President and power 27 replies

Please wait...

Ensign Riles Advanced Member

No! I'm Spamacus!

426,537 XP

17th June 2003

0 Uploads

39,480 Posts

1 Threads

#11 15 years ago

I believe a true system of checks and balances is the purest form of democracy that we have, more so than any type of voting system. As such, I think a president should only have moderate power. It's things like the Patriot Act worry me when the executive branch starts to gain more power unchecked.




Force Recon

Semper fidelis

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,637 Posts

0 Threads

#12 15 years ago

Presidents should have moderate power. Off-topic:If Iran gets invaded now ,what does the internaional law say about it?(don't want to start a thread about it).




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

7th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#13 15 years ago

SpiderGoatI 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.[/QUOTE] Thanks for your correction SpiderGoat. Does the French president just automaticly (ceremonially) appoint ministers into their posts according to Prime Minister's decision or does the president make his own decision about ministers? Can the president disband the parliament without Prime Minister's request?

[quote=FactionRecon]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.

Like said, the Queen and her royal family are one of nation's symbols that bring people together and keep the country united. It's a good thing that king/queen have only symbolic power: they aren't elected by the people so at very least in theory, they don't enjoy people's trust, aren't responsible for their actions and can't be fired (?). President on the other hand is elected by the people, directly or indirectly by electoral college and he/she can be changed in next elections or can be fired if he/she commits some major crime.

Still, I think the king/queen should have a right to make cautious political statements instead of just keeping his/her mouth shut. As I have understood it, for example the king of Sweden has no right what so ever to make any political statements.

I want a president that has moderately power in both domestic and foreign policy issues. Currently the Finnish president has only little power:

- Leads foreign policy in co-operation with the government - Appoints bishops, judges, officers, the directors of Bank of Finland, the government/cabinet (by Prime Minister's decision) etc. - Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces - Signs new laws & enactments, only symbolic veto: can return the law for the government which can almost immediately return it back to the president without any changes if it wants to - Opinion & value leader of the nation - Can & must disband the government by Prime Minister's request - Can grant amnesty for prisoners - Can disband the parliament by Prime Minister's request

If we would have a stronger president, the people would be more interested about politics, have someone they can fully trust and one person that could make a difference in day-to-day politics. The president should have a proper veto-right, right to arrange opinion referendums about important issues in some cases and right to make legislation propositions.

Vast majority of the Finnish people want stronger president, but still the politicians are propably going to reduce presidential power in 2013 after the next term. Currently we have presidential elections going on in Finland, but it seems that incumbent president, Social Democratic Tarja Halonen will win the elections. I really hope that she doesn't and we get centrist/right-wing president for change.




Dreadnought[DK] Advanced Member

Grumpy Admin

202,715 XP

7th March 2003

0 Uploads

19,294 Posts

0 Threads

#14 15 years ago
Lord AbrarurOff-topic:If Iran gets invaded now ,what does the internaional law say about it?(don't want to start a thread about it).

an interesting topic. why not start a new thread? :)




SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#15 15 years ago
RelanderThanks for your correction SpiderGoat. Does the French president just automaticly (ceremonially) appoint ministers into their posts according to Prime Minister's decision or does the president make his own decision about ministers? Can the president disband the parliament without Prime Minister's request?

The president can choose who he wants in his government, the ceremonial type of 'decision' still exists in Belgium, where the king 'appoints' the ministers. And the president can take the initiative to disband parliament himself! The prime minister seems to represent the parliament more (according to one of my courses about modern democracies), which means cooperation between the two is important.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

7th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#16 15 years ago
SpiderGoatThe president can choose who he wants in his government, the ceremonial type of 'decision' still exists in Belgium, where the king 'appoints' the ministers. And the president can take the initiative to disband parliament himself! The prime minister seems to represent the parliament more (according to one of my courses about modern democracies), which means cooperation between the two is important.

That's quite interesting, meaning that the president doesn't have to respect the balance of power in the parliament if he can make the decisions of ministers by himself. In Finland the parties that will form the majority government will negotiate together, who gets what minister positions and the president just ceremonially appoints them.

Three biggest parties have agreed that the Prime Minister, who is the negotiator for the composition of coming government, will become from the party that won the most seats in parliamentary elections.




SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#17 15 years ago

Yeah, the executive power of the fifth republic is strong on a scaring level. Some have called it ‘une monarchie républicaine’. However, the parliament can 'vote away' the government, if such drastic measures are required.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#18 15 years ago

RelanderThat's quite interesting, meaning that the president doesn't have to respect the balance of power in the parliament if he can make the decisions of ministers by himself. In Finland the parties that will form the majority government will negotiate together, who gets what minister positions and the president just ceremonially appoints them.

Three biggest parties have agreed that the Prime Minister, who is the negotiator for the composition of coming government, will become from the party that won the most seats in parliamentary elections.

Pretty much the same here, though we only have a prime-minister/minister-president (premier)and no president. I'm still confused on how you can have both a prime-minister and president, sounds a little like double/shared work to me.

The Minister-president and other minister positions are divided amon the parties who formed the majority coalition. Usually the largest party gets to pick the minister-president though. The other minister positions are also "equally" divided and then the minister-president goes to the Queen for approval, she will then give her approval and the Cabinet is formed. The Queen herself doesn't have much power, she and the other members of the Royal Family are not even allowed to tell their personal opinions on goverment related issues.

I think that most of the power should lay with Cabinet as a whole though the Minister-president should have certain rights for quick action up to the degree of possible abuse. The minster-president should always be able to forced into resigning though by the Cabinet (Coaltion and opposition). Not sure what righs our Cabinet and Minister president currently exactly have, I would have to look that up.

I voted for "There's no need for president, prime minister is enough", no need for a president if the prime-minister (minister president here) can handle the same powers up to the extend where he could abuse it. No person should have too much power.




SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#19 15 years ago
Großadmiral DönitzPretty much the same here, though we only have a prime-minister/minister-president (premier)and no president. I'm still confused on how you can have both a prime-minister and president, sounds a little like double/shared work to me.

Think of the president as an elected King/Queen. In many countries, the president has a stabilising role (this was true for f.e. the Weimar republic). If this is true, the prime minister has most power. The reverse is possible too: the president holds real power, while the prime minister represents parliament, is a figurehead, has a symbolic role,...




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#20 15 years ago

Well I understand that, but it looks pretty useless to me to have both a president and prime-minister/premier. We already have a Queen (King) to do the useless taks that don't mean that much. :p