Talk:List of countries by system of government/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thailand

Couldn't Thailand be considered a military junta, given that the military appoints the prime minister and cabinet?

This was the fact before when it was in control, but not any more presently (even though they still have a sizable influence on what goes on). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

.........

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)

semi-presidential

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.

Mauretania

I think since the Parliament and Presidential election in 2006 and 2007 Mauretania is a presidential republic.

Serbia and Montenegro

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

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)

Communist states

Aren't all the communist states authoritarian republics too? --Jiang 04:33, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Possibly. They all have members of the military in high political positions, so it is possible. -- Victor 08:47, 10 May 2004

Was that a reason? I thought democratic governments are supposed to be head of the military. On the subject, I tend to believe communism has the problem of not letting people do their own personal or group's culture, locking them into big monolithic state owned institutions. However, in theory, communism even in ussr had based all levels of its government on votes by all people, something we in the west are not told frequently because of the cold war era climate that still surfaces. That of course doesn't mean that ussr didn't in actuality develop a "democracy" where the party which in theory could enclose democratic powers, was turned into a tool of one-person dictatorships. --Fs 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

They weren't 'votes' as we like to think of voting here in the west - plebiscite anyone?

Democratic monarchy

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)

A nice argument says that all representative democracies are in actuality "democratically elected dictatorships". You're being asked once in a few years to vote and then you have no voice. That of course is an axaguration if seen in the point of view of older worst cases or the inability to hold polls all the time economically and practically at this time. --Fs 11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In a democratic constitutional monarchy? The laws are signed by the king(queen) symbolically, but only after passing through the democratic process, and the monarch generally can either sign or abdictate. The democratic government in a constitutional monarchy often has far reaching power over the monarch. Especially members of the Dutch Royal Family occaisionally complain about practically having less rights than a normal citizen. :-)

The monarch's power is the defining bit. In European constitutional monarchies, the representatives of the people can more easily veto the monarch. In countries like Jordan, the monarch can more easily veto the representatives, though they, with an overwhelming consensus, also have the ability to veto him. Joffeloff 16:24, 19 June 2006 (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)

It would have excluded a lot of countries where the president is directly elected. I think what they meant to say was what I've changed it to read. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Tuf-Kat 17:39, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Israel

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)

I've moved back some countries (US, Israel..) to where they belong, with possible caveats. Wikipedia is not a soapbox where to make political statements. David.Monniaux 07:40, 23 May 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

Read the page on Theocracies. Israel is clearly listed (which I posted in its entirety) as a caveat similar to Iran.

They are both quasi-democracies that have religious underpinnings to their laws. (rabbinical in Israel, Sharia in Iran) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin423 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 May 2007

---

Electoral system in the US

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)

Ok, so the aforementioned claims were removed, but I'm still wondering about the "significant problems at the federal level". I'm wondering what significant problems these are, and why they should be listed when classifying the country as a democracy. Soupfrog 07:14, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

It does seem suspect, especially considering that nations like Côte d'Ivoire are listed without any caveats. Calling out unspecified "significant problems" (who decides what a significant problem is?) with what appears to be a very stable republic reeks of POV. The clear majority of Americans consider their federal government to be a legitimate democratic republic, even if they disagree with something like how the 2000 election was handled. Nor have I seen any other encyclopedia or neutral factual reference feel the need to point out problems with the US federal government when listing it. There is a minority who finds the whole federal government and electoral process illegitimate from the top down and corrupted by influence, to the point of calling the democracy illusory, but the same can be said of any democratic nation. This page doesn't come off as the right place to discuss those disputes. I'm leery about the POV of all of the qualifiers on this page, but that one particularly strikes me as likely to be the result of someone simply disagreeing with the politics of the country in question. We could go through the list pointing out problems with every single nation's system, but I think that kind of thing is more appropriate for a writeup on the politics or government of the specific nation in question, rather than sticking out like an unseemly asterisk on what should be a neutral list. --Wikipedia fan

I removed "two-party state" from the US for similar reasons. Ddye 18:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Egypt, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Kygyzstan

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)

that's why I believe this article is very hard to be kept accurate. by categorizing countries simply by their constitutional title or some country's view or some wikipedians' view we may miss the point of what's actually happening there. this is not pessimistic, a country that in theory is less democratic than another may actually be more democratic in actuality. with limits of course, I can't believe a pure dictatorship can ever have a good chance.

