This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What about South Sudan in the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvadorcases ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It mixes up a host of things
BTW the claim that presidential system is based on the US system is garbage. It is far older. The US system was for example based on the system of government in Great Britain in the 1770s, with the President stepping into the role of the Crown, and Congress a more clearly defined parliament.
It has also nothing to do with method of selection of a head of state. It has to do with the fact that the executive is not answerable to parliament, so cannot be voted out by a Vote of Confidence. They exist in separate spheres of influence.
I hope no-one used this garbled article in an essay in college. If they did they would have failed. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously this is false. Each branch of American gov't is accountable to each other branch in at least one way. It's been a while since I had a civics or government class, but two checks/balances of the legislature on the executive immediately come to my mind: (1) impeachemnt and (2) the sole right of congress to declare war (which puts a check on the President in his role as Chief Commander of the A.F.).
The point is, this sounds like a borderline-vandalism comment by someone who doesn't like our current executive--but it is not good information.
I note that Congressional system is a redirect to Presidential system: should it be? There is a (rather unsatisfactory) "article" at Congress: it currently looks like a (very incomplete) disambiguation page. -- Mais oui! 08:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The introduction to this article seems to have a discernable bias in favor of the British parilamentary form of government and against the American model of separation of powers. It seems historically ill-informed and misleading, possibly deliberately so, and would do well to be rewritten almost entirely to remove the unnecessary comparisons with Britain and focus on introducing the topic in an objective tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.124.235 ( talk) 07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
On the "weaknesses" part there was this phrase: "Since there is no legal way to remove an unpopular president, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate, as in Salvador Allende." I removed the last four words because I believe them to be biased and propagandistic. Salvador Allende was not removed because "he had lost his mandate". He was killed by foreign-financed blood- thirsty extreme-right coupists, and was replaced by Pinochet, a non-elected, illegitimate military leader who ruled with total disregard for political and human rights. The way this phrase was written made it look like Pinochet did a favour to Chilean people by removing an unpopular president. Quite the opposite is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.166.111 ( talk) 19:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on the assertion that presidential systems tend to have less ideological parties, someone put the tag "citation needed", and yet that tag shows up very rarely in the remainder of the page. I am thus compelled to concluded that this is an abuse of policy for the purposes of enforcing bias.
This is an excellent illustration of why I have historically experienced a very strong negative emotional reaction to Wikipedia's policies more or less in general, if I am honest. Hypocrisy and the enforcement of bias, in the name of supposedly maintaining neutrality, are made far too easy.
Petrus4 ( talk) 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not have a system with both a president (as head of government and state), a queen just to be traditional, and a legislature (like congress) to make the laws. I think australia should have a system like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 ( talk) 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats nonsense. Every monarchy should be abolished. Once and for all. 84.134.99.161 ( talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that I'm replying to a post from a decade ago, but regardless I felt I had to note that there actually have been monarchies that utilized the presidential system in the past (so it's not that bizarre of an idea). The Kingdom of Hawaii's system of government, for example, was patterned closely after that of the US and its States (not surprising, given the influence American missionaries and business interests had in the Kingdom); the monarch was both head of state and government, with powers very similar to those held by the President of the United States, or a Governor of a US State, with regard to executing laws, while an independent legislature made the laws, and an independent judiciary adjudicated the laws, and each branch having a check on the others in the exercise of their functions.— MNTRT2009 ( talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
186.188.238.66 ( talk) 02:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Hey MNTRT2009, I believe you're talking about a Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch leads the executive, which was the form of government introduced by the first french constitution of the French Revolution. I personally don't like it because I like extremes (Presidential republics/Absolute monarchies), but that's ok. Hey 84.134.99.161, I know you're from Germany and I find it weird that you hate monarchies, since your country didn't suffered evil monarchies...
REFERENCES. I was hoping to get some help finding a site not wikipedia to cite for a paper. Found the info I want, but I need a citation that can withstand criticisms. I dont see a single reference in this article. 205.250.62.216 ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a democratie! 84.134.57.73 ( talk) 13:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the passage:
"A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals of the legislature, while a president is usually chosen by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if the legislative body was itself elected, to rule."
It sounds a little junior-high-school-ish. In the British parliamentary system, the electorate votes for a House of Commons which, in turn, selects a prime minister. In the American presidential system, the electorate votes for an electoral college which, in turn, selects a president. The two seem equivalent. Why does this author think the prime minister is chosen by just "a few individuals of the legislature"? Nothing is offered to support that view.
