belarus and Kazakhstan as president-parliamentary systems (semi-presidential systems). This vote of no confidence does exist in Belarus (article 97.7 of the constitution) and Kazakhstan (article 56.2 of the constitution), even if only de jure. I guess the same situation is in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, but this is needed to be checked. — Nikita Stroilov (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The President of Uzbekistan in its constitution does NOT figure as a head of government and executive branch (article 89 of the constitution). Executive power in Uzbekistan is exercised by the Cabinet of Ministers, which is headed by Prime Minister (article 98), which makes only him de jure the head of executive branch. Moreover, the president in Uzbekistan chooses the prime minister and the cabinet without the confidence vote from the parliament, but must have the support of the parliament majority for their choice (article 93.10 of the constitution). In order to remove a prime minister or the whole cabinet from power, the president can dismiss them or the assembly can remove them by a vote of no confidence. And the parliament’s right of vote of no confidence to the government DOES EXIST in Uzbekistan’s constitution (article 98). Thus, it all makes Uzbekistan de jure president-parliamentary system (semi-presidential republic), not fully presidential. — Nikita Stroilov (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, Tajikistan IS the fully presidential system with the prime-minister, because the President of Tajikistan is the head of state AND the head of government (executive branch), the article 64 of the constitution says he is. The Parliament of Tajikistan must support the president’s choice of prime minister (article 69.4 of the constitution), but HAS NOT the right of vote of no confidence to the government. – Nikita Stroilov (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo gray on map?

Resolved
 – Was fixed since. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be orange like the rest of the parliamentary republics with a ceremonial president? --Jfruh (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(Islamic Emirate of) Afghanistan's place in alphabetical order

Resolved
 – See Special:Diff/1045139513 and next after that. Note that link already leads to Afghanistan but for the flag used by the template see Template talk:Country data Afghanistan#RfC on main flag -- Svito3 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Re the note above on resolution -- consensus at the link seems to be to use the Emirate flag in the template but it's still showing the older flag at the moment? Is this in process of changing? --Jfruh (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You're right. Flag is to be changed when that RFC closes. -- Svito3 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, got it. I chimed in. --Jfruh (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to discuss here rather than getting into a revert war. I agree that Afghanistan should be in the list with the current Emirate flag and the article should link to that article, since that is the government that controls the vast majority of the country. However, I think it's very silly to put the entry alphabetically under "I". "Islamic Emirate of" is clearly a description of the country's form of government, not the name of the country itself. Before the Taliban takeover it was the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and we didn't list it under "I" then.

The same issue is also occuring with the Federated States of Micronesia, who are listed under "F" here. (On the Member states of the United Nations list, the FSM is at "M", which is the correct place in the order in my opinion.) My proposal would be to move Afghanistan and Micronesia under "A" and "M" respectively but otherwise maintain the current flags/links. I note that we also have the People's Republic of China under "C" and North and South Korea both under "K" in this list, which seems the most logical way to do it, but I admit I don't fully understand how the templates work and I'm not sure how to edit them to get the best results. --Jfruh (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I support this alphabetical order on short names (Afghanistan, Korea, Micronesia).--Arorae (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Same support.--Aréat (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Austria's president

I think Austria should be in the semi-presidential category, since the president is independent of parliament, and appoints and dismisses the chancellor (de jure) at his pleasure. Obviously, parliamentary majorities need to be taken into account, but since the chancellor is never elected and the federal government formally derives its power from the (popularily elected) president only, Austria should be put in the semi-presidential category. Let me know what you guys think! Mhapperger (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The president may have this power de jure, but does he ever actually use it? There are plenty of states where the head of state has power on paper that is by unwritten convention only exercised by the head of government, who is responsible to the legislature. In the UK, for instance, the monarch has a lot of powers in law that are in fact only exercised on her ministers' advice, which is why we list the UK as a constitutional monarchy with a figurehead monarch here. I don't know enough about Austria to say for certain it's like this, but my understanding is that the President is politically neutral and only acts on advice from the cabinet. --Jfruh (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

cite failed verification

This edit. adding bolding in a direct quote, caught my eye. I tried to verify it and found problems:

  • the date in the citation is 7 April. but the linked article on Reuters is dated 8 April. I did find a copy of perhaps an earlier version of the article dated 7 April here on Rappler.
  • neither artice contains the content which the cite says is quoted from the article (with or without bolding)

