Talk:Parliamentary republic

India
India was never in commonwealth realm, then why on this page it is showing (commonwealth realm)against India's name in First table?Dr.adyy (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * India was a Commonwealth realm from 1947 - 1950, when it became a republic. --LJ Holden 02:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran
Would you not consider Iran to be an Absolute Monarchy if the Holy See is? My understanding is that the Ayatollah controls all power in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letter-to-editor (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, because not only is Iran constitutionally a republic (as in it's full name the 'Islamic Republic of Iran'), the 'Supreme Leader' (the title of the Ayatollah in respect to the state) is not a monarch either.

Also it's *not* the Holy See that is an absolute (elective) monarchy: it's the Vatican City State that is. It just happens that the two are in a personal union, and are separate legal persons.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Belarus
Why is Belarus not on the list for being a Parliamentary republic when the page on Belarus says that it is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus


 * Well, it's not on the map on the front page, and it's also essentially a dictatorship - which in fact could be considered as a "Presidential" republic. --Lholden 23:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't someone change the Belarus article?
 * They should! --Lholden 03:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mongolia
Shouldnt Mongolia be on the list and the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.37.38 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Former Russians
Why are some states part of the Soviet Union and Finland part of the Russian Empire? I thought those no longer exist...--69.234.212.22 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the table, it states "Formerly" in the column you refer to. Hence a lot of parliamentary republic were formerly part of the Soviet Union, and Finland was formerly part of the Russian Empire. --Lholden (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is VERY confusing, in my opinion, especially as the heading of the section is List of CURRENT Parliamentary republics. The word "formerly" is very easily overseen in my opinion. Can we change this? --Tilmanb (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia & New Zealand
aren't technically Parliamentary Republics either – neither country has a President! --Andrewdotnich (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed they aren't - which is why they're not listed. --Lholden (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Iran former parliamental republic
Iran was a republic, until the US re- installed the shah as dictator. They had overthrown Mossadeq and the iranian majis.(Constitutional revolution) --Englishazadipedia (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, it was a monarchy, not a republic. A state headed by a king (in Persian: shah) is a monarchy. It is true that under the leadership of Premier Musaddiq it likely would have become a republic, but he was overthrown in 1963, before that could be done. It was a parliamentary monarchy. Eleanor1944 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI
If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland
I think that we should have the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland listed on the "former" section. I don't mean the Protectorate, when Cromwell became Lord Protector, I mean when Cromwell was an MP in the Parliament of that Commonwealth. --Wta121 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. The historical development of a Parliamentary republics needs to be expanded upon. --Lholden (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a completely different usage. In ordinary usage, a "protectorate" is a state formally under its own monarch, who however has entered into a "protectorate" agreement with a foreign power. Under the municipal (i.e., domestic) law (at least of the UK), of the "protecting" state, a protectorate was treated as an independent state (although this usually was a formality, and in practice there often wasn't any other difference between a protectorate and a colony). As for Cromwell's protectorate in the 17th century, it would not qualify as a "parliamentary republic" because the principle of ministerial responsibility to Parliament had not emerged (and did not emerge until the 18th century). I do not claim to be very knowledgeable about the Cromwell era, but I believe his "Protectorate" was more comparable to a presidential than a parliamentary system (as was the restored monarchy until the 18th century).Eleanor1944 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Parliamentary republic with a parliamentarily-dependent head of state to Parliamentary republic


 * This is an apparent good-faith fork with minimal content, no sources, and a gosh-awful long title. I'm not sure there's anything merge-worthy there, but redirect back here all the same. - BilCat (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the merge, but then we do need to edit the lede of this article, which, as it is currently phrased, states that all parliamentary republics have "a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state". A parliamentary republic with a parliamentarily-dependent head of state does not have such a differentiation. - htonl (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also add that "parliamentary republic with a parliamentarily-dependent head of state" is a specific form of government that might one day be worthy of its own article, but the current article isn't distinct enough to avoid a merge. - htonl (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection to merge. The content should be in this article. --Lholden (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-write

 * The topic is indeed more sophisticated and is not presently adequately illustrated in either articles. In some parliamentary republics, the heads of state are elected directly by citizens (e.g. Iceland, Singapore). In some, the heads of state are hereditary (e.g. United Kingdom, Sweden). In some, the de facto heads of state are appointed yet in effect nominated by the heads of government (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand). In some, the heads of states are elected by the legislatures (unicameral parliaments, joint session of both houses of the parliaments, or federal parliaments together with state parliaments) (e.g. Germany, Israel, India). And in some, the heads of government double up as heads of state, i.e. fused (e.g. South Africa, Nauru, Botswana).
 * Only in cases 4 and 5 that the heads of state are parliamentarily dependent.
 * Only in case 5 the heads of state are executive. In cases 1 to 4 the heads of state are largely non-executive. Yet those in case 1 tends to be a lot more independent and can exercise more powers than those in case 4 or even case 3, since their source of power, in other words, legitimacy, is rather distinct from that of the parliament. 218.250.157.79 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From the above conversation in June 2010, it looks like the consensus was for a merge of the two articles. Can I suggest it would make much more sense to combine the two articles, with sub-headers for each sub-type of Parliamentary republic? --LJ Holden 03:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify, cases 2 and 3 above are not republics.., although in case 3 there isn't practically much differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.26.23 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but can you suggest a way to re-write the article? --LJ Holden 09:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Parliamentary republic
This article largely duplicates the Parliamentary republic article. It should be merged into that article. --LJ Holden 02:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO they're currently only marginally overlapped. 12:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.25.154 (talk)
 * They're comprehensively overlapping. In any case, there was actually a merge discussion in June last year where a consensus agreed to the merge - but it was mysteriously reversed... --LJ Holden 18:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That was bcos no content in this article was ever moved into that article. This article was simply scrapped. 203.198.25.154 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, you could've raised the issue on the Parliamentary republic talk page. Anyway, I've copied over this articles unique content to the parliamentary republic article. Since there was consensus for the merge of these two articles previously, there is no real impediment for completing the merge. --LJ Holden 09:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia & Herzegovina is a parliamentary republic
Bosnia & Herzegovina is a parliamentary republic On the map displaying parliamentary republics in orange, I think Bosnia & Herzegovina is still gray. Could this be kindly edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.241.187.149 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In-accurate description of the Governor General
The third paragraph in the opening isn't written accurately:


 * In Commonwealth realms, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, the Governors-General are the de facto heads of state. Although they are constitutional monarchies instead of parliamentary republics, and that the governors-general are appointed by the king or queen of the United Kingdom, the de facto heads of state are nominated by and appointed on the advice of the prime ministers

The Governors General are appointed by the King or Queen of their respective country. I.e. The Governor General of Canada is appointed by Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada. While I'm sure that sentence was intended to mean that those countries share a singular person as their monarch the sentence actually implies that the United Kingdom has a direct role in the government of other countries, it does not. The King or Queen of the UK does not appoint the Governor General of Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The Queen of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (respectively) does.

I'd also be very careful calling the Governor General the "De Facto head of state". While it is true that the Governor General has been given many of the monarch's powers, although not all of them, it is also true that they merely *represent* the monarchy in their country. They don't replace them. For example, the Queen of Canada signed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into law in 1982, not the Governor General. If the Queen is in the country she replaces the Governor General in all respects. A few years ago Michaelle Jean, a former Canadian Governor General, referred to herself as "the head of state". She got in a lot of trouble. She even tried to back-peddle to call herself the "de facto head of state" and that still didn't fly very well.

