This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Couldn't Thailand be considered a military junta, given that the military appoints the prime minister and cabinet?
.........
Thailand's monarchy is not simply ceremonial. For one the king appoints the judges to both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, and he's not just a rubber stamp. His handpicked Privy Council led by his General Prem were parties to the coup and are the power behind the former junta and their lock on the Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormarm ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This not means all presidential republics with a prime minister, if he isn't the head of government, like in Argentina, Peru and so on.
I think since the Parliament and Presidential election in 2006 and 2007 Mauretania is a presidential republic.
I've updated the information on Serbia and Montenegro. However, my information about these two states mainly comes (cyclically) from Wikipedia, so, althought I think it's accurate, it may not be.
Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy. It has a Prime Minister who is officially head of government; while members of the royal family still have some power, but not too much. -- Victor 08:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Aren't all the communist states authoritarian republics too? -- Jiang 04:33, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
They weren't 'votes' as we like to think of voting here in the west - plebiscite anyone?
Isn't a democratic monarchy a sort of oxymoron? After all, who gets to sign the laws before they are in effect, an elected representative or unelected ruler? Can citizens call the monarch off his/her duty if they choose so? -- Romanm 14:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And then there's Malaysia, where apparently the king is elected. Kim Bruning 14:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The definition for a democratic republic claims either the president or cabinet is elected by a legislature, but then lists the US as an example. Congress doesn't appoint anybody in the executive branch, though they do confirm cabinet members. Tuf-Kat 17:08, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
This recent edit by an anon made an edit that appears biased, but I am not knowledgeable enough to have much of an opinion. I hope by editing this talk page this edit will become more prominent. Tuf-Kat 07:11, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Israel is considered a theocracy because the civil code includes rabbinical law in addition to the civil code and the "the law of return" is a specificly religiously discriminatory law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.118.196 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 28 May 2007
Um, "United States (controversial electoral system; nepotist tendencies)" This seems to be a little bit POV, to me. The electoral system isn't that controversial, and the claim of nepotist tendencies is hardly MPOV. . . I'm not going to change this, but I think this warrents some discussion. Soupfrog 04:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the leaders of countries such as Egypt, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan are elected freely and fairly and follow the laws of their respective countries. You can not simply judge a country's political climate by reading their laws, because they are frequently broken. We have to categorise them by what is actually happening. Secondly, Israel's despotic actions have nothing directly to do with what happens inside their own territory or to its own people. -- Sesel 21:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
...really?
I have made a new article from scratch, with info from the CIA World Factbook as of May 11, 2004. What do you all think about replacing this article with my proposed one? The proposed article is at: Talk:List of countries by system of government/alternate. Comments, suggestions are welcomed. -- Cantus 12:23, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
For example, what is the difference between constitutional democracy and constitutional republic? Or parliamentary democracy/republic? Is there any? *If* they are exactly the same then why does the CIA World Factbook use both terms? -- Cantus 12:36, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
The CIA is inconsistent and full of phooey. Why have a cateogory on "republics" when it is more specific (federal/constitutional) elswhere? Compare "none; the monarchy is hereditary; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition is usually the prime minister" vs. "none; the monarch is hereditary; governor general appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the prime minister; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or leader of a majority coalition is sworn in as prime minister by the governor general". -- Jia ng 00:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does Iran deserve to be categorized as an "authoritarian republic"?, defined as In which a country is governed by a dictatorial leader or a single-party hierarchy that does not allow for effective popular opposition. Iran does not meet this criteria. It's not a single party state nor does it have a single dictatorial leader. Obviously, it's not a liberal democracy either, but it's not fair to condemn it alongside genuine authoritarian states. Maybe another category called quasi-democracy or theocracy should be created; or perhaps it should be listed as a democractic republic and it's problems noted alongside the entry. Style 03:33, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
I repeat again that there is no convincing argument (or no argument at all!) that the CIA categorization is not flawed. Without consensus, we cannot be changing the the entire article. -- Jia ng 02:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This list will be always controvertial. Please take a look at the Form of government External link section - as you can see, there are always many possible definition combinations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "(slight authoritarian tendencies)" comment next to Italy is suspect. -- E. Rauch 4:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It appears Russia (mostly in Asia) is listed to be in Europe, Turkey (wishing to join the EU) is listed to be in Asia and Cyprus (in Asia, but in the EU) is listed to be in Europe. Are there any principles behind this or are these placed randomly? -- Lakefall 14:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't all the Commonwealth realms that recognize the British Monarch as their head of state be listed as constitutional monarchies? For some reason Canada is listed as a constitutional monarchy, but Australia and New Zealand are not. Any specific reason for that? -- Int19h 09:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Singapore belongs under "democratic republics" with "authoritarian tendencies". Unlike the other "authoritarian republics" they have competitive elections and have not received as much outcry from human rights patrollers such as the US government. We'll just add more qualifyers in parenthesis. Otherwise, if Singapore is to be listed under "authoritarian republics" the qualifiers should be about how democratic it is, not how authoritarian. -- Jia ng 23:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
no answer?
also, I don't think the term "Deformed workers' state" is neutral. What's wrong with "Communist state"? -- Ji ang 06:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Singapore has always had an opposition so "emerging" is not the right term. Say it has a "parliamentary system, elections, weak opposition" -- Ji ang 07:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang that Singapore belongs under "democratic republics" with "authoritarian tendencies". I am also concerned that Neutrality is marking his edits as minor edits when in fact they are not (See Help:Minor_edit). There was no rationale given for the changes (in the edit summary). As stated in the Help pages - Check your facts and cite your sources. I firmly believe that only when everyone understands the rationale behind your edits then will there be a meaningful discussion.
I would also like to draw attention to Piotr Konieczny's comment that there are many definitions available, and I do agree with him. Hence we have to be objective - does rule of law exist in Singapore? Is it really a one-party state? Does having weak opposition parties mean it is a one-party state? Are the elections held fair and recognized by the international community as being fair? What definition of authoritarian are we using here? Is the current one in use fair and accepted by the wiki community? I think it would not be fair to say the government is authoritarian just because there are strong personal opinions about the Michael Fay incident (which I suspect is the case here).
202.156.2.170 07:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following text is redundant and not NPOV:
"Commonwealth realm with British monarchial figurehead. Republic in practice. Parliamentary system.) "
Commonwealth realm already implies "British monarchial figurehead" and "Parliamentary system". Link to Commonwealth realm if necessary. Saying theyre "Republic in practice" is neither neutral nor accurate. For example, Queen Elizabeth's portrait appears in government buildings all over Canada and many things are still made out to "her majesty". -- Ji ang 07:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since the expansion of the Prince's powers, could we say "absolutist tendencies"?
I propose removing all commentary on systems of government - i.e. all the 'tendencies' 'elements of' etc. We just list the system of government, and not whether it works or not. The trouble is that once we introduce nuances, we can go on expanding the description for ever, because in difficult cases nobody will ever be satisfied. We're not trying to rewrite each country's article here. DJ Clayworth 18:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jguk removed the UK from the list of Federal and devolved states. While the assertion that the UK is not a Federal state is certainly correct, it seems to me that this is precisely why the list is Federal_and_devloved states. The UK has had a significant level of devolution of authority with respect to the different Home Nations. And Scotland has always maintained its own legal system. I'm not going to put it back without discussion, but it seems to be that the UK is certainly a devolved state compared to most unitary republics. Ddye 19:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Sure, France has regions for administrative purposes, but as far as I know, France is one of the most unitary states around. Virtually evert state has something below the national level; that doesn't make them Federations. Also, I would say we should break this part of the list into two (maybe three) parts:
Xyzzyva 01:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro is one state, not two! I would place it in Federal and devolved states. Serbia and Montenegro are now places as two states under Parliamentary republics. Milan Tešović 12:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Cuba can't be so simply characterized as non democratical as long as there are people that deny that accusations. The concept of Democracy itself tends to biased descriptions, given the insistence that the US have on the topic.
I think that the government categories should be redesigned, or stating if a country is democratic/non democratic should be omitted when there is dispute. Cuba is not a Capitalist Democracy, and/or nor a multiparty one, and Democracy doesn't start nor ends there.
Forms (or systems) of government are:
For further info see for example: Hague, Rod/Harrop, Martin (1998): Comparative Government and Politics, 4th edition. Houndmills: MacMillan
Currently the UAE is not listed anywhere under the first categorization (it is only listed under the Federal states). The UAE's unique structure makes it a bit difficult to categorize, I know, as there is a President and a Prime Minister, but they're both hereditary monarchs of two of the constitutent Emirates. So, I have put them for now under absolute monarchy, but I'd welcome input on that. Ddye 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The UAE could be defined as a monarchial federation of the 7 emirates. The UAE president is the Emir of Abu Dhabi, and holds the presidency defacto for life, altho he is "elected" formally.----Kaelin von Gross
Iran is not a democracy. 165.91.8.25 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
We can't define nations by their constitutional framework. Some nations don't have constitutions, and there are very few nations that really uphold their constitutions. This map would be inaccurate if it was modeled after that system. Russia has become an authoritarian fascist state under Vladimir Putin. It should be yellow brown striped, just like Western Sahara.-Anonymous Q
Switzerland is as much a direct democracy as it is a parliamentary republic. Nitpicking maybe, fine. What is completely wrong, however, is the map: Switzerland is most certainly not a "presidential republic, executive presidency linked to a parliament". There is no president of Switzerland. Not even a proper prime minister. The seven ministers of the Swiss Federal Council as a collective constitute both government and head of state. And for what it's worth, they are elected by the parliament. Rl 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The correct form would be called "Referendumsrepublic".
Countries? Should this be renamed List of states by system of government (or possibly "form of government?") This list only includes states, and the vaguery of the word "country" is non-encyclopedic. (cf. List of sovereign states and list of countries.) - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have moved South Africa from Full Presidential System to Semi-Presidential. My basis for doing so is Chapter 5 of the SA Constitution. In particular,Cabinet
91 (3) The President
1. must select the Deputy President from among the members of the National Assembly; 2. may select any number of Ministers from among the members of the Assembly; and 3. may select no more than two Ministers from outside the Assembly.
(4) The President must appoint a member of the Cabinet to be the leader of government business in the National Assembly.
(5) The Deputy President must assist the President in the execution of the functions of government.
92 (2) Members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions.
102. (1) If the National Assembly, by a vote supported by a majority of its members, passes a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet excluding the President, the President must reconstitute the Cabinet.
(2) If the National Assembly, by a vote supported by a majority of its members, passes a motion of no confidence in the President, the President and the other members of the Cabinet and any Deputy Ministers must resign.
The South Africa page actually lists south africa as a Parliamentary Republic. This is on the basis, I presume, that the President is elected by the National Assembly. However, I think semi-presidential is more accurate as the President, once elected, is immovable until a fresh election to the Assembly takes place.
Camhusmj38 08:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In Finland, and to my knowledge in some other countries too, actually the municipality level government functions quite independently. Citizens pay taxes to both the government and the city in which they live. Cities control school system, hospitals, public libraries, fire department etc. So it's not actually the regions that are independent in Finland (except the autonomous Aland islands), but the over 400 municipalities. Their autonomy is based on the constitution.
Iran is inconsistently listed, listed on the map as a presidential republic, but listed in the article as a theocracy (which in the definition given, says that theocracies are un-democratic). My personal opinion is that it's both, since power within the government is divided among theocratic, non-democratically elected elements and democratically elected elements. The head of state is apart of the theocratic system, while the head of government is democratically elected. If we have to choose, I'd say it's theocratic, but the non-democratic note within the defination of that should be removed. Preferably though, it should be given its own catagory. -I don't have an account.
There appears to be an inconsistency with Turkmenistan as it is listed as a presidential republic but also a single party state -- and listed at Single-party state and Turkmenistan. Perhaps this should be changed in the alphabetical list, and if so, in the image as well. -- Allstar86 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cuba is missing from the alphabetical list. -- Allstar86 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the color of Switzerland from green (presidential republics, executive presidency linked to a parliament) to orange (parliamentary republics), but my edit was reverted with a summary saying "Swiss do not have distinct ceremonial Head of State".
Let's consider the options:
If you don't want to add "direct democracy" or something similar as a choice, Switzerland is clearly a parliamentary republic. How anyone could arrive at a different conclusion is beyond me. Anyone care to enlighten me? – For what it's worth later in the very same article Switzerland continues to be listed under "2.2 Parliamentary republics" and not under "2.1 Presidential / Separated republics". Rl 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please skim through presidential system, semi-presidential system, and parliamentary republic and you will find that these articles are about the relative power and election mode for executive and parliament (you will also find that Switzerland is only listed in one of these three articles – parliamentary republic). – The Swiss parliament is one of the most powerful in the world. Not only does it elect the members of the executive, it can also compel the government to do its bidding by issuing orders called "motions" (not laws, but orders regarding executive measures). The executive in Switzerland is one of the weakest in the world: it is accountable to the parliament which can interfere with daily business at any time, and citizens influence federal policy directly by voting on laws and constitutional changes several times a year. How could anyone suggest that such a system most closely resembles a presidential system? When did the distinct ceremonial head of state become the defining criterion of parliamentary republics? Rl 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually the correct term would be "Referendumsrepublic". And i know very well, that none of you will like that term, but everything else is just wrong...
witzerland changed between separated republics. Swiss federal council is not subject to parliamentary confidence, differently from what the page was saying. A specific colour for this unique case of directorial systems (a system which was used in Uruguay during the 30's) should be created.-- 87.5.142.102 ( talk) 22:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
While this map seems OK to me, the map currently in the article seems suspiciously OR. Thoughts welcome at Image talk:Form of government.png#map seems OR? -- Irpen 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think in light of the recent presidential elections in Muritania, and the preceding constitutional reform, the article should be changed to reflect this. Nedalz 09:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Namibia, Mozambique, Peru, and Armenia are all wrongly categorized as having "full" presidential systems when they actually have semi-presidential systems of government. See Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns, p. 11. -- WGee 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That being said, could somebody please correct the map? -- WGee 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
These countries are single party states, but they have elected leaders, shouldn't there be mention of that in this article? QZXA2 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Iran is not a single party state. There are reformist, conservative, etc... The full list can be found at Political parties in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.144.22 ( talk) 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A presidential republic? I don't think so. -- PaxEquilibrium 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As the president is *calling* for a change to a presidential system in a constitutional amendment, I very much doubt it already is a presidential republic. — Nightstallion 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Until someone wries the exact meaning of the color coding on the list. I saw list entries with all 3 fields being the same yet having different colors. The meaning should be available to the reader immediately in the form of a caption on the article page itself, rather than having to look on the talk page or elsewhere. 24.83.195.130 ( talk)
This list identifies South Korea as a semi-presidential system, yet the article on South Korea calls it a presidential system. That article's text seems to support the presidential classification, as there is no mention of the cabinet needing the confidence of the legislature (even though ministers, including the prime minister, must be approved by the legislature -- but this happens in many presidential systems, e.g. US -- there is no mention of a cabinet falling if it loses the legislature's confidence). So, unless the S Korea article is wrong or incomplete, this list should be changed to classify S Korea as presidential. Any thoughts? K.d.stauffer ( talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an apparent contradiction on this page. Look at the following quotes:
"A parliamentary republic is a system in which a prime minister is the active head of the executive branch of government and also leader of the legislature. The president's degree of executive power may range from being reasonably significant (eg. Poland) to little or none at all (eg. Ireland)."