That train of though can bring us to simply using constitutional titles and leave actual events for other articles --Fs 11:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Belarus is in Asia?

...really?

I think it has been corrected (moved to Europe) already. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Replacing this article

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)

A democracy can be headed by a monarch (e.g. New Zealand, Spain) while a republic must be headed by a president (or like position). Some republics aren't necessarily democratic (e.g. the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). --22:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I mean is specific to the CIA World Factbook. See for example Ghana [1] and Paraguay [2]. Ghana is labeled as a constitutional democracy, while Paraguay as a constitutional republic. Yet both countries see to have the same type of government, with a president who is both chief of state and government who is elected by popular vote. So why the different label? Just because? Does this mean both are republics? I need to know this so I can properly categorize all countries. --Cantus 14:10, Jul 27, 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". --Jiang 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 think Iran should remain in the authoritarian section with some notes on its unique system (the current 'semi-democratic Islamic theocracy' is as good as its gets in four words :) ). While it does allow elections, the opposition is always subject to the veto of the 'conservatives', who also control all legal (and some illegal) means of using force - so I'd stongly object in moving it to more democratic maps. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is surely a matter of degree, but considering that we have places like Peru or Paraguay classified as democracries, calling Iran authoritarian seems biased. Peru, I believe, has been a "democracy" for a whole year and a half now... i.e., since the last "state of emergency" in which the president gave himself dictatorial powers. --Chl 19:43, 6 Mar 2005 (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. --Jiang 02:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Definitions

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)

Location of countries (Europe/Asia)

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)

Commonwealth realms

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)

once again, CIA idiocy. that's why we shouldnt blindly copy the CIA. --Jiang

Singapore

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. --Jiang 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"? --Jiang 06:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's no question that Singapore is not a democratic republic. We can put it in the authoritarian section with the parenthetical notation "some emerging democratic characteristics," if you want. Neutrality^talk 07:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Singapore has always had an opposition so "emerging" is not the right term. Say it has a "parliamentary system, elections, weak opposition" --Jiang 07:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't ahve an opposition. There is no major opposition to the People's Action Party. Neutrality^talk 07:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

There is no major opposition to the People's Action Party because opposition is surpressed. Singapore is a one-party state, and we should sy this. Neutrality^talk 07:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

(Neutrality: It really doesn't ahve an opposition.) It does. I said weak opposition. It's still an opposition. --Jiang 07:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Such a description is not clear enough that the oppositions are oppressed. — Instantnood 23:43, Jan 30 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous. In fact, the PAP itself was an opposition party before sweeping rapidly into power during the turmoil over the early 1960s, when Singapore's fate was hinging on the balance of either being a part of Malaysia, or being fully independent. The PAP was pro-unity with Malaysia, and they managed to get public support for that. In fact if they had their way, Singapore would still be a part of Malaysia today, and who knows, we will be having two big parties fighting it out in Malaysia: UMNO and the PAP, with each representing an ideology split along ethnic lines across the country (of priviledged rights to bumiputras or meritocracy respectively). The subsequent outster of Singapore by Malaysia (one of the main reasoning, of coz, was that UMNO was not quite willing to have the PAP fighting with it in elections) left a dominant party in both countries, and both, not surprisingly, are atill in power today. This is probably the extremity of political gerrymeandering! :D

Arguments that the "opposition is surpressed" is suspiciously bourne almost entirely out of the Western (or Western-influenced) media. So we have opposition members sued to backcruptcy for their conduct in political rallies? Well, they could do the same to the PAP MPs if they wanted to, but they cant. Not because the courts are not fair. Anyone who has been to political rallies for the PAP and the opposition parties here will know why one gets into trouble, and the other dont!--Huaiwei 17:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I havn't been to one. Why? Lehi 08:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Did PAP take part in elections in Malaya before Singapore became independence? And did UMNO take part in Singapore? How many seats do they have respectively in the parliament of the united Malaysia?