While she does fulfill many of the Queen's duties, she in no way replaces her as head of state. Celynn (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The term de facto heads of state has been used numerous times by academics describing the offices. However, I don't think that's relevant to this article, so I've removed the paragraph. If there's any objections I'll restore it. --LJ Holden 10:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the expediency. Celynn (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To call governors general "de facto heads of state" is to confuse formal and effective offices (terms used long ago by Walter Bagehot, as I recall). Queen Elizabeth is the head/chief of state of the UK and also of Canada, etc., although she appoints a Governor General as her representative in the latter. But in all cases that is a formality, as neither she nor her governors general today have de facto power in the UK, Canada, or anywhere else. Eleanor1944 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question has been removed. Nonetheless, you've confused the meaning of the term "de facto". --LJ Holden 23:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Separation of powers?
In the beginning of the article, it said that there was no clear cut separation of power, does that mean that the parliamentary republics don't have a Separation of power? (Slurpy121 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC))
 * Nope, it just means the separation of powers isn't as clearly defined as it is in other systems. --LJ Holden 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

majority vs plurality
The table lists twelve states whose presidents are elected by "Parliament" with no further detail, eleven "by majority", three "by two-thirds majority", two "by absolute majority". Are we to infer that "by majority" means by simple plurality? —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. We need to confirm exactly what the rules are - I seem to remember the old rule for electing the President of Turkey was you had to have an actual majority of MPs. --LJ Holden 04:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Georgia and Tunisia
There is Georgia missing from the list and what about current situation in Tunisia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.144.150 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Georgia is still semi-presidential, it only changed from a president-parliamentary system to a premier-presidential system, both are semi-presidential. B.Lameira (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And same case applies for Tunisia. B.Lameira (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Article is lame
How can an article about Parliamentary Republic can completely neglect election by parliament in its short description? Or do you think it is only about accountability? --B.Lameira (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Governments in parliamentary republics are not always elected. Sometime the head of government is appointed by the head of state but can be dismissed by parliament. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was mentioning, primarily, the election of the president of the republic by the parliament. --B.Lameira (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Portugal
Portugal is a republic with a prime minister and an elected president. Should it not be included? I realise some call it semi-presidential but the president's powers are limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because the President is executive and is independent from legislature. President has some considerable executive powers like the unrestricted decision of dissolving the parliament, naming the Prime Minister or vetoing legislation. --B.Lameira (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Tunisia
There has been some further discussion about the system of government of Tunisia, please join the discussion at Talk:Tunisia. Whizz40 (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Parliamentary republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223153410/http://constitution.org.np:80/userfiles/constitution%20of%20nepal%202072-en.pdf to http://constitution.org.np/userfiles/constitution%20of%20nepal%202072-en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414123429/http://www.nation.com.pk:80/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Lahore/11-Apr-2010/18th-Amendment-to-restore-Constitution to http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Lahore/11-Apr-2010/18th-Amendment-to-restore-Constitution

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

New Structure of Table
I propose that we adjust the current table's structure to separate between the countries that are Parliamentary Republics with a Mixed-Republican System and those that are just simple Parliamentary Republics. I propose this since this is the distinction that is made between the two in the map for the article. Also, the two systems are definitely distinct from one another, as all of the Mixed-Republican System Parliamentary Republics have a combined office of president/head of government, while the normal Parliamentary Republics do not. A division in the table will help emphasize this point, without needing to create an entirely separate article for the two systems of governance. I propose that the split is done as in the following example:

In this way the table remains sortable using all of the Countries listed, but a clear separation now exists between those that have a Mixed-Republican System and those that do not (the ones that do not have both a 'President' and a 'Prime Minister'). Furthermore, I would suggest that since the table is proposed for a re-structuring, that we also do a second re-structure by re-ordering the columns to make the table more logical. As the first column is currently the former system of government. It would make more sense to have the first column be either the date of the current government's adoption, the method of election, or the cameral structure. The "Formerly" column should be at the end of the table, if anywhere, as it is hardly relevant to the current system of government anyway and maybe could possibly be removed altogether. Either way, I feel it definitely should not be the first column next to the country's name, as that is the most prominent position, and it would be expected that the most important information regarding these countries would follow, not the least relevant. I would propose that the new order be as follows:

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? If so, please leave a "Support", "Do Not Support", or "Support With Changes" with your comment below. Also, I do wish to acknowledge that I did go a little bit overboard with the multitude of references I used in my earlier edit when I was trying to demonstrate to the IP that the countries being refuted to be "Commonwealth Realms" were indeed historically "Commonwealth Realms". - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Seeing as there has not been any response to my proposal above for an entire month, I am implementing the proposal into the article. Do not revert it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