I have added a {{fv}} tag to the cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

table of all countries is not accurate

the table that lists all countries is not accurate. it uses "Republic" to designate countries which clearly have a Parliamentary system, of government, such as Israel. I would advise that we should work to revise this designation. Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I very very much agree with you! I found this page to be utterly useless when attempting to compare the form of governments!!! To put Venezuela as being the same form of government as the United States is just plain wrong; well, most definitely according to the intention of the US Constitution. I suppose one could also say: If enough people in power do not uphold their oaths to protect the Constitution, then yes, we could end up as just another socialistic country like Venezuela! Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be re entries in the table columns labeled Constitutional form. It seems to me that these should echo the info in the government_type paramrater in the infobox for the relevant country article, Possibly shortened for brevity. the guidance given for that parameter in the infobox docs is: "often a compound multi-wikilinked term, e.g. "Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic", etc." That parameter for Venezuela is [[Federalism|Federal]] [[President (government title)|presidential]] [[republic]]; for the U.S., it is [[Federalism in the United States|Federal]] [[presidential system|presidential]] [[republic|constitutional republic]]<!-- Consensus description; do not change without addressing in talk page first --> <!-- Consensus is to list President, Vice President, Chief Justice, and House Speaker -->. I note in passing that Both countries have constitutions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

San Marino

San Marino is probably a parliamentary republic. The government is headed by the foreign minister, that is, together with the finance minister and the interior minister, elected directly by the parliament. The government is answerable to the parliament. The captain regents have largely ceremonial roles, and their power is mainly symbolic. Karriuss (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Since nobody answered here, I edited San Marino, according to the source, but was reverted without giving any reason? Why was that done? Does anybody haver meanings about that? Karriuss (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Because stil no one has answered, i edit again. Karriuss (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your changes for a few reasons:

1 - It doesn't look like you have any intention of also changing the color of San Marino on the map, which creates a conflict between the list and the map.

2 - You didn't seem to change or even attempt to talk to the people running San Marino's own page, so that would be conflicting as well.

ICommandeth (talk)

As I see in the file history for the map, you have edited that file before, so I understand you know how to do it. It would been better to correct the colour in the map, insted of that the article also should be wrong. There is also still conflict between the source and the article. If sources don't show something other, I will correct again. Karriuss (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Before you change it again, talk to the people on San Marino's own page to see if they will change theirs too. ICommandeth 01:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) ICommandeth 01:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
San Marino doesn't have any own language, so of course there is no San Marino*s own page. But there is a list in Italian. I have corrected the article about San Marino after asking on the talk page, which originally had been correct, but edited after this wrong list. The map could be fixed easily, so I correct the list again. Karriuss (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

i am form iraq you sould know

about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.4.31 (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Autonomous areas/territories

How do we treat these in the article and on the map attached to it? As far as I see it, thnere are three options:

  1. Don't mention them, and color them gray on the map. In my view this is not ideal, since it gives the false impression that there either is no system of government, or that there is no data on it. This isn't true, since most of these areas have a system of government that can be classified.
  2. Use the same color as the country in which they are part of. E.g. for Puerto Rico, color it blue, since it is part of the United States. This would be a more consistent and normally also accurate way of depicting things.
  3. Color it depending on the system of government actually used locally. Often this color would be the same as under #2, like is the case for Puerto Rico, whose local government is also a presidential system.

In my view, coloring autonomous areas or territories according to the rules under #2 or #3 would be more accurate, and could also be used to expand information on this article. Gust Justice (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

My top-of-head opinion is that this article is a list of countries and not a list of autonomous areas, which are not countries. I see that several List of autonomous areas by ,,, articles exist, one of them being List of autonomous areas by country. Another alternative would be something like adding a note to this article saying that some countries have autonomous areas associated with them, possibly marking those countries that do with an asterisk or some other symbol, referring to that other article in the note, and adding info about the system of government to that other article. Also, it seems to me that a similar situation exists with dependent territories. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Directorial republic

@ICommandeth You reverted my change that sets Switzerland as Directorial republic and instead you have put Switzerland as "Presidency is elected by legislature; ministry may be, or not be, subject to parliamentary confidence" which is technically incorrect, since the Swiss legislature only elects Federal Council (seven members), which in turn rotate to be president. So, legislature does not elect presidency, because the Federal Council selects the presidency. The map legend is now incorrect as well, since Switzerland has executive directory not executive presidency.