Counter-arguments to "oppositions are supressed" are almost entirely from Singapore, and it's hard to be NPOV.— Instantnood 12:59, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, both PAP and UMNO did contest each other in the respective elections of both governments. The number of seats won is pretty inconsequential thou, as explained below:

The PAP swept into power in the May 1959 elections (Singapore's first government with elected ministers) contesting with "11 other political parties, representing not less than 160 candidates, plus an additional 34 independents". It won 43 out of the 51 seats and 53.4% of the total votes cast, reversing the 3 out of 25 seats won in the legislative assembly elections of April 1955, Singapore's first (partially) self-elected internal government. It did had a taste of being an opposition party before. Also, an alliance of UMNO Singapore and the MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) won it 3 seats in the 1955 elections. UMNO Singapore, btw, was born out of the Singaporean division of UMNO which spread over the causeway from Johor Bahru, where UMNO was established. It still exists now in fact, although under a different name.

In September 1962, the people of Singapore cast 71% in favour of merger with Malaysia, but it was not without its political fire. Pro-merger PAP was pitting against pro-independence Barisan Sosialis, itself having split from the PAP in 1961 because it was pro-communist (the communist forces consider their likelihood of control over Singapore far stronger if Singapore remains independent, since their support base are predominantly ethnic Chinese. A merger with Malaysia tips the ethnic balance against their favour).

Just five days after the formation of Malaysia, the General Election of 1963 was held in Singapore, and it can be said that it started the troubles which resulted in Singapore's eventual "dismissal". The PAP was against the association of the original UMNO in Malaysia with UMNO Singapore. The original UMNO itself was particularly upset when in the 1963 elections, its dreams of gaining full legislative control over Singapore was dashed when the Singapore Alliance Party comprising UMNO Singapore, MCA, MIC and Singapore People's Alliance was effectively trounced by the PAP. In particular, the 3 Malay-dominated seats held by UMNO Singapore were all won over by the PAP.

The issue shifted to the Malaysian side one year later in the 1964 Malaysia elections. This time, it was the PAP contesting in Malaysia against the UMNO-led Alliance party which also included the MCA. The PAP challenged the MCA as a better representation of the ethnic Chinese populance in the Alliance, a move seen by UMNO "as a challenge to its Malay-based political system," while the MCA "felt that this was a threat to their position in the Alliance". The PAP eventually won just one seat, but it "added to the number of Singapore representatives in the federal legislature, and made the PAP the leading opposition party". Things didnt stop there. "In April 1965, the four Alliance parties of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak merged to form a Malaysian National Alliance Party," and in response, "the PAP and four opposition parties from Malaya and Sarawak formed the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, most of whose members were ethnic Chinese" a month later. Some UMNO leaders saw it as a "Chinese plot to take over control of Malaysia" despite denials by the PAP.

Not surprising, therefore, that not many months later, in August 1965, Singapore was sent out of the door quite unwillingly by Malaysia's leaders. And by doing so, the overwelming dominance of pro-Malay UMNO and pro-Chinese PAP continues to dominate the politics of both countries to this day, since the demography of both countries did not really change much either in that time period. With both parties being seen as the people responsible for bringing independence and economic growth subsequently for both countries respectively, their political hold is difficult to break with so much emotive sentiments involved, all within the lifetimes of many who are still very much alive now. In fact, the opposition is seeing a slow resurgence, partly because the young Singaporeans of today are far less emotively attached to the party in power today.