There are many differences in power, accountability and such between the two officers once they are elected, but that's a separate topic.
-- Kjb ( talk) 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)G!\m/
Particularly because it wrongly associates a great deal of nations that all have executive Presidencies and then attempts to describe their systems with a very poor history and interpretation of the American system. Furthermore, the associated image would have you believe that the US and Iran have the same system of government, which is ridiculous--Iran has a Supreme Leader who is above the President, and a very complex system of entrenched councils that make the system very undemocratic. The article should be subdivided into articles about the American Presidential System and countries that use it (the US, et al) or some derived variation (Brazil, et al), as well as dictatorships with nominal legislatures whose dictators call themselves "President" (Cuba, et al). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 ( talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Presidential rotation system has been added based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22presidential+rotation+system%22&btnG=Search -- 222.64.211.94 ( talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
so that all the dirty tricks maintain within a party, instead of spreading to the public
-- 222.64.211.94 ( talk) 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Presidential system → Civil government presidential political system — This system is only used in civil government, not in politics (eg religiuos politics, ...) as a whole User:91.176.13.181 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politician which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. RFC bot ( talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that the article needs more references, it seems to be a rather balanced article, so I don't understand Tocino's POV tag. Tocino, can you give some examples of non-neutral statements or undue weight on particular points of view? rspεεr ( talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is an absolute disgrace. The United States founded the presidential system as we know it, but the credit is given to European monarchies which has little to nothing in similarity. This article has been completely manipulated by typical arrogant europhiles. And on top of it, the US is accused as having an "Imperial Presidential system" What a load of S#2%T! Lets not rape history with our anti-americanism people. Give credit where credit is due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 ( talk)
No credit to the inventor. No progression. No... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.14.249 ( talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Republic of Paraguay adopts as its system of government a representative, participatory, and pluralistic democracy, which is founded on the recognition of human dignity. Paraguay is a Republic with an executive president dependent on a parliament.
Article 225 About Procedures (1) The president of the Republic, the vice president, cabinet ministers, justices of the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the public defender, the comptroller-general and the deputy comptroller-general of the Republic, and members of the Superior Electoral Court may be forced to undergo impeachment proceedings for malfeasance in office, for crimes committed in office, or for common crimes. (2) The Chamber of Deputies, by a two-thirds majority, will press the respective charges. The Senate, by a two-thirds absolute majority, will conduct a public trial of those charged by the Chamber of Deputies and, if appropriate, will declare them guilty for the sole purpose of removing them from office. In cases in which it appears that common crimes have been committed, the files on the respective impeachment proceedings will be referred to a competent court.
Besides, the Duties and Powers of Congress are, to approve the national budget once a year, and approve or reject treaties or other international agreements signed by the president of the Republic, to approve or to reject loan agreements, authorize, for a limited period of time, concessions for the exploitation of national or multinational public services or of assets belonging to the State, as well as for the extraction and processing of solid, liquid, or gaseous minerals, to "receive annually from the president of the Republic, at the start of each regular period of sessions, a report on the general situation of the country, on its administration, and government plans", to approve or reject, either partially or totally, after hearing the respective report by the Comptroller-General of the Republic, the report on the details and justification of public financial income and expenses related to the implementation of the budget, and many others. http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/pa00000_.html
Excuse my English ( 186.188.238.66 ( talk) 02:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC) your english is indeed horrible, you should avoid using Google Translator here), Regards, Carlos Flores.
This article cites gridlock as a criticism of the presidential system. It doesn't seem to state that for many Gridlock is a very desirable result. This is because anything that can be done quickly will likely be done poorly and having congress and the president too friendly will result in things being passed to quickly to be properly debated and not give constituents time to mount an opposition. A prime example of this would be the recent passage of Obamacare which only passed because of the lack of gridlock and polls have shown a strong preference for repeal ever since. Drewder ( talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a certain shade of Green that represents Thailand. Why is it being excluded as a legend color with this specific Green? It's description for this color's representation should be like all of the others. If you take a good look at the map, there's one more color missing within it's equation since their's no description to describe Thailand that's shaded in a specific type of Green. There's basically no color legend for Thailand's representation within this subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cod1337 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Opening sentence reads "presidential system is a system of government where a head of government is also head of state and leads an executive branch", but the "Presidential systems with a prime minister" section contains examples to the contrary. (e.g. Azerbaijan's head of government ( prime minister) is not the head of state.) Either those countries should be removed or the definition should be corrected.-- 209.6.192.134 ( talk) 02:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
"Cabinet ministers or executive departmental chiefs are not members of the legislature."
Can i add Suriname, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Botswana and Kiribati can i add this country to Presidential system because they have Presidents and Vice Presidents and the President is the head of both state and government.
These countries use a form of parliamentary system where the president is simultaneously a prime minister in all but name, and requires the confidence of parliament to stay in office.-- Idlem ( talk) 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Pls redact our map! Because Garabagh is not a part of any country. This is our region! Ordu Khan ( talk) 09:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
186.188.238.66 ( talk) 02:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC) This article is about the Presidential system of government (which is a type of republican government), but this page is not suited to make a comparison between such a system and a parliamentary one. I feel this article is discriminating against Presidential Republics, which is an insult to such a system. We need to find a solution to this, but I suggest removing any mention of the Parliamentary system, for now at least. This article is very bad and unprofessional... Presidential republics are not "the Congressional system"...
Maurice Duverger defined semi-presidentialism as a system where: 1) The president is popularly elected; 2) The president has considerable power; 3) The president shares executives power with a prime minister responsible to the parliament.
Belarus and Kazakhstan use a semi-presidential system. The popularly-elected president is chairperson of the executive branch and possesses considerable discretionary power. The Cabinet's term in office depends on the parliament, meeting the third conditions. Furthermore, bills can be drafted by the president's Cabinet or the president directly, a common feature of semi-presidential countries (such as France), but antithetical of the "checks and balances" of a presidential system.
Would anyone object that I move Belarus and Kazakhstan to the page semi-presidential system? If any other countries belong there as well, let me know (I suspect it's the entire list of these countries with prime ministers, but this might be too radical).-- Idlem ( talk) 05:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Peru is really a presidential system? The parliament could sack the government, and some source call it semi-presidential ( example).-- MiguelMadeira ( talk) 13:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
India do not have a Presidential system.So it is wise to remove it.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I've made several changes to restructure the article. In its previous state, the information was mostly sorted into a pros and cons style, lacked any sort of sourcing, and was generally disorganized. I've moved most of the content into the "Characteristics" section and sorted it by different aspects of the system to better comply with style guidelines. I've done what I can to source the information, and I've rewritten portions of the article to be more concise or better comply with sources. The only section I removed outright was "Impediments to leadership change," which was a large section that consisted of a back-and-forth tangent with original research. I've also added a history section and generously applied citation needed tags where necessary. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"Following the pattern of other Spanish colonies, the Philippines established the first presidential system in Asia in 1898" is NOT accurate. The 1899 Malolos Constitution was Parliamentary in form rather than a "single executive system" as defined by the Wikipedia entry.
See Malolos Constitution - Wikipedia and https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1899-malolos-constitution/ Obed.ello ( talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is a unitary semi-presidential republic, according to the Constitution. The executive power is vested in the government. The President is the head of state and is also head of government and head of the executive. But the President is not the sole executive and shares power with the Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who is a Member of Parliament that commands the confidence of the house. Ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Hence the Prime Minister and the Ministers derive their powers from the Parliament, and are dually accountable to both the President and the Parliament, much like in the parliamentary system. Parliament has the power to remove the Prime Minister by a motion of no confidence. Hence, Sri Lanka is a semi-presidential republic In the Presidential system the government is independent of the legislature, but the power of the Government of Sri Lanka depends on Parliament, unlike in the presidential system.
https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf The Sri Lanka ( talk) 16:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
There should be consensus regarding the inclusion of countries with limited recognition. It would be better to include only countries which are recognised by at least one UN member state. Please share your thoughts and ideas in this regard. The Sri Lanka ( talk) 14:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Material from Presidential system was split to Presidentialism metrics from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
HudecEmil ( talk) 09:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In the UK, the monarch can dissolve or prorogue parliament, dismiss and appoint the prime minister and to veto any act passed by parliament. These powers have not been used recently, but the caption states that "this chart represent de jure systems of government, not the de facto degree of democracy" and these de jure powers border on absolute monarchy, so perhaps the UK should be coloured in as a semi-constitutional monarchy? Edward Jocob Philip Smith ( talk) 19:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What about South Sudan in the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvadorcases ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It mixes up a host of things
BTW the claim that presidential system is based on the US system is garbage. It is far older. The US system was for example based on the system of government in Great Britain in the 1770s, with the President stepping into the role of the Crown, and Congress a more clearly defined parliament.