I could agree that the Swiss directorial republic is on federal level a type of parliamentary republic and on cantonal level a type of presidential republic, but then the definition of Parliamentary republic has to be adjusted to include the Swiss situation. I propose new definition as "Presidency is directly or indirectly elected by legislature; ministry may be, or not be, subject to parliamentary confidence" and for map legend: "Republic with an executive presidency or directory nominated by or elected by the legislature: President or directory is both head of state and government; ministry, including the president, may or may not be subject to parliamentary confidence" HudecEmil (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Qatar and Eswatini

Qatar's prime minister is appointed by the monarch. Eswatini, on the other hand, has a democratic legislature. --95.24.61.158 (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Kazakhstan's system of government

I'm genially surprised to see the listing for Kazakhstan. Because it's NOT a full-presidential system as its being falsely misinterpreted to everyone here. If we're going here by jurisdiction, then Kazakhstan is a semi-presidential republic with a prime minister, appointed by the president with parliamentary approval, serving as the head of government and has been so according to its constitution as per Article 44 and 56. And I'm not ruling out also Belarus and Gabon which for some reason are being written as "exceptions" despite having a separate head of governments too, yet they're marked as presidential republics. I wanted to point out this really bad flaw in this article and if nothing gets fixed as soon as possible I'm doing it myself. ShadZ01 (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Green republic category

I moved green republics out of "Parliamentary republics" category, because they're not all parliamentary, but new category "Republics with an executive head of state" should include presidential republics.

For comparison with Duverger's systems: https://doi.org/10.1057%2Fpalgrave.fp.8200087

Chief executive survival Chief executive origin
From assembly majority From electorate
Fused with assembly majority
  Parliamentary with ceremonial president
  Parliamentary with executive president (Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, South Africa)
  Constitutional monarchy
  Elected prime-ministerial (Botswana, Guyana)
Separate from assembly majority
  Assembly-independent (Micronesia, Suriname, Switzerland)
  Presidential

Highlighted cells, top left and bottom right are pure systems. Non-highlighted cells are true hybrids.

All these systems are single executive systems. Distinction between red, orange, and green is whether ceremonial head of state is elected ceremonial, unelected ceremonial, or parliamentary executive. This seems to be less important distinction than origin and survival of chief executive. Instead I think categories could be following (note 2 new colors for true hybrids split from green):

Parliamentary systems:

  Constitutional monarchy
  Parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president
  Parliamentary republic with an executive president

Presidential system:

  Presidential republic

Hybrid systems:

  Semi-presidential republic
  Semi-constitutional monarchy
  Assembly-independent republic
  Elected prime-ministerial republic

Other systems:

  One-party state
  Absolute monarchy
  Military junta
  Provisional government

Svito3 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a nice change, but I think some of the colors as a little too similar. Especially on the list, where the prime ministerial republic and the provisional government look almost identical. Is there another possible color we could use for it? ICommandeth (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we should drop the table. Its size of more than half an article and repeats same thing said in the article but multiple times and generally eye sore with all the colors. Svito3 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I have posted colorblind version at Template talk:Systems of government#Untitled. Svito3 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Table was removed

I have removed the table because it doesn't conform to MOS:TABLES. There are other issues like table being pre-filled with templates where you need to specify a color to fill the table columns. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than just having a table in the article for the sake of it. Svito3 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the old table was better. Could you clarify which part of MOS:TABLES it didn't conform to? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Reasons:
  • Tables should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list. Tables can also make a page much more complicated and difficult to edit, especially if some of the more complex forms of table coding are used;
  • MOS:COLOR: avoid creating accessibility problems for color-blind as well as normal-vision readers.
In my opinion information on this page can't be appropriately presented as a table without repeating the same information that is already presented in appropriate and recommended form. Table needlessly takes more than half of vertical space of the actual article doubling its size and making it hard to read. Svito3 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I agree with your removal of the table. Thank you for explaining! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Angola