I tried condensing the tonnes of history which happened in just a matter of a few years into these paragraphs, but I hope the above may spark an interest to read more about the history of the formation of Singapore and Malaysia, and how their respective political systems ends up being dominated by one party. The Western media are simply less likely to look into all these before forming opinions by merely observing current trends, and yes, that applied even to the "established" news networks like the BBC or the CNN (and I am glad I am hardly the only one who thinks this is true, not just amongst Singaporeans). NPOV? Well, I am of the position that the views of both locals and international observers should be equally respected.--Huaiwei 15:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It's informative. — Instantnood 17:14, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

One would find it difficult to understand why oppositions can still get some votes in the constituencies they contest in (especially during the time when constituencies were single-member plurality), if they are not suppressed and get into so many troubles by themselves. — Instantnood 12:59, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

No it is not that difficult to understand. The opposition is not composed of one party, and neither do their candidates share the same personalities or credentials. The same applies to candidates of the PAP. For example, the two seats won by the opposition at present happen to be influential and charismatic individuals who have won over the people's votes by their personalities and their work and contributions to the community. At the same time, one particular PAP candidate who lost her seat in the 1991 elections was said to have lost the elections probably because of one "hand shaking" incident with a humble market stall owner (She was said to have wiped her hands soon after shaking his. That raised the ire of the community who probably considered her aloof)!

The opposition members well publicised by the media thanks to their incredible behavior are indeed the worse the opposition can produce. One particular member (in)famous for his highly publicity-grapping (and usually plain dumb...I could elaborate on this if you like) antics didnt managed to win the needed votes even in a by-election which was held specially for him because of his open challenge to the PAP!--Huaiwei 15:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So is the situation like the PAP is so strong that almost all people who intend to be in politics would join it, leaving only people who are incapable in getting public supports in the oppositions (except the influential and charismatic ones)? Would revolt of backbenchers like those at Westminster possible? — Instantnood 17:20, Feb 5 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.

So far there is no indication of Singapore's One-party/Police state tendencies anywhere. There should at least be some note pointing out the PAP's virtual monopoly on government.

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)

Commonwealth realms

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". --Jiang 07:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Since the expansion of the Prince's powers, could we say "absolutist tendencies"?

Anon, I think that would be going too far, jguk 19:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Perhaps a brief note about "recently expanded royal powers"?

Simplify

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)

• I guess User:Neutrality thinks it's OK to label a country like Cuba a deformed workers' state, although that is a Trotskyist term that implies hostility towards the system/government in question. Well, I don't agree with that. Any other thoughts? Everyking 02:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Labelling a country a "dictatorship" implies hostility towards, say, the government of North Korea, but nobody complains about that. "Deformed workers' state" is much more clear than "Communist state." You don't object to the labeling of North Korea as an "extreme Stalinist/totalitarian state." I fail to see the difference. Neutrality^talk 03:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.: On a side note, we somehow need to work in a link to people's republic. Neutrality^talk 03:09, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I do dislike that labeling for North Korea, although not nearly as strongly. Deformed workers' state is a clearly POV Trot term. They do not get to decide what is correct. Everyking 03:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, then. I feel simply labeling Cuba, North Korea, etc., as "Communist states" is misleading. for one thing, both states claim to be "socialist" rather than "communist," and in any case are neither. North Korea has nothing to do with Communist or Marxist ideology, regardless of what self-description that the North Korean government prefers. My question to you is this: without using the link to deformed workers' state, how can we concisely and neutrally explain North Korea's system of government? Neutrality^talk 03:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • P.S.: I am glad we're discussing this on talk peacefully, rather than reverting each other. :) Neutrality^talk 03:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • Autocratic/one-party? Although there's technically more than one party. One party dominant, at least. Everyking 03:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of these countries do not fit the labels nicely. Some commentary is necessary to distinguish these states. We should keep them to a single phrase though--Jiang 03:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UK and devolution

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)

France: federal?!?

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:

• Federations/Confederations - Those where sovereignty is shared between nation and subdivisions, i.e., USA, Russia, Switzerland, Germany
• Devolved - Those where subdivisions have important role, but power is granted from nation as a whole: United Kingdom, Spain
• Regionalized - Those where subdivisions exist for administrative purposes: France, Italy

Xyzzyva 01:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro is ONE state

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)

I totally agree. This should be changed. gugganij 00:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV

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.

