why some countries has prime Minister and some dont have?
Answers
Answer:
They are just like countries with Kings and Queens except they have the President doing the job of the Monarch.
Some countries have parliamentary government. In a parliamentary system power is held by the party or parties or any group of members who hold a simple majority in that parliament. In bicameral systems, it is generally the group which holds power in the lower house.
This group gets the person they want appointed as Prime Minister (Head of Government) by the Head of State (The President or the Monarch).
Now some countries like Ireland decided they did not need a monarch and removed them. In other nations such as Bulgaria, or Romania the Monarchs were removed by the Russians. (Fun side fact: The old King of Bulgaria became Prime Minister after the fall of communism). And in some nations they were thrown out.
However a country needs somebody to perform head of state functions once a monarch is removed from office, like accept diplomatic credentials, issue diplomatic credentials, host foreign visitors and approve important documents such as laws. A non partisan president is also very useful as they form a point of national unity and they sometimes need to use reserve powers such as calling elections or vetoing laws.
Generally where you have a President and PM you have the President following the advice of their ministers and not actually governing the nation. This is the case in Ireland, Germany and India. In these cases power is handled is firmly in the hands of the parliament and those who the legislature appointed to power. Often as in the case of Germany Singapore, and Ireland the powers the President are strictly defined and ensure that there is very little discretion in the use of their powers.
However some countries are different. In France the PM and President can be from different parties and in such cases the President handles foreign policy, while the PM handles governing the nation.
In Korea the President runs the nation, and appoints a PM who has very little power, but can be acting President if needed.
Russia has a PM and a President. As we have observed when Putin's presidential term limits came up, he switched to the PM's job, and then later became President again. I am not sure of the differences in power in these Russian roles, however the reality is that Putin's party holds the majority in parliament and he wins Presidential elections and thus can do what it wants.
A parliamentary system can be very stable or very unstable. If it is unstable (The French 4th? republic or Italy (under previous model), then the President may have to use their reserve powers a lot more than than other nations with a parliamentary government. However if the parliament and government are stable then they may have very little need to use their reserve powers.
Why a nation would choose a parliamentary government is often based on History. I suspect if the American revolution had occurred a few decades later they would have had a far more parliamentary system than they have today.
20 thanks ❤+Follow = inbox ✌....
Answer:
Some countries have parliamentary government. In a parliamentary system power is held by the party or parties or any group of members who hold a simple majority in that parliament. In bicameral systems, it is generally the group which holds power in the lower house.
This group gets the person they want appointed as Prime Minister (Head of Government) by the Head of State (The President or the Monarch).
Now some countries like Ireland decided they did not need a monarch and removed them. In other nations such as Bulgaria, or Romania the Monarchs were removed by the Russians. (Fun side fact: The old King of Bulgaria became Prime Minister after the fall of communism). And in some nations they were thrown out.
However a country needs somebody to perform head of state functions once a monarch is removed from office, like accept diplomatic credentials, issue diplomatic credentials, host foreign visitors and approve important documents such as laws. A non partisan president is also very useful as they form a point of national unity and they sometimes need to use reserve powers such as calling elections or vetoing laws.
Generally where you have a President and PM you have the President following the advice of their ministers and not actually governing the nation. This is the case in Ireland, Germany and India. In these cases power is handled is firmly in the hands of the parliament and those who the legislature appointed to power. Often as in the case of Germany Singapore, and Ireland the powers the President are strictly defined and ensure that there is very little discretion in the use of their powers.
However some countries are different. In France the PM and President can be from different parties and in such cases the President handles foreign policy, while the PM handles governing the nation.
In Korea the President runs the nation, and appoints a PM who has very little power, but can be acting President if needed.
Russia has a PM and a President. As we have observed when Putin's presidential term limits came up, he switched to the PM's job, and then later became President again. I am not sure of the differences in power in these Russian roles, however the reality is that Putin's party holds the majority in parliament and he wins Presidential elections and thus can do what it wants.
A parliamentary system can be very stable or very unstable. If it is unstable (The French 4th? republic or Italy (under previous model), then the President may have to use their reserve powers a lot more than than other nations with a parliamentary government. However if the parliament and government are stable then they may have very little need to use their reserve powers.
Why a nation would choose a parliamentary government is often based on History. I suspect if the American revolution had occurred a few decades later they would have had a far more parliamentary system than they have today.
hope it helps you ☺☺