Looking at Angola's system of governance, it seems to me to more closely resemble South Africa's, Guyana's, or Bostwana's system of government than other countries listed as "Presidential Republics", like the USA or Turkey. Reading about the 2022 Angolan general election or the page about the politics of the country seems to me to point towards it being a "green" republic with a head of state directly or indirectly elected by the legislature. What are people's thoughts on this? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Angolan president isn't elected by legislature but simultaneously elected with legislature.
Therefore it's presidential republic, not a parliamentary one. Svito3 (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually it's the same as Guyana, where largest party's designated candidate for president wins. Svito3 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
There 3 systems combining heads of state and heads of government (executive presidency):
  • Presidential republics: president elected independently from legislature, government doesn't need confidence of parliament.
  • Parliamentary republics with an executive presidency: government needs confidence of parliament to remain in office.
  • Assembly-independent republics: president elected by legislature, government doesn't need confidence of parliament.
But there is also double simultaneous vote which links presidential and parliamentary candidates in elections, which is used by some presidential republics (Angola, Bolivia, Uruguay) and parliamentary republics with an executive presidency (Botswana, Guyana).
I have fixed an article by adding notes. Hopefully it's more clear now. Svito3 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue that Angola is a assembly-independent republic.
  1. The President serves as both head of state and head of government.
  2. The direct election of the President was abolished in the 2010 constitution. My source is here where it says "Angola's parliament has approved a new constitution which abolishes direct presidential elections. The head of state will now automatically be the leader of the party with the parliamentary majority." From the constitution: "The individual heading the national list of the political party or coalition of political parties which receives the most votes in general elections held under the terms of Article 142 onwards of this Constitution shall be elected President of the Republic and Head of the Executive." I don't see a mention of a vote of no confidence which can remove the President however.
Aficionado538 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
1. For assembly-independent republic executive president isn't required, there simply isn't assembly-independent republic with ceremonial president. What is stated in description of the section simply describes which characteristics states that are listed there have.
2. Parties or coalition state their presidential candidate on the ballot and they win automatically by whatever list achieves relative majority. They aren't elected by parliament. It's double simultaneous vote, not election by parliament. You can't claim same happens in Botswana, even though there isn't any parliamentary vote for president there. You're just clutching straws now claiming vote for president happens by parliament even though clearly people elect both with a single vote. Svito3 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I see. I thought that was the case. Aficionado538 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Iran as a "monarchy" and elected prime-ministerial republics

I've spotted many, many sweeping changes to this page lately.

I take genuine issue with the description of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a de facto monarchy. The Supreme Leader, while elected for life by a council of experts, does not use any monarchial titles or styles. This description ignores the fact that Iran explicitly describes itself as a republic and has an elected President. We don't refer to Taliban Afghanistan as a monarchy either, even though that country is similarly led by religious leaders who serve for life. I would personally argue in favour of removing this passage entirely.

I'm also curious which sources corroborate the existence of the "elected prime-ministerial republic" that you categorize Guyana and Botswana as (personally I think that "elected prime-ministerial republic" is an oxymoronic and misleading title, since prime ministers, if they even exist in such states, are politicially irrelevant, unlike in actual prime-ministerial systems like pre-2001 Israel), and why we should separate them from parliamentary republics with an executive presidency – especially since we don't make a genuine distinction in regular parliamentary republics either. The ceremonial president of Finland is elected and the one of Germany is not, but we still categorize both of them simply as parliamentary republics.