Systems (forms) of government

Forms (or systems) of government are:

• Parliamentary system: UK, Germany, Japan
• Semi-presidential system: France
• Presidential system: USA

For further info see for example: Hague, Rod/Harrop, Martin (1998): Comparative Government and Politics, 4th edition. Houndmills: MacMillan

United Arab Emirates

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

Map problems

Iran is not a democracy. 165.91.8.25 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a general consensus on this page that we will define governments by their constitutional framework, and leave the realities of actual level of democracy to other pages. As the map describes, the Iranian government is mostly structured as a Presidential republic. Then again, there are also theocratic elements and we list it as a theocracy in the article, so perhaps there could be a different color for that? Ddye 20:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The map doesn't say that Iran is a democracy. It says it is a republic, which it is. A republic need not be democratic. A representative democracy need not be a republic. For example, Iraq under Saddam was a republic. And the UK is not a republic. I agree that Iran is also a theocratic regime. --thirty-seven 00:28, 11 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

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)

I fear switzerland is too sui generis to be classified correctly. Classification as direct democracy is semi-correct, but there is a truth in the presidential republic because it has a multi-person presidency elected by parliament. Other countries have indirectly elected non-ceremonial presidents (South Africa) or multi-person presidencies (Bosnia). Not all presidencies are like the american (1 person/directly elected). See the image's talk for a reasoning behind the current classification. --C mon 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it to the image talk page. Thanks. Rl 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct form would be called "Referendumsrepublic".

Name

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)

List of states by form of government sounds good to me. —Nightstallion (?) 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

South Africa

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)

Strong municipal independence in some countries

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

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.

Turkmenistan

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

Cuba is missing from the alphabetical list. --Allstar86 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland, again

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:

• Presidential system: "the executive branch exists and presides (hence the term) separate from the legislature, to which it is not accountable"
  • the Swiss executive branch is elected by and accountable to the parliament, so that's very clearly not it
• Semi-presidential system: "a prime minister and a president are both active participants in the day-to-day functioning of the administration of a country" ; "It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected president who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead, and from the presidential system in that it has an executive prime minister who has a degree of responsibility to the legislature"
  • Switzerland doesn't have a president; no members of the executive are popularly elected, so the very difference to a parliamentary republic does not apply
• Parliamentary republic: "the head of state is elected and the state having a strong parliament from which the members of the governing executive is drawn"
  • that is how executive and parliament in Switzerland work (obviously there's more to it, but the statement is as correct as it is for other parliamentary republics such as Germany)

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)

The Swiss system is parliamentary, however it should be green as their isn't a Presidency as their is in say, Austria or Germany. Much like South Africa or Botswana, the Head of state is executive but tied to parliament; making them Parliamentary republics with executive heads of state. --Lholden 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. My take on the systems of places like South Africa is that they are "special cases" that are modifications of parliamentary republics, where the prime minister is called "president" and given the ceremonial roles and duties of head of state, but still chosen by and responsible to parliament. I think that Switzerland is just a special case of this special case, with a committee fulfilling the combined role of head of government and head of state, chosen by parliament. So while the Swiss system does generally fit the description of Parliamentary Republic that Lholden lists, I think it better fits the description of "presidential republics, executive presidency linked to a parliament" (i.e. the body fulfilling the role of head of state is also head of government, and it is linked to parliament.) --thirty-seven 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So should it be a Presidential system or a Parliamentary republic? I would say parliamentary republic, since they follow the Parliamentary system. --Lholden 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be neither "Presidential system" (blue) nor "Parliamentary Republic" (orange). It should be "green", meaning an executive head of state (like presidential system) but with a parliamentary system (like a parliamentary republic). Green seems to be the colour that corresponds to the columns "Republic | Executive | Parliamentary" in this list. --thirty-seven 03:10, 5 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)

The head of state has direct and regular involvement in the executive branch, and so the Swiss system would be considered an executive presidency, no matter how weak it is relative to parliament. The head of government is (strongly) responsible to the legislature, as you pointed out, and this is how the Swiss system would be considered a parliamentary system. What makes the system special is that the roles of head of government and head of state are fused in the executive council. That's the rare situation for which the colour green is used in this article.

