What kind of government would I have if there was a Republic with an elected president as-well as a hereditary monarch?
14
-
5Is there any more detail that is important to you? Plenty of republics have had monarchs and plenty of monarchies have had elected leadership also. Just wondering if you can flesh out the idea a bit more.– indigochildCommented Sep 28, 2017 at 1:19
-
2Great Britain - ok, they call the chief executive "Prime Minister" rather than President, but the office is fundamentally the same.– jamesqfCommented Sep 28, 2017 at 3:57
-
2Had your question not said hereditary, this would've been a good fit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Political_system– Hanky PankyCommented Sep 28, 2017 at 4:32
-
3Spain is just that and as they say in an answer it is called "Constitutional Monarchy". Check how works in Spain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain– IvanCommented Sep 28, 2017 at 9:18
-
1An important distinction between a president and a prime minister overlooked by many answers below is that a president is a head of state, while a prime minister is a head of government. A prime minister is always has some form of higher head of state above them, even if the head of state is largely ceremonial (i.e. constitutional monarchies and parliamentary systems). A monarch is always some such head of state, with or without actual political power. A president is also always head of state, but variously is (the US) or is not (France, Germany) the head of government also.– user213305Commented Sep 28, 2017 at 13:33
|
Show 9 more comments
5 Answers
In the Netherlands we have both a Prime Minister (Minister-President Mark Rutte) as well as a hereditary monarchy (Koning Willem-Alexander van Oranje Nassau), a so-called "Constitutional Monarchy".
The monarch has a role in politics as the one who swears in ministers and signs bills and international treaties, altough it is almost unheard of for them to to deny executing these activities when they've been approved by the ministers.
They are also responsible for reading the "troonrede" on "Prinsjesdag" (Free translations: "Throne-speech" & "Princes-day"), which explains the governing agreements the ministers have decided upon for the coming year.
Next to that they are briefed weekly on all matters of state by the prime minister and he is free to call upon other ministers to talk politics, but it is unknown if the monarch actually tries to influence policy during these talks.
Extra Info
Recently there've been noises to move the Netherlands to a republic and be rid of the royal family, but most dutch people see the royal family as rather charming ("quaint" even), so most likely that isn't going anywhere.
Up until 2012 the monarch was also the one who appointed the person in charge of forming a coalition after elections, but since then that power has been moved to the elected officials.
A historic example would be the UK between about 1721 (when the office of Prime Minister took shape) and 1837 (accession of Queen Victoria). The monarch often took an active role in politics, but shared power with an elected Prime Minister and Parliament.
A contemporary example is Morocco, which is undergoing a gradual transition from an absolute monarchy, to a constitutional monarchy similar to the modern UK.
answered Sep 28, 2017 at 8:06
-
Neither of those are republics. Morocco has never been a republic. The UK was briefly a republic following the Glorious Revolution in the late 1600s, but then the monarchy was restored and it ceased to be a republic.– ohwilleke ♦Commented Sep 29, 2017 at 11:08
What kind of government would I have if there was a Republic with an elected president as-well as a hereditary monarch?
This question is based upon a false premise.
A government with a king, even a constitutional monarch in a constitutional monarchy, is not a republic. A republic is a government that does not have officials who are selected on a hereditary basis, by definition:
A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" – not the private concern or property of the rulers – and where offices of state are elected or appointed, rather than inherited. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.
answered Sep 29, 2017 at 11:02
-
1
-
That definition is based upon a false premise: namely the assumption that a country has no more than one head of state. Commented Oct 18, 2017 at 19:00
-
@PeterTaylor The existence of a monarch is the defining aspect of a "constitutional monarchy", a term that doesn't say much about the nature of that constitution. Also the definition quoted expressly states that the "offices of state are elected or appointed, rather than inherited."– ohwilleke ♦Commented Oct 19, 2017 at 0:01
You would have a diarchy. The closest current analogue to the situation you describe is probably Andorra, which has two heads of state, one of whom is elected (although not by the Andorran people but by the French: the President of France is ex officio a co-prince) and the other not (the bishop of Urgell, appointed by the Catholic church, is ex officio the other).
-
I guess a diarchy would be what I'm looking for since they're both the leaders of the country, but what would I describe it as if I wanted people to know it was also a Republic?– KhorpsCommented Sep 29, 2017 at 22:29
In comparative politics this state might be called a semi-democracy.
In some older typologies states were either a republic or a dictatorship, but those models did a bad job dealing with a lot of states which had some elements of both. The semi-democracy is one solution to that problem.
answered Sep 29, 2017 at 12:40