Overall, while I appreciate the effort that went into reworking this page and map (even if unilaterally), I feel that much of it might not be constructive. LVDP01 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A monarch is defined as a head of state for life or until abdication, and therefore the head of state of a monarchy. Iran fits this definition perfectly with its Supreme Leader. Supreme Leader is the head of state(not the president) and has considerable powers, although he personally may not use them (both characteristic of semi-constitutional monarchs). Even though president is elected, Supreme Leader has the power to dismiss president. If we dive even further Supreme Leader is elected by and can be dismissed by separate elected chamber, this doesn't ivalidate my claim it's a monarchy though as many monarchies can be theoretically dismissed by an elected body. Only reason Taliban isn't classified as a monarchy yet is because it's a provisional government, monarchy or republic being irrelevant distinction, tho these categories don't seem to be mutually exclusive, exhaustive, or useful anymore.
On the issue of an elected prime-ministerial republic (also described as semi-parliamentary system), is described on https://doi.org/10.1057%2Fpalgrave.fp.8200087 page 3 figure 1. I recreated the table and discussed it in the section above and don't feel like repeating myself. Parliamentary republics with an executive president, assembly-independent and elected-prime-ministerial systems function exactly like equivalent systems with ceremonial head of state, you can think of them as having no head of state at all, but their function to be carried by functionally-prime-minister-named-president. Classification is primarily concerned where head of government(chief executive) power originates from. And it's only parliamentary system if chief executive is both elected by legislature and is accountable to legislature(meaning legislature can remove them with a simple majority). Assembly-independent and elected prime-ministerial only satisfy one of these criteria. In parliamentary republics with ceremonial presidency both are satisfied, and method of election of head of state is irrelevant as they aren't chief executive, unlike in parliamentary republics with an executive president. Svito3 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. Botswana is NOT a semi-parliamentary republic. We do not directly elect our President, in any way shape or form. The chief executive (president) is elected by the National Assembly and the chief executive's survival is fused with the assembly majority, and can therfore be removed through a motion of no confidence; the president is elected by the legislature AND their survival depends on whether or not the legislature has confidence in the president's government. The President of Botswana is unusual among heads of state of countries with a parliamentary system in that they are also the head of government, with executive powers. Making Botswana a parliamentary republic with an executive presidency. Until you provide (the phantasmic) proof that Botswana is a semi-parliamentary republic, your edits will stand reverted.
  2. As for Guyana, the President of Guyana is not directly elected by the citizenry as well. A characteristic of Duverger's semi-parliamentarism is that the chief-executive is elected by the electorate. Guyana's president, like Botswana's is elected by the National Assembly and serves as both head of state and of government. A motion of no confidence against the President comes at the expense of the legislature's survival i.e., once the National Assembly has no confidence in the government (President and Cabinet), snap elections must be held soon after as was the case with the 2020 Guyanese general election after the motion of no confidence against David A. Granger. From the Guyanese constitution:

    6. The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.
    7. Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election.