It has also nothing to do with method of selection of a head of state. It has to do with the fact that the executive is not answerable to parliament, so cannot be voted out by a Vote of Confidence. They exist in separate spheres of influence.
I hope no-one used this garbled article in an essay in college. If they did they would have failed. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously this is false. Each branch of American gov't is accountable to each other branch in at least one way. It's been a while since I had a civics or government class, but two checks/balances of the legislature on the executive immediately come to my mind: (1) impeachemnt and (2) the sole right of congress to declare war (which puts a check on the President in his role as Chief Commander of the A.F.).
The point is, this sounds like a borderline-vandalism comment by someone who doesn't like our current executive--but it is not good information.
I note that Congressional system is a redirect to Presidential system: should it be? There is a (rather unsatisfactory) "article" at Congress: it currently looks like a (very incomplete) disambiguation page. -- Mais oui! 08:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The introduction to this article seems to have a discernable bias in favor of the British parilamentary form of government and against the American model of separation of powers. It seems historically ill-informed and misleading, possibly deliberately so, and would do well to be rewritten almost entirely to remove the unnecessary comparisons with Britain and focus on introducing the topic in an objective tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.124.235 ( talk) 07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
On the "weaknesses" part there was this phrase: "Since there is no legal way to remove an unpopular president, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate, as in Salvador Allende." I removed the last four words because I believe them to be biased and propagandistic. Salvador Allende was not removed because "he had lost his mandate". He was killed by foreign-financed blood- thirsty extreme-right coupists, and was replaced by Pinochet, a non-elected, illegitimate military leader who ruled with total disregard for political and human rights. The way this phrase was written made it look like Pinochet did a favour to Chilean people by removing an unpopular president. Quite the opposite is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.166.111 ( talk) 19:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on the assertion that presidential systems tend to have less ideological parties, someone put the tag "citation needed", and yet that tag shows up very rarely in the remainder of the page. I am thus compelled to concluded that this is an abuse of policy for the purposes of enforcing bias.
This is an excellent illustration of why I have historically experienced a very strong negative emotional reaction to Wikipedia's policies more or less in general, if I am honest. Hypocrisy and the enforcement of bias, in the name of supposedly maintaining neutrality, are made far too easy.
Petrus4 ( talk) 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not have a system with both a president (as head of government and state), a queen just to be traditional, and a legislature (like congress) to make the laws. I think australia should have a system like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 ( talk) 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats nonsense. Every monarchy should be abolished. Once and for all. 84.134.99.161 ( talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that I'm replying to a post from a decade ago, but regardless I felt I had to note that there actually have been monarchies that utilized the presidential system in the past (so it's not that bizarre of an idea). The Kingdom of Hawaii's system of government, for example, was patterned closely after that of the US and its States (not surprising, given the influence American missionaries and business interests had in the Kingdom); the monarch was both head of state and government, with powers very similar to those held by the President of the United States, or a Governor of a US State, with regard to executing laws, while an independent legislature made the laws, and an independent judiciary adjudicated the laws, and each branch having a check on the others in the exercise of their functions.— MNTRT2009 ( talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
186.188.238.66 ( talk) 02:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Hey MNTRT2009, I believe you're talking about a Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch leads the executive, which was the form of government introduced by the first french constitution of the French Revolution. I personally don't like it because I like extremes (Presidential republics/Absolute monarchies), but that's ok. Hey 84.134.99.161, I know you're from Germany and I find it weird that you hate monarchies, since your country didn't suffered evil monarchies...
REFERENCES. I was hoping to get some help finding a site not wikipedia to cite for a paper. Found the info I want, but I need a citation that can withstand criticisms. I dont see a single reference in this article. 205.250.62.216 ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a democratie! 84.134.57.73 ( talk) 13:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the passage:
"A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals of the legislature, while a president is usually chosen by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if the legislative body was itself elected, to rule."
It sounds a little junior-high-school-ish. In the British parliamentary system, the electorate votes for a House of Commons which, in turn, selects a prime minister. In the American presidential system, the electorate votes for an electoral college which, in turn, selects a president. The two seem equivalent. Why does this author think the prime minister is chosen by just "a few individuals of the legislature"? Nothing is offered to support that view.
