How much power does the head of state have?

**lemondude** · June 24, 2012, 07:30 PM

I am assuming in democracies the head of state may have some power in countries like us, or close to none in canada, or not long enough term in japan.

In history, it takes a great emporer almost a decade to have enough power to make a difference, so how can the leaders of today do it in less?

The answer is probably, they mostly can't which begs the question, is this form of election system not as effective as we thought.

When asia and africa were a lot weaker economically and militarily in the early 19 and 18 centries the west was fine, and so was before major involvements between the continents.

Now asia is very close to being the same level and africa is fast on the rise, we are starting to see cracks in europe and maybe americas.

In conclusion is it a time for a change in the form of government?

**selder** · June 24, 2012, 07:37 PM

They have power because of the party system, the rest of the gov. that shares the same party as the head of state will always go along with his/her wishes. So I say the power lies with the party. In fact it was George Washington in his Farewell Address who warned

that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

**Vítor Gaspar** · June 24, 2012, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by lemondude

In conclusion is it a time for a change in the form of government?

No. Most forms of government reflect how the political atmosphere is in a certain country. For example, I dare say nothing else but a Presidential system would work in the US. Adopting a Parliamentary system would break the unity of the United States and could, at last, result in the independence of certain States, especially those who have cultural factors (Cali, Southern US, Northeast) for separation behind them.

A Presidential system is usually adopted in countries where the country is prone to split, because, all in all, it's not that homogeneous when it comes to the population. That's why the two largest and most diverse countries of the Americas are Presidential: The USA and Brazil. Among other things, of course (the US being seen as a role model for every American nation, and it was the US that started the Presidentialism trend)

Now I'm guessing you probably don't know much about this subject, because you seem to be confusing the election system and the form of government.

Are you saying that it's time for the US, for example, to switch its form of government or that the Head of State should rule for more time?

I believe the former is a "no". And the latter also begs for a no.

Europe and the United State's hegemony in the 18th and 19th century has nothing to do with the "head of state". In fact, if anything, except in the US, that was around the time the heads of state lost much of their power. Liberalism and parliamentarism popped all over Europe and North and South America.