"In semi-presidential systems, there is usually both a president and a prime minister. In such systems, the President has genuine executive authority, unlike in a parliamentary republic..."
If the executive power of the president of a parliamentary republic is "reasonably significant", than doesn't that actually make it a semi-presidential republic? What's the difference between a parliamentary republic with a president who's executive power is reasonably significant a semi-presidential system?
It is stated that bhutan is an absolute monarchy, however, nothing is mentioned about the recent referendum on democracy. Suggest revising this 194.46.237.1 ( talk) 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As is my understanding, the Vatican is not generally considered to be an absolute monarchy, so I removed it from that list.
201.242.100.181 ( talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be considered more akin to China or Sudan instead of giving them basically a blank section in the table. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 19:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The section on countries with a constitutional monarchy states that the prime minister is "also the leader of the legislature". I found this statement strange, in the case of Norway it is simply wrong. In Norway, the executive is in principle not accountable to the parliament, but there is a strong tradition that indiviual ministers as well as the whole cabinet relies on the confidence of the parliament (minority cabinets are however common). But the prime minister is still not a "leader of the legislature", as the executive branch is clearly separated from the legislature (the prime minister is appointed by the king without a vote in the parliament - the prime minister is then free to set up the cabinet, members of the parliament can not hold offices in the executive branch - they are "on leave" as ministers, the executive branch can not dissolve the parliament and call an election, etc), the cabinet has legislative power only in technical details related to implementation of bills and budgets. Denmark has a very similar system, while in Sweden the prime minister is elected by the parliament (the king is purely ceremonial). I think this section should be clarified. Regards, Mondeo ( talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Afghanistan is listed as constitutionally an absolute monarchy, a system that it plainly doesn't use. Is this vandalism, or is there an old, pre-republic constitution in place, or is there some other reason it's listed with a system that it doesn't use? Nyttend ( talk) 02:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"One country have at least vice-president that have an active role in the Government USA." - Does anyone know what that is supposed to be saying? 98.117.127.78 ( talk) 08:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Him probable mean, "At least one country, the USA, has a vice-president with an active role in the government." Me imagining change be should make. Gog 129.93.17.213 ( talk) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
David Arter, First Chair of Politics at Aberdeen University, in his "Scandinavian Politics Today" (Manchester University Press, revised 2008), quotes Jaako Nousainen in 'From semi-presidentialism to parliamentary government' in Scandinavian Political Studies 24 (2) p95-109 as follows:"There are hardly any grounds for the epithet 'semi-presidential'." Arter's own conclusions are only slightly more nuanced: "The adoption of a new constitution on 1 March 2000... meant that Finland was no longer a case of semi-presidential government other than in the minimalist sense of a 'situation where a popularly elected fixed-term president exists alongside a prime minister and cabinet who are responsible to parliament' (Elgie 2004: 317)". It seems that the application of the term "semi-presidential" to Finland, therefore, is now debatable at best. Some here may wish to defend it, but it shouldn't stay in the article without a clear statement to the effect that it's a controversial assertion. 86.146.228.185 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC).
Done.-- 87.5.142.102 ( talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
On the map, Suriname is shown in yellow (semi-presidential republic), yet in the list, the nation is shown as green (president and ministry subject to parliamentary confidence). This issue needs resolving by a more experienced user, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 ( talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The article lists San Marino's head of state as "executive" and lists San Marino among presidential republics. This is dead wrong. The collegial head of state in this republic (the two Captains-Regent) are purely ceremonial heads of state; the executive head is the Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs, who is ordinarily the leader of the majority party or ruling coalition in the legislature and holds office as long as he has its confidence or until the next election. The executive head, in other words, is equivalent to a prime minister, and the head of state is a ceremonial figurehead.
CHANGE IT! Tom 129.93.17.213 ( talk) 21:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Done.-- 87.5.142.102 ( talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Zimbabwe needs changing. It is shown here as a presidential republic, but since 2008 it has been a semi-presidential republic with power being shared between Robert Mugabe (as President) and Morgan Tsvangarai (as Prime Minister). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 ( talk) 11:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the main article Lithuania is a semi-presidential system and not a parliamentary republic as stated here. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.2.4 ( talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no United States under the alphabetical listing of countries?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees317 ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Alphabetical Listing of Countries at the top of the article, where is the text describing the form of government stored? I can not see it anywhere in the article.-- 90.199.141.71 ( talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of countries by system of government/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Talk:List of countries by system of government/Comments:
Nice article, very informative. However I noted that three countries were listed under two areas. Iran : Presidential Systems without a prime minister & Theocracies Turkmenistan: Presidential Systems without a prime minister & One-Party States Mauritana : Parlimentary Republics & Military Junta States I sure understand many countries' status are still somewhat fluid but thought I'd offer the input in any event. Maybe a stable category is needed. American Learner ( talk) 19:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)American Learner |
Last edited at 19:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Couldn't Thailand be considered a military junta, given that the military appoints the prime minister and cabinet?