Generally for the classifications in this list, if a democratic republic has a head of state who is involved in the day-to-day direction of the executive branch, it is considered some kind of presidential system; and if a democratic republic has a head of government responsible to parliament, it is a parliamentary system. If the country fits both definitions, with a separate head of state and head of government, it is a semi-presidential system, like France. Switzerland (and a few other countries, like South Africa) fit both definitions, but with a fused head of government and head of state. Hence, Green.

That's my take on it, as least. --thirty-seven 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So if Switzerland added a separate position for head of state with no power other than being called head of state, it would become a pure parliamentary system, even though nothing of consequence had changed. On the other hand, being functionally quite the opposite of everything that defines a presidential system (as defined by our own article) leaves Switzerland still as a variant of a presidential system? Used like this, the categories are not only useless but misleading. Maybe it's better to remove all colors from Switzerland and have it be a special case. Rl 11:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, in that the supreme authority of the state would now be vested in someone independent of a parliament, with convention and/or written law binding that ceremonial office to carry out the wishes of the cabinet. On a constitutional basis, there'd be separation of powers, akin to the divide between the monarch and the PM in Britain or the President and the PM in Israel. The green label doesn't mean it's a variant or subset of a presidential system, only that there's an executive presidency. The Tom 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the green label does imply a presidential system. This very article's legend reads

  presidential republics, executive presidency linked to a parliament

Note how executive presidency links to presidential system.

Note also that presidential republic, where it a link, would redirect to presidential system.

The leading paragraphs of executive president: "An Executive president is a president who exercises active executive power in a presidential system of government. Executive Presidents are active in day-to-day governance of a nation, and are usually popularly elected."

I changed {{Form of government legend}} to reflect our discussion:

  parliamentary republics with an executive head of state

Rl 18:28, 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)

map seems OR

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)

Muritania

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)

I was personally going to wait until the new President was sworn in to make the change, as only really then is the military rule over, but I'll admit that's a little hairsplitty. The Tom 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

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)

Iran, Syria, Laos, Vietnam

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)

Bosnia-Herzegovina

A presidential republic? I don't think so. --PaxEquilibrium 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yemen

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)

Added "clarify" template

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)

Removed as I have since added it on there the missing map & color-code descriptions (seen it on the forms of government article), although the map itself needs to be periodically updated. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

South Korea

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)

Yes, I totally agree with you. And it's true that the prime minister need the approval of the National Assembly(legislature). But unlike a semi-presidential or parlamentary system, the prime minister is just an assistant to the president and have weak power as he or she can be dismissed by the president at any time. Morever, the Constitution have no provision about the confirmation hearing for the ministers excluding the prime minister. According to the National Assembly Code, the minister need the confirmation hearing by the legislature. But their decision carries no legal binding force. So most constitional scholars in S Korea tend to regard S Korea as presidential system, I know. Owlpamy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

apparent contradiction

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 does seem that the wording may need to be improved to be more clearly defined. Although my basic understanding is that a semi-presidential system is one void of a parliamentary system that is able to carry out real, decisive executive power through the president, while the semi-presidential is involved with an appointed cabinet that governs. Not sure if any others are also confused on it though. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan and referendum

It is stated that bhutan is an absolute monarchy, however, nothing is mentioned about the recent referendum on democracy. Suggest revising this194.46.237.1 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vatican

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)

Myanmar/Fiji

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)

Constitutional monarchy

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)

I changed that sentence myself. References will be added if I find one. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan

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)

New Discussion

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)

Grammar?

"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. Gog129.93.17.213 (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Finland: no longer semi-presidential?

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)

Suriname

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)

San Marino

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! Tom129.93.17.213 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.--87.5.142.102 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

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)

Lithuania

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)

USA is Missing

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)

Alphabetical Listing of Countries Information?

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)

Assessment comment

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)