    — CHAPTER X. THE EXECUTIVE,§ 106 parts 6 & 7., Constitution of Guyana
  3. This makes both Guyana and Botswana parliamentary republics with an executive presidency i.e., countries with a combined head of state and head of government in the form of an executive president who is elected by the legislature who must maintain the confidence of the legislature to remain in office (though in Guyana's case snap elections are mandated after a vote of no confidence). Guyana was also weirdly categorised as an assembly-independent republic on Wikipedia not so long ago but that isn't true either for the sole reason that the executive and its chief depends on the legislature's confidence in it. As @LVDP01 correctly pointed out, there has been only one country with Duverger's semi-parliamentarism and that was Israel for a brief period of time before they abolished it in 2001.
Aficionado538 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I figured as much. Thank you for your taking the time to type all this out.
I also disagree with referring to Guyana and Botswana as semi-parliamentary because I regard such terminology confusing. I understand semi-parliamentarianism to primarily refer to systems where only part of the legislature can vote no confidence against the government, such as Australia's Washminster system; or the more hypothetical subtype (which to my knowledge has never been used before) where voting no confidence is reserved for a confidence chamber that is separate/independent from the legislature, and cannot pass legislation in return. The other sub-type, where the head of government is directly elected, is also known as the prime-ministerial system, which I far prefer as it avoids any ambiguity with the system where the government only depends on part of the legislature to remain in office.
@Aficionado538: I do have a question. While I fully agree with most of what you have said, I do remember reading that the presidents of Botswana and Guyana are elected simultaneously with the legislature through double simultaneous vote, which I understand means that the president and legislature are simultaneously elected by voters through a single vote cast on a party. But according to you, the president of Botswana is not directly elected. As you live in Botswana, I was wondering if you could explain to me how Botswana's DSV works, so that I can obtain a more complete (and accurate) picture of the situation. Thank you! LVDP01 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Contrary to what Wikipedia says, we actually don't have DSV at all. At the polling booth, voters are given two ballot papers: one for their local Member of Parliament and one for their local councillor. As in every parliamentary system, the party leader who receives a majority of support from the elected MPs in Botswana's case, starting from this year's elections, 31 MPs, wins. You can see an example of a ballot paper for the Mochudi West parliamentary constituency here with just one option for one office. Frustratingly, the names of the parliamentary candidates are not written on the ballot paper, but they are displayed on the outside of the booth. LOL.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a fan of Duverger's semi-parliamentarism, or a prime-ministerial system, as you said. I am an ardent fan of Ganghof's version, where only part of the legislature (elected by a majoritarian system) can vote out the government, and the other part serves as a "house of laws," which is more proportional in nature. There are two subtypes of his semi-parliamentarism: one where the different parts are separated from each other (Australia and some of its states come close to this), and the other where the two parts coexist in one chamber (which I prefer). In both cases, the "confidence chamber" can still pass legislation; it's just that it lacks absolute veto power over legislation but of course, this lack is there to balance its unique power of being able to remove the government of the day. Anyway, my preference is obviously subjective, haha and that's an argument for another day. I hope I've answered your question. Have a great Sunday! Aficionado538 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! That explains it quite well. We should probably update the DSV page then lol.
Also, I did not mean to indicate political preference for prime-ministerial government; that's poor wording on my end. I wanted to say that, regardless of political preference, I prefer to use the name "prime-ministerial" for Duverger's semi-parliamentarianism. Even though we call both models "semi-parliamentary", they don't have a whole lot in common. By calling one "semi-parliamentary" and another "prime-ministerial", we avoid what I personally perceive as ambiguity ("Why is this country semi-parliamentary? Is it because only one part of the legislature can sack the government, or is it because you directly elect the prime minister?"). My bad, lol.
As for Ganghof's semi-parliamentarism, I stand corrected; I personally interpreted it as meaning that the confidence chamber was entirely independent from the legislature (or could be in hypothetical countries, as this is not the case in either Australia or Japan). Thank you for the clarification, and have a great Sunday too! LVDP01 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
No worries ❤️. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
You have removed DSV tag from both Botswana and Guyana.
Guyana clearly has DSV and so does Botswana, according to President of Botswana#Election. They are elected by endorsements automatically, unless there isn't majority of pre-election endorsements (never happens?). Only relative majority of endorsements is needed in Guyana, therefore parliament never elects the president. Given that ruling party of Botswana always has majority it's a moot point that president is elected by legislature. Svito3 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is edited by human beings and is prone to errors and sometimes it's no fault of their own. It might be confusion or something else. Point is, just because Wikipedia says we use DSV, it doesn't me we do. The references used don't even have the mention of DSV in them. I have no idea where this came from. No, it's not a moot point at all. How about you read § 32 of the constitution if you have any doubts about my word? Thanks for bringing that erroneous section to light. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean because you didn't directly respond to my claims. If you only care to win because this is nieche topic with no research to back up every claim, you already won.
Just deleting every claim you don't like because you disagree with it is fine with me. I don't have stomach to fight with every angry entrenched wikipedian. Svito3 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe I thoroughly responded to them. As I said, feel free to bring forward solid proof of Botswana using DSV. It's not only a claim "I don't like", it's also one that's false. The fact that it's not true at all means I had to remove it. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Just provide the evidence and I'll stand corrected. That's all I'm asking you. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The source you linked, § 32 point 3 of Botswana's constitution clearly defines that nominations for president create linked ballot (3a-c) and that one receiving majority of pre-election endorsements of elected members is elected president (3d).
This confuses me because you claim this isn't DSV. Svito3 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I guess it all doesn't matter because any synthesis is WP:OR. If we can't find 2 sources claiming a state is exactly that system or exactly other system using exactly same words it's WP:OR. Svito3 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
1. Here's a direct quotation of Section 32 from the constitution, for easier reference:

(3) The following provisions shall then apply-

(a) a person nominated as a Parliamentary candidate may, at the time of his or her
nomination and subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), declare in such
manner as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament which of the
candidates in the election of President he or she supports, but the nomination of
a Parliamentary candidate shall be valid notwithstanding that the nomination
paper does not contain such a declaration;
(b) such a declaration shall not be made in relation to any Presidential candidate
unless that candidate has signified, in such manner as may be prescribed by or
under an Act of Parliament, his or her consent to the making of a declaration in
his or her favour by that Parliamentary candidate;
(c) where the Parliamentary election is contested in any constituency a poll shall be
taken in that constituency at which the votes shall be given by ballot, and for the
purposes of that poll any Parliamentary candidate who declared support in
accordance with paragraph (a) for a particular Presidential candidate shall use
the same voting colour and symbol, if any, as may have been allocated under
any law for the time being in force in Botswana to that Presidential candidate for
the purposes of the Presidential election;
(d) the returning officer shall declare to be elected as President any candidate for
whom support has been declared in accordance with paragraph (a) above by
not less than such number of persons elected as Members of the National
Assembly in the Parliamentary election as corresponds to more than half the
total number of seats for Elected Members in the Assembly, and if there is no
such person the returning officer shall declare that no candidate has been
elected.
[...]
(11) In this section- "Parliamentary candidate" means a candidate in the Parliamentary election; "the Parliamentary election" means the general election to elect those Members of the National Assembly who are referred to in section 58(2)(a) of this Constitution following any dissolution of Parliament; "Presidential candidate" means a candidate for the office of President; "the returning officer" means the returning officer specified in section 58 of this Constitution.
— Section 32: Election of President after dissolution of Parliament part (3)(a)-(d) & (11), Constitution of Botswana, 1966
2. Quote of Section 58 as aforementioned:

(1) The President shall be ex-officio a member of the National Assembly, and

shall be entitled to speak and to vote in all proceedings of the National Assembly.
(2) In addition to the President the National Assembly shall consist of-
(a) 57 Elected Members who shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of
this Constitution and subject thereto in accordance with the provisions of any
Act of Parliament; and
(b) four Specially Elected Members who shall be elected in accordance with the
First Schedule to this Constitution and subject thereto in accordance with the
provisions of any Act of Parliament.
— Section 58: Composition of National Assembly parts (a)-(b), Constitution of Botswana, 1966
3. Now, let me breakdown what each part of Section 32 stipulates for you:
(a) This part outlines that a person nominated as a Parliamentary candidate (in layman's terms, a Member of Parliament see Section 32 (11) and Section 58 (b)) has the option to declare support for a specific Presidential candidate at the time of their nomination. However, it's not mandatory for the nomination of the Parliamentary candidate to include such a declaration. So, while they have the option to declare support, it's not a requirement for their nomination to be valid.
(b) This part stipulates that a Parliamentary candidate can only declare support for a Presidential candidate if the Presidential candidate has consented to such a declaration. In other words, a Parliamentary candidate cannot declare support for a Presidential candidate without the explicit approval of that Presidential candidate.
(c) Here, it's mentioned that in constituencies where the Parliamentary election (in other words the general election as defined by Section 32 (11)) is contested, a poll will be conducted using a ballot system (this simply means votes cast in the general election are to be cast through the use of ballots (juxtaposed to the "disc sysytem" Botswana used to have). If a Parliamentary candidate has declared support for a specific Presidential candidate (after the general election is held) as per section (a), they must use the same voting colour and symbol allocated to that Presidential candidate for the Presidential election, as per the laws of Botswana. What this means is, if any MP wants to nominate Dumelang Saleshando as President, for example, they must use the symbol or voting colour allocated to the Presidential candidate in this case, the Botswana Congress Party. Using a different party than that of the candidate is not permitted.
(d) This section deals with the declaration of the elected President. It states that the returning officer will declare a candidate as elected President if they have received support from a number of elected Members of the National Assembly that exceeds half of the total number of seats for Elected Members in the Assembly (31 seats) as of the latest redistribution cycle. If no candidate meets this criterion, the returning officer will declare that no candidate has been elected as President.
These sections collectively outline the procedures and requirements regarding the declaration of support for Presidential candidates by Parliamentary candidates and in no way or shape mention (or describe) the use of a double-simultaneous vote, which is described as "an electoral system in which multiple offices – such as the president and members of a legislature – are elected through a single vote cast for a party".
Like every parliamentary system, after a general election is held, Members of Parliament elect whomever they want to elect as head of government. It is that simple. Aficionado538 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It's amazing how you exactly described how double simultaneous vote works while this completely went over your head. Svito3 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This discussion is not going anywhere it seems. I provided proof on two separate occasions, yet you failed to produce proof that Botswana uses DSV. There's no linked ballot (whatever that means) at all. An MP can vote for whomever they want, it doesn't have to be from their same party. Aficionado538 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Difference in order. If MP candidates nominate presidential candidates before actual voting by people and their nominations are available as information to the voter (this is clearly the case as ballots have to use same voting colors and symbols as their presidential candidate), when parliamentary majority results in automatic election using their nomination, it is DSV. If it doesn't result in a winner, parliament vote happens.
You can think of it as presidential election happening in two rounds, first round is DSV, second round is election by parliament if DSV fails to have a winner. Of course MPs can vote for whoever they want in second round if it even happens. That's "elected by parliament" part. But first part, nomination system I argue is DSV. Unless you claim this part of system isn't used and no president is elected such way. You argue that parliament is electing president while using voting data from the past and before it was even composed is totally normal election by parliament, where they don't even hold a vote about it. If presidential nominations were completely irrelevant and ignored in law, not resulting in automatic election of president, and parliamentary vote was always required, it would mean there is no DSV.
DSV exists because people can elect president simply by voting candidates with certain presidential nomination. And parliamentary vote isn't required for that presidential candidate to be elected. It happens automatically whether MPs changed their mind or not. They can vote president out but if president does not resign it results in dissolution of parliament and new elections. That's because like typical semi-parliamentary system survival of executive is tied to survival of legislature. It prevents parliament from keeping president in check by design. One can argue this makes it similar assembly-independent system, as parliament can't elect new president without resignation of old president. It's catch-22 situation where parliament has power to dismiss president but that is illusory power because it also removes themselves dear from office. Svito3 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
"If MP candidates nominate presidential candidates before actual voting by people…"–except MP candidates don't nominate the president. They can if they want to. How about you actually read the Laws of Botswana as mentioned in Section 32 (3)(c) of the constitution? It specifically states that a presidential nominee is nominated by at least 998 persons who are registered as voters for the purpose of elections to the National Assembly. The "proposers and seconders" can be any member of society as long as they are registered to vote in the upcoming elections to the National Assembly. I await your response. Aficionado538 (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Just because it's not mandatory to nominate a presidential candidate doesn't mean it's not part of an election system. Svito3 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
And is whatever results from all this discussion between WP editors verifiable and supportable by a citeable source? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have been following the discussion. As far as I understand, dsv occurs when the voter votes for MPs and the candidate of the party with the most votes is elected president regardless of whether or not there is a majority. Instead, in Botswana's constitution, Parliament elects the president. The electoral system adapts to the characteristics of the party system, but I don't believe that Parliament cannot overthrow a president who does not enjoy its confidence (even if his party had the most votes). When it comes to defining the political and electoral system of a country, what matters is not what Aficionado538 says or what Svito3 says or what I say. What matters is what the constitution and laws of that country say, and (perhaps, carefully) the de facto interpretation that political analysts can make of it. Does the constitution say "double simultaneous voting"? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Do you have any academic work that supports the term "simultaneous double voting"? If you have it, I would appreciate it if you left it here. I guess that's the "evidence" that Aficionado asks for and I think it's reasonable.--FelipeRev (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
"in Botswana's constitution, Parliament elects the president". This is false. Parliament only elects president if they aren't elected normally through securing nominations. So it's de facto DSV(let's ignore for a moment even this claim is WP:OR) used for first round, and parliament elects president directly for second round if first round fails to elect one.
You already restated what I stated in my last comment about this article not meeting Wikipedia's WP:OR standard. Svito3 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
If the President is directly elected by the people then explain this article and why there were many proposals from members of the public to directly elect the President if that's mysteriously the case already??? Look, I don't want to be smug, but I literally live in the country. Aficionado538 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
There multiple issues with using this system:
  • Party loyality: MP candidates have to secure party support to have better chances of winning, so they always nominate presidential candidate of that party.
  • People are limited in their choices by the system and need to be informed and cooperate to game the system by using tactical voting. Technically people can vote for different president by voting for different MP knowing which presidential candidate they nominated. As Botswana uses FPTP system, both MPs and the president don't need an absolute majority (50%+1 vote) of votes to win but a relative majority. Voters have to be informed which MP candidates have a chance of winning in their constituency and cooperate by voting as a single block for the same candidate. It may not be their favorite combination of MP+president, and results of such election may not be representative of what would be their choice under different electoral system.
Svito3 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Botswana compared to other double simultaneous vote systems:
  • Angola/Guyana system is slightly different because parliament winners are calculated according to proportional representation, president winner is still calculated using FPTP. There is no second round like in Botswana, in Botswana second round for president is election by parliament.
  • Bolivia/Uruguay system provides for second round direct election for president.
Svito3 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_system_of_government/Archive_2&oldid=1240459157"