.........
Thailand's monarchy is not simply ceremonial. For one the king appoints the judges to both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, and he's not just a rubber stamp. His handpicked Privy Council led by his General Prem were parties to the coup and are the power behind the former junta and their lock on the Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormarm ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This not means all presidential republics with a prime minister, if he isn't the head of government, like in Argentina, Peru and so on.
I think since the Parliament and Presidential election in 2006 and 2007 Mauretania is a presidential republic.
I've updated the information on Serbia and Montenegro. However, my information about these two states mainly comes (cyclically) from Wikipedia, so, althought I think it's accurate, it may not be.
Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy. It has a Prime Minister who is officially head of government; while members of the royal family still have some power, but not too much. -- Victor 08:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Aren't all the communist states authoritarian republics too? -- Jiang 04:33, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
They weren't 'votes' as we like to think of voting here in the west - plebiscite anyone?
Isn't a democratic monarchy a sort of oxymoron? After all, who gets to sign the laws before they are in effect, an elected representative or unelected ruler? Can citizens call the monarch off his/her duty if they choose so? -- Romanm 14:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And then there's Malaysia, where apparently the king is elected. Kim Bruning 14:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The definition for a democratic republic claims either the president or cabinet is elected by a legislature, but then lists the US as an example. Congress doesn't appoint anybody in the executive branch, though they do confirm cabinet members. Tuf-Kat 17:08, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
This recent edit by an anon made an edit that appears biased, but I am not knowledgeable enough to have much of an opinion. I hope by editing this talk page this edit will become more prominent. Tuf-Kat 07:11, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Israel is considered a theocracy because the civil code includes rabbinical law in addition to the civil code and the "the law of return" is a specificly religiously discriminatory law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.118.196 ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 28 May 2007
Um, "United States (controversial electoral system; nepotist tendencies)" This seems to be a little bit POV, to me. The electoral system isn't that controversial, and the claim of nepotist tendencies is hardly MPOV. . . I'm not going to change this, but I think this warrents some discussion. Soupfrog 04:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the leaders of countries such as Egypt, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan are elected freely and fairly and follow the laws of their respective countries. You can not simply judge a country's political climate by reading their laws, because they are frequently broken. We have to categorise them by what is actually happening. Secondly, Israel's despotic actions have nothing directly to do with what happens inside their own territory or to its own people. -- Sesel 21:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
...really?
I have made a new article from scratch, with info from the CIA World Factbook as of May 11, 2004. What do you all think about replacing this article with my proposed one? The proposed article is at: Talk:List of countries by system of government/alternate. Comments, suggestions are welcomed. -- Cantus 12:23, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
For example, what is the difference between constitutional democracy and constitutional republic? Or parliamentary democracy/republic? Is there any? *If* they are exactly the same then why does the CIA World Factbook use both terms? -- Cantus 12:36, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
The CIA is inconsistent and full of phooey. Why have a cateogory on "republics" when it is more specific (federal/constitutional) elswhere? Compare "none; the monarchy is hereditary; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition is usually the prime minister" vs. "none; the monarch is hereditary; governor general appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the prime minister; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or leader of a majority coalition is sworn in as prime minister by the governor general". -- Jia ng 00:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does Iran deserve to be categorized as an "authoritarian republic"?, defined as In which a country is governed by a dictatorial leader or a single-party hierarchy that does not allow for effective popular opposition. Iran does not meet this criteria. It's not a single party state nor does it have a single dictatorial leader. Obviously, it's not a liberal democracy either, but it's not fair to condemn it alongside genuine authoritarian states. Maybe another category called quasi-democracy or theocracy should be created; or perhaps it should be listed as a democractic republic and it's problems noted alongside the entry. Style 03:33, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
I repeat again that there is no convincing argument (or no argument at all!) that the CIA categorization is not flawed. Without consensus, we cannot be changing the the entire article. -- Jia ng 02:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This list will be always controvertial. Please take a look at the Form of government External link section - as you can see, there are always many possible definition combinations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "(slight authoritarian tendencies)" comment next to Italy is suspect. -- E. Rauch 4:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It appears Russia (mostly in Asia) is listed to be in Europe, Turkey (wishing to join the EU) is listed to be in Asia and Cyprus (in Asia, but in the EU) is listed to be in Europe. Are there any principles behind this or are these placed randomly? -- Lakefall 14:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't all the Commonwealth realms that recognize the British Monarch as their head of state be listed as constitutional monarchies? For some reason Canada is listed as a constitutional monarchy, but Australia and New Zealand are not. Any specific reason for that? -- Int19h 09:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Singapore belongs under "democratic republics" with "authoritarian tendencies". Unlike the other "authoritarian republics" they have competitive elections and have not received as much outcry from human rights patrollers such as the US government. We'll just add more qualifyers in parenthesis. Otherwise, if Singapore is to be listed under "authoritarian republics" the qualifiers should be about how democratic it is, not how authoritarian. -- Jia ng 23:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
no answer?
also, I don't think the term "Deformed workers' state" is neutral. What's wrong with "Communist state"? -- Ji ang 06:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Singapore has always had an opposition so "emerging" is not the right term. Say it has a "parliamentary system, elections, weak opposition" -- Ji ang 07:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang that Singapore belongs under "democratic republics" with "authoritarian tendencies". I am also concerned that Neutrality is marking his edits as minor edits when in fact they are not (See Help:Minor_edit). There was no rationale given for the changes (in the edit summary). As stated in the Help pages - Check your facts and cite your sources. I firmly believe that only when everyone understands the rationale behind your edits then will there be a meaningful discussion.
