325
French government collapses in 14 hours, deepening political crisis (www.yahoo.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 1 year ago (10 children)

From a Canadian who also doesn't have a similar system and was confused about why you'd have both a president and a PM, thank you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Canada does have a sort-of similar system. It's just that the "president" in Canada is "the crown", which is the Governor General representing the current British monarch. It's much more of a ceremonial role in Canada, but technically the Governor General does appoint the Prime Minister.

    Australia has essentially the same system as Canada. In 1975 the Australian Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister and picked the leader of the opposition as Prime Minister so that he could call an election. Described like that it seems like a blatant abuse of power. But, the background was a really dysfunctional government. One party had narrow control over the house, the other had narrow control over the senate, and the senate was blocking everything the house tried to do. I don't know the full details of what happened in that affair, but it seems like it could be a good thing if a Governor General would step in in a crisis resolve a deadlock.

    Canada also has the "confidence votes" part of the crisis in France. AFAIK in Canada losing a confidence vote immediately triggers an election, unlike in France where it can just lead to a scramble to see who can become the new PM among the existing representatives. Because triggering an election is a big deal, it doesn't tend to happen too often. But it has happened. In 2011 Stephen Harper's government lost a confidence vote, and there was an immediate election, but he won that election. In 2007 Paul Martin's government also fell to a confidence vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    In many countries, the president is the head of state, they manage the transition of power and act as diplomats, in place of a king. Finland has both a president and PM.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I think the US chose to have a president act as a sort of a king with a term limit. Other countries saw that and adapted it when they moved away from their monarchies, either giving the president king-like powers or giving them just a ceremonial role as head of state.

    What's funny is that in the UK and in many former British colonies, there's still a king, but it's mostly a ceremonial role these days. So, things have basically reversed. A modern king who's a head of state is basically a figurehead. A president who is the head of a country may have monarch-type powers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Definitely.

    I like searching the library of Congress's site for the federalist papers when researching about the (surprisingly advanced) political science discussions during the Enlightenment.

    Federalist papers 67-70, and 73 make some comparisons between kings and presidents. It's definitely clear that a king is a common example in the political discourse at the time, which makes sense since their system had a king just 10-15 years before.

    Yeah, there seems to be a weird reversal in the powers of a king and president. Federalist#73 says that kings fear challenging parliament, so a president who has to face reelection should be even less powerful, but it really seems like the opposite these days. The US president has so much influence over congress. It also seems like they have more of a mandate to override congress because of how involved they are in campaigning. The modern system of prime Ministers where the executive comes from parliament seems to play out better in modern politics.

    Off-topic, but Federalist#66 is suuuper unfortunate to read in the modern day. The idea that senators will feel empowered to impeach officials they previously endorsed, just because individuals in the senate might feel like an official has betrayed their trust? The idea that a majority of congress would never act tyranically? Hamilton, what the fuck? I guess the main issue though is that parties have become much stronger than democratic pressure on individual seats in the senate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The modern system of prime Ministers where the executive comes from parliament seems to play out better in modern politics.

    Yes and no. The problem is that in parliamentary systems like that, if the government has a majority then they're unstoppable. In a system with a president who has some actual authority, or a king who isn't merely a figurehead, the Prime Minister can't just do everything he wants. There still needs to be some negotiation.

    On the other hand, the world has a lot of authoritarians in it who wore (and in some cases still are) supported by popular votes. People seem really bad at picking leaders who want to serve out a 4-10 year term, then retire to a cushy life afterwards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I know what you mean, but I'd argue that the balance of powers principle in the US giving the president so much power has done the opposite of what it's supposed to do. Instead of the executive being restrained by the other branches, it has completely taken over them because the other branches are worried that they would lose too much by resisting.

    Whereas in a PR parliamentary system, it is extremely rare for any one party to have a majority, so they need to compromise with other parties to elect a prime minister. Even during war time, it's common practice to use a unity cabinet that includes all major parties. The judiciary seems to be more independent and can enforce the basic law. Also, 50% of MPs or the president/king can call an election at any time if the PM is getting too spicy.

    Tyranny of the majority is tricky though. Most of the responses to that seem to be devolution or international cooperation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Whereas in a PR parliamentary system, it is extremely rare for any one party to have a majority

    I don't think that's true. In Canadian elections majority governments are more common than non-majority governments. In Australia it looks like every government has been a majority government since the non-labour parties merged in 1910.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •