Talk:Parliamentary republic

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

India was a Commonwealth realm from 1947 - 1950, when it became a republic. --LJ Holden 02:57, 7 February 2011 (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)[reply]

Well then shouldn't someone change the Belarus article?

They should! --Lholden 03:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Australia & New Zealand

aren't technically Parliamentary Republics either – neither country has a President! --Andrewdotnich (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they aren't - which is why they're not listed. --Lholden (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as already merged, archiving discussion. - BilCat (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - No objection to merge. The content should be in this article. --Lholden (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]