I would also like to draw attention to Piotr Konieczny's comment that there are many definitions available, and I do agree with him. Hence we have to be objective - does rule of law exist in Singapore? Is it really a one-party state? Does having weak opposition parties mean it is a one-party state? Are the elections held fair and recognized by the international community as being fair? What definition of authoritarian are we using here? Is the current one in use fair and accepted by the wiki community? I think it would not be fair to say the government is authoritarian just because there are strong personal opinions about the Michael Fay incident (which I suspect is the case here).
202.156.2.170 07:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following text is redundant and not NPOV:
"Commonwealth realm with British monarchial figurehead. Republic in practice. Parliamentary system.) "
Commonwealth realm already implies "British monarchial figurehead" and "Parliamentary system". Link to Commonwealth realm if necessary. Saying theyre "Republic in practice" is neither neutral nor accurate. For example, Queen Elizabeth's portrait appears in government buildings all over Canada and many things are still made out to "her majesty". -- Ji ang 07:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since the expansion of the Prince's powers, could we say "absolutist tendencies"?
I propose removing all commentary on systems of government - i.e. all the 'tendencies' 'elements of' etc. We just list the system of government, and not whether it works or not. The trouble is that once we introduce nuances, we can go on expanding the description for ever, because in difficult cases nobody will ever be satisfied. We're not trying to rewrite each country's article here. DJ Clayworth 18:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jguk removed the UK from the list of Federal and devolved states. While the assertion that the UK is not a Federal state is certainly correct, it seems to me that this is precisely why the list is Federal_and_devloved states. The UK has had a significant level of devolution of authority with respect to the different Home Nations. And Scotland has always maintained its own legal system. I'm not going to put it back without discussion, but it seems to be that the UK is certainly a devolved state compared to most unitary republics. Ddye 19:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Sure, France has regions for administrative purposes, but as far as I know, France is one of the most unitary states around. Virtually evert state has something below the national level; that doesn't make them Federations. Also, I would say we should break this part of the list into two (maybe three) parts:
Xyzzyva 01:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro is one state, not two! I would place it in Federal and devolved states. Serbia and Montenegro are now places as two states under Parliamentary republics. Milan Tešović 12:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Cuba can't be so simply characterized as non democratical as long as there are people that deny that accusations. The concept of Democracy itself tends to biased descriptions, given the insistence that the US have on the topic.
I think that the government categories should be redesigned, or stating if a country is democratic/non democratic should be omitted when there is dispute. Cuba is not a Capitalist Democracy, and/or nor a multiparty one, and Democracy doesn't start nor ends there.
Forms (or systems) of government are:
For further info see for example: Hague, Rod/Harrop, Martin (1998): Comparative Government and Politics, 4th edition. Houndmills: MacMillan
Currently the UAE is not listed anywhere under the first categorization (it is only listed under the Federal states). The UAE's unique structure makes it a bit difficult to categorize, I know, as there is a President and a Prime Minister, but they're both hereditary monarchs of two of the constitutent Emirates. So, I have put them for now under absolute monarchy, but I'd welcome input on that. Ddye 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The UAE could be defined as a monarchial federation of the 7 emirates. The UAE president is the Emir of Abu Dhabi, and holds the presidency defacto for life, altho he is "elected" formally.----Kaelin von Gross
Iran is not a democracy. 165.91.8.25 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
We can't define nations by their constitutional framework. Some nations don't have constitutions, and there are very few nations that really uphold their constitutions. This map would be inaccurate if it was modeled after that system. Russia has become an authoritarian fascist state under Vladimir Putin. It should be yellow brown striped, just like Western Sahara.-Anonymous Q
Switzerland is as much a direct democracy as it is a parliamentary republic. Nitpicking maybe, fine. What is completely wrong, however, is the map: Switzerland is most certainly not a "presidential republic, executive presidency linked to a parliament". There is no president of Switzerland. Not even a proper prime minister. The seven ministers of the Swiss Federal Council as a collective constitute both government and head of state. And for what it's worth, they are elected by the parliament. Rl 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The correct form would be called "Referendumsrepublic".
Countries? Should this be renamed List of states by system of government (or possibly "form of government?") This list only includes states, and the vaguery of the word "country" is non-encyclopedic. (cf. List of sovereign states and list of countries.) - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have moved South Africa from Full Presidential System to Semi-Presidential. My basis for doing so is Chapter 5 of the SA Constitution. In particular,Cabinet
91 (3) The President
1. must select the Deputy President from among the members of the National Assembly; 2. may select any number of Ministers from among the members of the Assembly; and 3. may select no more than two Ministers from outside the Assembly.
(4) The President must appoint a member of the Cabinet to be the leader of government business in the National Assembly.