There are many differences in power, accountability and such between the two officers once they are elected, but that's a separate topic.
-- Kjb ( talk) 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)G!\m/
Particularly because it wrongly associates a great deal of nations that all have executive Presidencies and then attempts to describe their systems with a very poor history and interpretation of the American system. Furthermore, the associated image would have you believe that the US and Iran have the same system of government, which is ridiculous--Iran has a Supreme Leader who is above the President, and a very complex system of entrenched councils that make the system very undemocratic. The article should be subdivided into articles about the American Presidential System and countries that use it (the US, et al) or some derived variation (Brazil, et al), as well as dictatorships with nominal legislatures whose dictators call themselves "President" (Cuba, et al). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 ( talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Presidential rotation system has been added based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22presidential+rotation+system%22&btnG=Search -- 222.64.211.94 ( talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
so that all the dirty tricks maintain within a party, instead of spreading to the public
-- 222.64.211.94 ( talk) 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Presidential system → Civil government presidential political system — This system is only used in civil government, not in politics (eg religiuos politics, ...) as a whole User:91.176.13.181 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politician which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. RFC bot ( talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that the article needs more references, it seems to be a rather balanced article, so I don't understand Tocino's POV tag. Tocino, can you give some examples of non-neutral statements or undue weight on particular points of view? rspεεr ( talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is an absolute disgrace. The United States founded the presidential system as we know it, but the credit is given to European monarchies which has little to nothing in similarity. This article has been completely manipulated by typical arrogant europhiles. And on top of it, the US is accused as having an "Imperial Presidential system" What a load of S#2%T! Lets not rape history with our anti-americanism people. Give credit where credit is due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 ( talk)
No credit to the inventor. No progression. No... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.14.249 ( talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Republic of Paraguay adopts as its system of government a representative, participatory, and pluralistic democracy, which is founded on the recognition of human dignity. Paraguay is a Republic with an executive president dependent on a parliament.
Article 225 About Procedures (1) The president of the Republic, the vice president, cabinet ministers, justices of the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the public defender, the comptroller-general and the deputy comptroller-general of the Republic, and members of the Superior Electoral Court may be forced to undergo impeachment proceedings for malfeasance in office, for crimes committed in office, or for common crimes. (2) The Chamber of Deputies, by a two-thirds majority, will press the respective charges. The Senate, by a two-thirds absolute majority, will conduct a public trial of those charged by the Chamber of Deputies and, if appropriate, will declare them guilty for the sole purpose of removing them from office. In cases in which it appears that common crimes have been committed, the files on the respective impeachment proceedings will be referred to a competent court.
Besides, the Duties and Powers of Congress are, to approve the national budget once a year, and approve or reject treaties or other international agreements signed by the president of the Republic, to approve or to reject loan agreements, authorize, for a limited period of time, concessions for the exploitation of national or multinational public services or of assets belonging to the State, as well as for the extraction and processing of solid, liquid, or gaseous minerals, to "receive annually from the president of the Republic, at the start of each regular period of sessions, a report on the general situation of the country, on its administration, and government plans", to approve or reject, either partially or totally, after hearing the respective report by the Comptroller-General of the Republic, the report on the details and justification of public financial income and expenses related to the implementation of the budget, and many others. http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/pa00000_.html
Excuse my English ( 186.188.238.66 ( talk) 02:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC) your english is indeed horrible, you should avoid using Google Translator here), Regards, Carlos Flores.
This article cites gridlock as a criticism of the presidential system. It doesn't seem to state that for many Gridlock is a very desirable result. This is because anything that can be done quickly will likely be done poorly and having congress and the president too friendly will result in things being passed to quickly to be properly debated and not give constituents time to mount an opposition. A prime example of this would be the recent passage of Obamacare which only passed because of the lack of gridlock and polls have shown a strong preference for repeal ever since. Drewder ( talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a certain shade of Green that represents Thailand. Why is it being excluded as a legend color with this specific Green? It's description for this color's representation should be like all of the others. If you take a good look at the map, there's one more color missing within it's equation since their's no description to describe Thailand that's shaded in a specific type of Green. There's basically no color legend for Thailand's representation within this subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cod1337 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Opening sentence reads "presidential system is a system of government where a head of government is also head of state and leads an executive branch", but the "Presidential systems with a prime minister" section contains examples to the contrary. (e.g. Azerbaijan's head of government ( prime minister) is not the head of state.) Either those countries should be removed or the definition should be corrected.-- 209.6.192.134 ( talk) 02:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
"Cabinet ministers or executive departmental chiefs are not members of the legislature."
