Why do many Parliamentary democracies require the formal consent of the Head of State for governmental appointments?

Question

As an example, in Germany the President appoints and dismisses the remaining members of the Federal Government upon the proposal of the Chancellor. The President doesn't have a say in the process and must always approve the candidate. Other examples I know include the UK (the Queen cannot overrule anything in practice), the Commonwealth states and Czech Republic.

But what's the point of having the President approve candidates (or the government in general) in the first place, if he doesn't really have a choice in the process? Couldn't it be simply done automatically without the President's involvement then?

Answer 1

As is often true of the UK constitution, theory and practise have diverged over time. In theory, all executive power rests with the Queen; but as a result of a slow and gradual transfer of power from the monarchy to Parliament and the government, in practise, (almost) all executive actions are carried out by the government, in the Queen's name - to the extent that the Queen herself can only carry out official actions that are sanctioned by the government.

So when it comes to government appointments, the Queen still retains the de jure power, while the government holds the de facto power. Hence the Queen formally appoints ministers - but strictly on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. (The Prime Minister is usually appointed on the recommendation of the outgoing PM).

As this system of parliamentary government first evolved in the UK, it has been used as a model for parliamentary states around the world. Where monarchs have been replaced with presidents, the now-mostly ceremonial role of the head of state has often been retained, even where there is no tradition associated with it as there is in the UK.

Couldn't it be simply done automatically without the President's involvement then?

Absolutely, and there is at least one country where the head of state is not involved: Sweden, where Parliament elects the Prime Minister, and it is the Speaker who confirms the appointment on behalf of Parliament, not the monarch. The PM then appoints ministers, without the monarch's involvement.

Answer 2

The German version of Wikipedia elaborates on this:

Der Bundespräsident ernennt die vom Bundeskanzler Vorgeschlagenen zu Bundesministern und Staatssekretären. Inwieweit der Bundespräsident dabei personelle Auswahlkompetenzen besitzt, ist im Grundgesetz nicht geregelt. In der traditionell gelebten Verfassungsrealität hat der Bundespräsident ein formales Prüfungsrecht, also bspw. bezüglich der Frage, ob der Vorgeschlagene den formalen Anforderungen des Amtes entspricht (bspw. ob er Deutscher ist, das Mindestalter erfüllt etc.). Ein weitergehendes materielles oder personelles Prüfungsrecht ist zwar im Grundgesetz keineswegs ausgeschlossen, hat sich aber in der Verfassungswirklichkeit nicht entwickelt. Die heutige Tradition, dass sich der Bundespräsident in die Personalpolitik des Bundeskanzlers nicht einmischt, geht zurück auf ein diesbezügliches Ansinnen von Theodor Heuss, der sich vor der Ernennung der Minister des ersten Kabinetts Adenauer eine Ministerliste vorlegen lassen wollte. Adenauer wies diese Forderung jedoch zurück, Theodor Heuss gab nach und etablierte so die seither geübte Vorgehensweise, die auch bei der Entlassung eines Ministers oder Kabinetts angewendet wird.

A minor detail is that the president is supposed to check whether the candidates meet formal requirements like being a German citizen or meeting age requirements.

More importantly, none of this is clearly defined in the constitution but stems from a tradition established around the time the current constitution was enacted. The framers of the constitution might have intended for the president to have a more active role and there is nothing formally preventing it.

In fact, in 1949, Theodor Heuss asked Konrad Adenauer to provide a list of candidates from which he would choose the ministers himself but ultimately had to cave in and name the people Adenauer wanted. But the president could still, in principle, refuse to name someone and the chancellor would typically seek informal contact beforehand to avoid that. Case in point, in 1953, Heuss forced Adenauer not to (re)nominate Thomas Dehler as justice minister and this time, it's Adenauer who caved in.

This shows that avoiding open conflict and, to this date, always following the advice of the chancellor does not mean the president has absolutely no influence in the process. At the same time, breaking with tradition is not risk-free and that means such a prerogative can only be used in really serious cases.

Generally speaking, it's not uncommon for the details of a constitutional framework to be elaborated over time and to differ sometimes markedly from what the letter of the constitution seem to suggest (the role of the president in the third French Republic is another example). But going back to amend the text is just a lot of trouble and typically not considered necessary.

Beyond that, it means two people are involved. I have no idea whether that was the original intent but it might provide some sort of safety mechanism in times of crisis (say a minister is about to take some important decision, the chancellor cannot just prevent that from happening by dismissing the minister, he or she must wait for the president to formally act on the recommendation for it to be legally effective).

Answer 3

There are several reasons:

1. History and tradition: Most parliamentary democracies descend from the UK model, where the head of state serves a ceremonial role. If your country used to be a monarchy or autocracy, this is an attractive way of transitioning to democracy without upending the entire system.

2. Political stability: Many parliamentary democracies prefer to have a constitutional "mediator" between political actors, especially in a multi-party system where parties have to choose a chief executive (i.e. Chancellor, Prime Minsiter) in good faith. Since the ceremonial head of state has no stake in the power game, he or she is assumed to have a stabalizing force during period of transition.

3. Political legitimacy: In some countries, a ceremonial appointment by an impartial head of state bestows an universally recognized legitimacy. This is especially true in countries with weak democratic norms, and political actors often partake in bad-faith or nakedly partisan behavors. If the person who appoints the chief executive is such a person, it may undermine the legitimacy of the process - meaning that even if the outcome is legal, it would not be accepted by the people.

To be clear, all of the functions mentioned above can be played by someone other than the head of state. In Sweden, most of the monarch's constitutional duties had been transferred to the Speaker of Parliament (who represents the Parliament itself). In Switzerland, the Parliament itself chooses the chief executives (who act as collective head of state) without involvement from other actor. What's important is that people act in good faith during the process.

Answer 4

In most modern constitutional monarchies, the monarch is the Head of State, while the head parliamentarian (Prime Minister/Chancellor) is the Head of Government. When European nations become Republics, they typically adopt a system similar to this, where the elected Head of State serves the same role as a monarch in a monarchy, but with limited powers. These types of Republics are called "Semi-Presidential Republics," which denotes that while there is a president, they typically have weaker powers than a "Presidential Republic."

The U.S. balance of power decided that the Westminster system was indeed pointless. The reason why the revolutionaries blamed the King, despite the King of Britain having no power to draft law at the time, is that the King still had to give Royal Assent to the law. He was the only legal authority that colonial Americans could appeal to to block taxes on them, but since by that point Royal Assent was basically a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister, this never happened. When they set up their government, they took enforcement of the laws (executive power) away from the writing of the laws (legislative power) and made the Presidential Veto more enticing to use by removing the President from the job of a figurehead. Presidential Republics are far more popular in North America (where most of the mainland nations are Presidential Republics) and all but one or two nations in South America (Peru is the only Semi-Presidential Republic; French Guiana is a weird situation as it is still technically part of France, and France has an interesting dynamic in that the President is the head of state and head of government of France while his party has majority control over the National Assembly, but the Prime Minister becomes head of government when the majority is not controlled by the President's party. This is far less likely to happen these days, because of reforms that made the vote for both the assembly and the President held in the same election, so it's unlikely for any party divergence to occur. (Additional fun fact: South America is the only continent in the world in which a monarchy does not exist.)

Answer 5

It is simply an attempt to add meaning to otherwise meaningless position. Country wants to have an official head to add social decorum to state actions and procedures, like e.g. giving orders, performing speeches or appointing people to offices. Of course orders could be awarded by an administrative decision and send by post, but having head of state handing the order during official ceremony have its own value.