In democratic countries, a president usually enjoys high esteem among the citizens and is regarded more honest than any other politician in the country. In some countries the president have a lot of power in both domestic and foreign policy like in the USA and Russia, a lot of power only in foreign policy like in France and only a symbolic role like in Germany.
But how much power you think that a president should have? Is the presidential institute needed at all and for that matter, any Head of State (like monarchs)? Discuss.
7th December 2003
head of State-like institutes are needed in certain situations in which a quick action is important. This can range from catastrophe over political scandal to war.
I don't really mind if it is the Prime Minister or the President who has some of the executive powers. Their amount of power should be as much as needed but as little as possible to avoid potential abuse. It is also important that other institutions have some kind of control over the president.
RelanderIn democratic countries, a president usually enjoys high esteem among the citizens and is regarded more honest than any other politician in the country. In some countries the president have a lot of power in both domestic and foreign policy like in the USA and Russia, a lot of power only in foreign policy like in France and only a symbolic role like in Germany. But how much power you think that a president should have? Is the presidential institute needed at all and for that matter, any Head of State (like monarchs)? Discuss.
I think you underestimate the power of the French president, which is actually greater in many ways than that of the president of the US. Bush only has executive power, no power of legislation. The US has a complete seperation of the three powers, unlike many European countries - including Belgium - which have some intermingling (parliament can summon ministers to explain their actions for example). The French president however has executive powers, but also appoints ministers and can disband parliament.
The fifth Republic has given the president a lot more power, thanks to (among others) Du Gaulle.
Well we have a King in this country and so does plenty of other European states, I doubt any of those are very kean on getting a President.
I believe that the President should hold a moderate amount of power, otherwise there would be no point for his nomination to that role in the first place. Unfortunately places like Britain have decided to go the route of giving so little power to the Queen and such that it is virtually an empty job.
The President currently has sufficient power and responsibility. I don't think any changes could be made for the better, besides removing the role of Commander in Cheif.
A King's/Queen's position is not 'empty' as long as their is the possibility of contraseign. Furthermore, powerful modern kings (Boudewijn) can interpret their role as they please, and get quite a lot of power, especially in foreign politics. And of course a president is not needed in a system with a constitutional monarch.
FactionReconUnfortunately places like Britain have decided to go the route of giving so little power to the Queen and such that it is virtually an empty job.
I think taking power away from the monarchy is a good thing. I'm not a big fan of having power be inherited. Too many bad apples.
Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
In New Zealand, the Queen has no perceived power. She can, if she wants, overthrow the Parliament, declare war on whomever is annoying her that day, and is the executor of laws. In theory. Because all these duties are also held (and soley used by) by the Governor-General, the Queen doesn't take any role in the nation.
The Governor-General (currently Dame Silva Cartwright, that makes two women in control...) never has any part in stopping an act from being made law. If it's got through Parliament, it's done.
The Prime Minister (Helen Clark, that's woman number 3 ;) ) makes sure that the country keeps running from day to day, and administers her bunch of ministers.
The Prime Minister relies on the advice of the Chief Justice (Sian Elias, woman number 4) and from the Speaker (Margaret Wilson, woman number 5) who's job it is to also keep the Parliament under control.
Even though she has no power, the Queen is a very respected person here. It pays to note that none of the major parties want a Republic, and the Republican party only got 300ish votes this year. The only time the public actually feels anything close to non-sporting unity and pride is when the Queen is here.
The system gives the little guy on the street just as much power as any President would, plus the honor and knowledge that our leader comes with 940 years of experience.
Being Canadian, I live in a much similar system. However, I could not care less about the queen. I'd like Canada to be a republic, but I guess its because I am a Quebecer. I've heard some ontarians still believe in the monarchy, but from most english canadians i've met i've not seen any sign of admiration for said old women.
Damned seperatists :P Here in Manitoba, most people I know myself included are fine being a constitutional monarchy. It gives us something to identify and something that makes us different from the United States. I wouldn't want to change that, or we would be associated with the USA more often, instead of with Britain.