Can i add Suriname, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Botswana and Kiribati can i add this country to Presidential system because they have Presidents and Vice Presidents and the President is the head of both state and government.
These countries use a form of parliamentary system where the president is simultaneously a prime minister in all but name, and requires the confidence of parliament to stay in office.-- Idlem ( talk) 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Pls redact our map! Because Garabagh is not a part of any country. This is our region! Ordu Khan ( talk) 09:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
186.188.238.66 ( talk) 02:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC) This article is about the Presidential system of government (which is a type of republican government), but this page is not suited to make a comparison between such a system and a parliamentary one. I feel this article is discriminating against Presidential Republics, which is an insult to such a system. We need to find a solution to this, but I suggest removing any mention of the Parliamentary system, for now at least. This article is very bad and unprofessional... Presidential republics are not "the Congressional system"...
Maurice Duverger defined semi-presidentialism as a system where: 1) The president is popularly elected; 2) The president has considerable power; 3) The president shares executives power with a prime minister responsible to the parliament.
Belarus and Kazakhstan use a semi-presidential system. The popularly-elected president is chairperson of the executive branch and possesses considerable discretionary power. The Cabinet's term in office depends on the parliament, meeting the third conditions. Furthermore, bills can be drafted by the president's Cabinet or the president directly, a common feature of semi-presidential countries (such as France), but antithetical of the "checks and balances" of a presidential system.
Would anyone object that I move Belarus and Kazakhstan to the page semi-presidential system? If any other countries belong there as well, let me know (I suspect it's the entire list of these countries with prime ministers, but this might be too radical).-- Idlem ( talk) 05:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Peru is really a presidential system? The parliament could sack the government, and some source call it semi-presidential ( example).-- MiguelMadeira ( talk) 13:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
India do not have a Presidential system.So it is wise to remove it.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I've made several changes to restructure the article. In its previous state, the information was mostly sorted into a pros and cons style, lacked any sort of sourcing, and was generally disorganized. I've moved most of the content into the "Characteristics" section and sorted it by different aspects of the system to better comply with style guidelines. I've done what I can to source the information, and I've rewritten portions of the article to be more concise or better comply with sources. The only section I removed outright was "Impediments to leadership change," which was a large section that consisted of a back-and-forth tangent with original research. I've also added a history section and generously applied citation needed tags where necessary. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"Following the pattern of other Spanish colonies, the Philippines established the first presidential system in Asia in 1898" is NOT accurate. The 1899 Malolos Constitution was Parliamentary in form rather than a "single executive system" as defined by the Wikipedia entry.
See Malolos Constitution - Wikipedia and https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1899-malolos-constitution/ Obed.ello ( talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is a unitary semi-presidential republic, according to the Constitution. The executive power is vested in the government. The President is the head of state and is also head of government and head of the executive. But the President is not the sole executive and shares power with the Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who is a Member of Parliament that commands the confidence of the house. Ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Hence the Prime Minister and the Ministers derive their powers from the Parliament, and are dually accountable to both the President and the Parliament, much like in the parliamentary system. Parliament has the power to remove the Prime Minister by a motion of no confidence. Hence, Sri Lanka is a semi-presidential republic In the Presidential system the government is independent of the legislature, but the power of the Government of Sri Lanka depends on Parliament, unlike in the presidential system.
https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf The Sri Lanka ( talk) 16:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
There should be consensus regarding the inclusion of countries with limited recognition. It would be better to include only countries which are recognised by at least one UN member state. Please share your thoughts and ideas in this regard. The Sri Lanka ( talk) 14:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Material from Presidential system was split to Presidentialism metrics from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
HudecEmil ( talk) 09:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In the UK, the monarch can dissolve or prorogue parliament, dismiss and appoint the prime minister and to veto any act passed by parliament. These powers have not been used recently, but the caption states that "this chart represent de jure systems of government, not the de facto degree of democracy" and these de jure powers border on absolute monarchy, so perhaps the UK should be coloured in as a semi-constitutional monarchy? Edward Jocob Philip Smith ( talk) 19:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)