posted
This week Iraq has announced (finally) their new President. And in a few weeks they are supposed to announce their new Prime Minister as well. I am embarrassed to ask; What the heck is the difference? I am a reasonably intelligent person who is generally interested in all things historical, geographical and political. I am sure that I could throw several guesses out there but since I couldn't confirm this for myself I was hoping that the knowledgeable Hatrackians could give me a hand on this one.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually have no idea. Neither term seems to be used here in the traditional way.
In Iraq, the president -- elected by a direct vote of the people -- and both vice-presidents put forward a prime minister, who holds executive power and appoints all cabinet members. This prime minister must be approved by the legislature (which is the one similarity between Iraq's prime minister and others I've seen.)
As far as I can tell, the Prime Minister does all the work, and the presidency is purely ceremonial (with the exception of the appointment of the PM.) Many Irawis, based on some blogs I've seen, speculate that the presidential selection was fixed, since the appointment of this Kurdish president frees up his rival to take control of the Kurdish territories to the north -- thus divvying up power and prestige in a bloodless way.
By all accounts, the current Prime Minister is ALSO a pretty ceremonial choice, as his cabinet appointments were for the most part vetted months ago over various "diplomacy" sessions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure the answer to that is actually something like "the U.S. military."
But no, I don't think it's the legislature yet. Since most of the government has to be built, cabinet appointments are going to result in major structural changes. Which means that, for the forseeable future, all the power lies with the thirty or so cabinet members -- and the Prime Minister is theoretically their boss. I don't think the legislature will be relevant for a few more years.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about any other circumstances where there is a President and a Prime Minister? I know there are more, though I can't think of them now. I think that the perception of what a President is really for has changed in this country. The President's role is more of a foreign policy figure. I find it ironic that with the current administration's (at least pre-war/pre-election)attitude toward the world wasn't exactly friendly or constructive. I didn't want to turn this into an anti-Bush thread.
Anyways, just to repeat the question. Why would a country have a President and a Prime Minister Daddy? huh?
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My original guess would be all that. A President would do what it does for us. A Prime Minister's role is head of the Legislative branch. If it's that simple then I apologize for wasting forum space.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Wikipedia, a prime minister in a country which also has a president -- and apparently this isn't all that rare, although I'd never heard of it; it turns out that Germany even has such a system -- is generally appointed by the president and oversees the basic duties of the legislative branch and any civil service, while the president drinks martinis and hobnobs with other heads of state and generally misbehaves like a member of the British royal family.
posted
I can't believe I don't know the exact answer to this question, but from what little I do know I'm inclined to agree with Tom. And you're not "wasting forum space" .
France also has this system, although theirs is (I believe) a little different, as everything in France's political system is.
posted
The British government I'm pretty sure works similarly. Except that the Queen/King isn't elected. I know that all diplomats and ambassadors are technically representatives of the Queen. And I don't believe that the British military answers to the Prime Minister.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are tons of countries with both a President and a Prime Minister. The President is head of state, and the Prime Minister is head of government.
The head of state is usually largely ceremonial/political, but ceremony and politics should not be dismissed lightly. In some countries with strong Prime Ministers the President sets/has set the agenda by force of will, despite having little direct power.
In other countries, the President and Prime Minister divvy up the power more, with the President typically taking over foreign affairs and the Prime Minister taking over domestic affairs.
How Iraq is run will be a function of several things: its Constitution, and the popular institutions that arise from its political culture.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Red, the British Government and its clones (Canada, NZ) is, although related, quite different. Although the Queen is the head of state, she has no real power at all, where as most head of state Presidents do. Her only political role is to disolve parliament, and that is always at the request of the PM.
She has no say at all in what the military does.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew that, but it sounded funny. We need a powerless monarchy in the US too. Just so we have more celebrities to focus on. I liked Fugu's answer.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Canada -- from what I can see -- the British Queen is supremely irrelevant. She is represented by the Governor General of Canada (currently Adrienne Clarkson), who does play a significant role in guiding and encouraging the culture of the country, as well as meeting with other Heads of State.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowing that there is some variety in the Hatrack community as far as national governments, it would be interesting to see which is the most effective system. I'm not sure if the US is better served by not having a head of the entire Legislative branch. But maybe I'm wrong.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