South Africa
There's a part on the section of Commonwealth where it says that South Africa isn't part of commonwealth, but when one enter's the official page of Commonwealth SA IS part of the mentioned. I don't know if thre's a part on it's history where it leaves the Commonwealth and later re-enters, but i think it'd be good if someone were to check that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.8.24 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * South Africa DID leave the commonwealth when it gained independence as a republic back in 1961. It did however since rejoin, in 1994 after the end of apartheid. This is clearly stated in the table here; Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. I do not need to check this fact, as I have known this basically my whole life. If you want a fact checked, I suggest that you not be lazy and request that others find out the answer for you, but that you look up the information yourself. As it has been clearly stated in the relevant article, after all. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Explanation unclear
"For the first case mentioned above, the form of executive-branch arrangement is distinct from most other government and semi-presidential republics that separate the head of state (usually designated as the 'president') from the head of government (usually designated as 'prime minister', 'premier' or 'chancellor') and subject the latter to the confidence of parliament and a lenient tenure in office while the head of state lacks dependency and investing either office with the majority of executive power."

This paragraph lacks clarity. I have no idea what it is trying to say. Anyone want to have a go at clarifying it? Alun (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Separate the Ceremonial Presidential Republic from the Presidential Republic
Wikipedia is not Greece to distort facts and confuse us. Don't confuse us. Don't behave Greek.

What falls under this category and what doesn't?
At Template talk:Systems of government there's been a bit of debate as to how to classify countries in green in this map:



Namely:


 * Botswana
 * Federated States of Micronesia
 * Kiribati
 * Marshall Islands
 * Myanmar
 * Nauru
 * San Marino
 * South Africa
 * Suriname
 * Switzerland

Personally, I feel these countries should be split up into the following categories, as per the List of countries by system of government article:


 * Assembly-independent republican systems, which are countries where, while elected by the legislature, the single person head of state and government is not dependent on parliamentary confidence for their survival in office.
 * Directorial republics where a council elected by the legislature that is not subject to parliamentary confidence collectively performs the functions of head of state and head of government.
 * Parliamentary republics with an executive presidency, which are countries where the combined head of state and head of government is both elected by, or nominated by the legislature (in Kiribati they're only nominated by the legislature), and dependent on parliamentary confidence for their survival in office.

and colour coded accordingly. Or, failing that, the caption should simply call them:

"Republics in which a combined head of state and government is elected by, or nominated by, the legislature and may or may not be subject to parliamentary confidence."

The definition of parliamentary republic in this article is not conducive to labelling assembly-independent republican systems as parliamentary, as the definition this article gives in its lead at the time of writing is:

"A parliamentary republic is a republic that operates under a parliamentary system of government where the executive branch (the government) derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature (the parliament)."

and these systems do not make the head of state and government accountable to (that is, dismissable by a vote of no confidence) the legislature. My source on this is their very constitutions, they do not even mention votes of no confidence as being binding on the head of state and government. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 09:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Allready participating in the template discussion, I like the above new text for only one category, because it makes clear that its a left overs collecting category Nsae Comp (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I will apply now your suggested compact new text. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Countries with limited recognition
There should be consensus regarding the inclusion of countries with limited recognition. It would be better to include only countries which are recognised by at least one UN member state. Please share your thoughts and ideas in this regard. The Sri Lanka (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Timor leste?
Why timor leste is not on the list despite the prime minister of timor leste having executive power?2404:8000:1027:85F6:B5FE:A899:6A1B:F726 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1789 United States
Confederation period America had no independent executive branch, as the Congress of the Confederation fulfilled both legislative and executive roles.

On the other hand, the President of the Continental Congress might have had too little authority to be considered a prime minister by contemporary standards, so perhaps it could be better categorized as a directorial system instead, with the Committee of the States acting as the collective executive.

I'll also cross-post this topic to the directorial system talk page for discussion. 98.17.115.94 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)