(5) The Deputy President must assist the President in the execution of the functions of government.
92 (2) Members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions.
102. (1) If the National Assembly, by a vote supported by a majority of its members, passes a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet excluding the President, the President must reconstitute the Cabinet.
(2) If the National Assembly, by a vote supported by a majority of its members, passes a motion of no confidence in the President, the President and the other members of the Cabinet and any Deputy Ministers must resign.
The South Africa page actually lists south africa as a Parliamentary Republic. This is on the basis, I presume, that the President is elected by the National Assembly. However, I think semi-presidential is more accurate as the President, once elected, is immovable until a fresh election to the Assembly takes place.
Camhusmj38 08:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In Finland, and to my knowledge in some other countries too, actually the municipality level government functions quite independently. Citizens pay taxes to both the government and the city in which they live. Cities control school system, hospitals, public libraries, fire department etc. So it's not actually the regions that are independent in Finland (except the autonomous Aland islands), but the over 400 municipalities. Their autonomy is based on the constitution.
Iran is inconsistently listed, listed on the map as a presidential republic, but listed in the article as a theocracy (which in the definition given, says that theocracies are un-democratic). My personal opinion is that it's both, since power within the government is divided among theocratic, non-democratically elected elements and democratically elected elements. The head of state is apart of the theocratic system, while the head of government is democratically elected. If we have to choose, I'd say it's theocratic, but the non-democratic note within the defination of that should be removed. Preferably though, it should be given its own catagory. -I don't have an account.
There appears to be an inconsistency with Turkmenistan as it is listed as a presidential republic but also a single party state -- and listed at Single-party state and Turkmenistan. Perhaps this should be changed in the alphabetical list, and if so, in the image as well. -- Allstar86 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cuba is missing from the alphabetical list. -- Allstar86 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the color of Switzerland from green (presidential republics, executive presidency linked to a parliament) to orange (parliamentary republics), but my edit was reverted with a summary saying "Swiss do not have distinct ceremonial Head of State".
Let's consider the options:
If you don't want to add "direct democracy" or something similar as a choice, Switzerland is clearly a parliamentary republic. How anyone could arrive at a different conclusion is beyond me. Anyone care to enlighten me? – For what it's worth later in the very same article Switzerland continues to be listed under "2.2 Parliamentary republics" and not under "2.1 Presidential / Separated republics". Rl 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please skim through presidential system, semi-presidential system, and parliamentary republic and you will find that these articles are about the relative power and election mode for executive and parliament (you will also find that Switzerland is only listed in one of these three articles – parliamentary republic). – The Swiss parliament is one of the most powerful in the world. Not only does it elect the members of the executive, it can also compel the government to do its bidding by issuing orders called "motions" (not laws, but orders regarding executive measures). The executive in Switzerland is one of the weakest in the world: it is accountable to the parliament which can interfere with daily business at any time, and citizens influence federal policy directly by voting on laws and constitutional changes several times a year. How could anyone suggest that such a system most closely resembles a presidential system? When did the distinct ceremonial head of state become the defining criterion of parliamentary republics? Rl 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually the correct term would be "Referendumsrepublic". And i know very well, that none of you will like that term, but everything else is just wrong...
witzerland changed between separated republics. Swiss federal council is not subject to parliamentary confidence, differently from what the page was saying. A specific colour for this unique case of directorial systems (a system which was used in Uruguay during the 30's) should be created.-- 87.5.142.102 ( talk) 22:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
While this map seems OK to me, the map currently in the article seems suspiciously OR. Thoughts welcome at Image talk:Form of government.png#map seems OR? -- Irpen 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think in light of the recent presidential elections in Muritania, and the preceding constitutional reform, the article should be changed to reflect this. Nedalz 09:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Namibia, Mozambique, Peru, and Armenia are all wrongly categorized as having "full" presidential systems when they actually have semi-presidential systems of government. See Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns, p. 11. -- WGee 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That being said, could somebody please correct the map? -- WGee 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
These countries are single party states, but they have elected leaders, shouldn't there be mention of that in this article? QZXA2 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Iran is not a single party state. There are reformist, conservative, etc... The full list can be found at Political parties in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.144.22 ( talk) 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A presidential republic? I don't think so. -- PaxEquilibrium 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As the president is *calling* for a change to a presidential system in a constitutional amendment, I very much doubt it already is a presidential republic. — Nightstallion 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Until someone wries the exact meaning of the color coding on the list. I saw list entries with all 3 fields being the same yet having different colors. The meaning should be available to the reader immediately in the form of a caption on the article page itself, rather than having to look on the talk page or elsewhere. 24.83.195.130 ( talk)
This list identifies South Korea as a semi-presidential system, yet the article on South Korea calls it a presidential system. That article's text seems to support the presidential classification, as there is no mention of the cabinet needing the confidence of the legislature (even though ministers, including the prime minister, must be approved by the legislature -- but this happens in many presidential systems, e.g. US -- there is no mention of a cabinet falling if it loses the legislature's confidence). So, unless the S Korea article is wrong or incomplete, this list should be changed to classify S Korea as presidential. Any thoughts? K.d.stauffer ( talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an apparent contradiction on this page. Look at the following quotes:
"A parliamentary republic is a system in which a prime minister is the active head of the executive branch of government and also leader of the legislature. The president's degree of executive power may range from being reasonably significant (eg. Poland) to little or none at all (eg. Ireland)."
"In semi-presidential systems, there is usually both a president and a prime minister. In such systems, the President has genuine executive authority, unlike in a parliamentary republic..."
If the executive power of the president of a parliamentary republic is "reasonably significant", than doesn't that actually make it a semi-presidential republic? What's the difference between a parliamentary republic with a president who's executive power is reasonably significant a semi-presidential system?
It is stated that bhutan is an absolute monarchy, however, nothing is mentioned about the recent referendum on democracy. Suggest revising this 194.46.237.1 ( talk) 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As is my understanding, the Vatican is not generally considered to be an absolute monarchy, so I removed it from that list.
201.242.100.181 ( talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be considered more akin to China or Sudan instead of giving them basically a blank section in the table. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 19:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The section on countries with a constitutional monarchy states that the prime minister is "also the leader of the legislature". I found this statement strange, in the case of Norway it is simply wrong. In Norway, the executive is in principle not accountable to the parliament, but there is a strong tradition that indiviual ministers as well as the whole cabinet relies on the confidence of the parliament (minority cabinets are however common). But the prime minister is still not a "leader of the legislature", as the executive branch is clearly separated from the legislature (the prime minister is appointed by the king without a vote in the parliament - the prime minister is then free to set up the cabinet, members of the parliament can not hold offices in the executive branch - they are "on leave" as ministers, the executive branch can not dissolve the parliament and call an election, etc), the cabinet has legislative power only in technical details related to implementation of bills and budgets. Denmark has a very similar system, while in Sweden the prime minister is elected by the parliament (the king is purely ceremonial). I think this section should be clarified. Regards, Mondeo ( talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Afghanistan is listed as constitutionally an absolute monarchy, a system that it plainly doesn't use. Is this vandalism, or is there an old, pre-republic constitution in place, or is there some other reason it's listed with a system that it doesn't use? Nyttend ( talk) 02:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"One country have at least vice-president that have an active role in the Government USA." - Does anyone know what that is supposed to be saying? 98.117.127.78 ( talk) 08:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Him probable mean, "At least one country, the USA, has a vice-president with an active role in the government." Me imagining change be should make. Gog 129.93.17.213 ( talk) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
David Arter, First Chair of Politics at Aberdeen University, in his "Scandinavian Politics Today" (Manchester University Press, revised 2008), quotes Jaako Nousainen in 'From semi-presidentialism to parliamentary government' in Scandinavian Political Studies 24 (2) p95-109 as follows:"There are hardly any grounds for the epithet 'semi-presidential'." Arter's own conclusions are only slightly more nuanced: "The adoption of a new constitution on 1 March 2000... meant that Finland was no longer a case of semi-presidential government other than in the minimalist sense of a 'situation where a popularly elected fixed-term president exists alongside a prime minister and cabinet who are responsible to parliament' (Elgie 2004: 317)". It seems that the application of the term "semi-presidential" to Finland, therefore, is now debatable at best. Some here may wish to defend it, but it shouldn't stay in the article without a clear statement to the effect that it's a controversial assertion. 86.146.228.185 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC).
Done.-- 87.5.142.102 ( talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
On the map, Suriname is shown in yellow (semi-presidential republic), yet in the list, the nation is shown as green (president and ministry subject to parliamentary confidence). This issue needs resolving by a more experienced user, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 ( talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The article lists San Marino's head of state as "executive" and lists San Marino among presidential republics. This is dead wrong. The collegial head of state in this republic (the two Captains-Regent) are purely ceremonial heads of state; the executive head is the Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs, who is ordinarily the leader of the majority party or ruling coalition in the legislature and holds office as long as he has its confidence or until the next election. The executive head, in other words, is equivalent to a prime minister, and the head of state is a ceremonial figurehead.
CHANGE IT! Tom 129.93.17.213 ( talk) 21:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Done.-- 87.5.142.102 ( talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Zimbabwe needs changing. It is shown here as a presidential republic, but since 2008 it has been a semi-presidential republic with power being shared between Robert Mugabe (as President) and Morgan Tsvangarai (as Prime Minister). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.54.253 ( talk) 11:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the main article Lithuania is a semi-presidential system and not a parliamentary republic as stated here. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.2.4 ( talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no United States under the alphabetical listing of countries?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees317 ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Alphabetical Listing of Countries at the top of the article, where is the text describing the form of government stored? I can not see it anywhere in the article.-- 90.199.141.71 ( talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of countries by system of government/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Talk:List of countries by system of government/Comments:
Nice article, very informative. However I noted that three countries were listed under two areas. Iran : Presidential Systems without a prime minister & Theocracies Turkmenistan: Presidential Systems without a prime minister & One-Party States Mauritana : Parlimentary Republics & Military Junta States I sure understand many countries' status are still somewhat fluid but thought I'd offer the input in any event. Maybe a stable category is needed. American Learner ( talk) 19:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)American Learner |
Last edited at 19:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)