Check out my new channel! It might be political but it's not rants and is heavily researched. The same style but just a different set of topics! :D ruclips.net/channel/UCG26M_Kd3q6oij10d_7OeBA
In parliamentary systems the president can also be elected by the people. The distinction isn’t weather it’s elected it’s weather the president has significant power. Czechia and Ireland are parliamentary systems but have a popularly elected president. The president of France Russia and Portugal have significant power which makes them semi presidential systems
I think it's a case of the terminology used in political science discourse not perfectly aligning with how those terms are used in real life. They had to name these systems *something,* I guess.
you say that like its a good thing. Here in Australia, we have no confidence votes every two fuckin seconds. Out terms are 3 years, yet weve have 5 Prime Ministers in 5 years
@@tr3ybod857 imo its actually undemocratic. The people voted for whoever is getting no-confidence-voted, getting rid of him early is, as i said, undemocratic. If a successful vote of no confidence triggered a referendum, i would be okay with it, but generally its just party politics which in most places is just a giant meme
When you had a bit trouble pronouncing "Bundespräsident" my german ass was laughing and like "But actyally, most people have worse pronunciation" and then you pronounced "Ministerium" perfect and my german ass was quiet
What separates a parliamentary and semi-presidential system isn’t whether the Head of State is popularly elected, but rather if the Head of State has significant power. In Ireland, for example, the Head of State (president) is elected directly by the people, but it is a parliamentary system because there’s little power he can exercise on his own.
Yes. I know that in Finland the president doesn't have much power any more but once did. In 2000 it turned from a semi to a parliamentary. In a really over-simplified way, the video is right. I think it's just generally voted in presidents tend to have more power.
@@williamswindler105 but the video isn't right in that respect though, the difference between the two is the powers of the head of state, not their method of election/how they are chosen. This is a case of correlation not equalling causation.
@@jgill551 I was guessing that that is why the video said that. After all, a lot of semi-presidential republics vote for their president, and a lot of parliamentary republics don't. I'm guessing he made an assumption that all did. Thinking about it now, that seams more logical. Before I thought he was maybe generalising. I guess not. Though, it is not in anyway "a case of correlation not equalling causation."
I know this channel is dead, but I wanted to mention that heads of state often have varying levels of power. All the way from being on par with the premier to being so powerless that the head of government is the de facto head of state. The former includes states like Ukraine and France, the latter includes most constitutional monarchies
I’d say that parliamentary vs semi presidential is much less about the electoral system used and more about the power the president has, and whether his power is ceremonial or political. For example Slovakia directly elects its president but it is mainly a ceremonial role and therefore Slovakia is a parliamentary democracy.
I was just about to say that. If I want to know if a republic is parliamentary or semi-presidential, I ask the question, "If I replaced the head of state with a constitutional monarch, would anything change?" For example, if the President of India was replaced with the King or Queen of India, what would change? The answer? Not much. The prime minister would still be the most powerful person in the country.
8:18 - This may just be a thing in Canada and not other commonwealth Countries, but the tradition here is that if no Party has a Majority after an election, the initial Formateur is the incumbent Prime Minister/Premier, not necessarily the leader of the largest party. That happened most recently in 2018 in the Province of New Brunswick, the Incumbent Liberals finished second, but it was a minority parliament, so the incumbent Premier was the Initial Formateur, lost a confidence vote, and only then was the leader of the largest party made formateur.
In Australia and New Zealand there is no formal procedure for government formation when nobody has a majority of seats. In Australia, in most parliaments it's pretty rare to lack a majority party due to single member electorates. In the cases it's happened it's usually been obvious who has the path to majority confidence, or the key "kingmaker" MPs have indicated who they will support after the numbers become clear. In New Zealand it's because there's not been a majority party since the 1990s due to the proportional voting system, and the parties... Just kind of figure it out. So far they haven't had numbers tight and even enough to cause a crisis over whether Labour or the Nationals will lead the government, but it may happen one day.
@@arwon2227nteresting, In Canada in a hung parliament situation it just defaults to the incumbent Prime Minister/Premier being allowed to test confidence, even if it’s very clear the government is going to lose confidence. It happened in British Columbia in 2017, the Greens had already signed a confidence and supply deal with the NDP, but the BC Liberals still went through the motions of holding a speech from the throne then it being voted down, and then they advised dissolution, were refused and dismissed as premier, then the NDP leader was commissioned form government.
@@WanukeX yeah you won't see that here where New South Wales just passed from a Liberal minority government to a Labor one in their election last weekend. Labor are a couple seats shy of majority with the Libs 10 seats behind them where previously the Libs were in that situation. Three independents quickly made it known they'd provide supply and confidence to the new govt just as they had the old one after it slipped into minority, and that was that. There's no step in the post election process that'll involve pretending the Libs have any role in relinquishing anything as far as I know, the new govt will just be sworn in. I believe the mechanism is that the Governor just has to be satisfied that the new govt has confidence and can gather that information for themselves, it doesn't need to be formally tested first unless there's real doubt. In Tasmania there's currently the silly possibility that Labor keep saying they'll refuse to govern in minority with Greens support, so if the next election comes to that situation, we may be both parties trying to refuse to govern in minority and trying to make the other one do it, and the Governor having to intervene more explicitly.
Whether a country is parliamentary or semi-presidential is not determined by whether the president is elected by the citizens. This is true for major western European democracies (compare Italy and Germany to France), but there are many parliamentary democracies where the president is elected by the citizens.
I wonder what a proportional government would look like. The number of representatives a party has in the Legislature corresponds to how many people from that party have in the Cabinet. For example, if a party has 40 of the seats in the Legislature out of 100, then 4 out of the possible 10 cabinet positions can be from that party.
parliamentary systems can have directly elected presidents, therefore wether a system is semi-presidential or parliamentary system depends on how powerful the HOS(president) is
The flash of text at 3:53 that is only there for like half a milisecond and was super hard to catch says: Typically the head of state doesn't attend international meetings and is largely a wrothless and obsolete entity but France likes theirs so everyone plays along with it but you really don't need one. You'll see why in a bit but whatever. It's a nebulous position.
Little explanation on France. The Fifth Republic is a very peculiar system, that gives a lot more power to the President than they should have in a semi-presidential system. Because the President cannot actually get kicked out by Parliament ( or not more than in the U.S), it’s the Prime Minister who is. Also, the President can dissolve the National Assembly ( the part of Parliament who actually has power, think House of Commons in the UK) and call new elections. Also, the President can do what is called a "49-3", passing a law without debate or vote in Parliament, and if the Parliament wants to fight this law, they must call and succeed in a vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister with a two-third majority. Wait, wtf is the Prime Minister getting caught here ? Well, you see, the President isn’t the one actually using the 49-3, he’s asking his Prime Minister to do it for him, and engaging the responsibility of the government. Because yes, If the vote of no confidence succeed, the whole governments except the President, all the Ministers, get kick out. The President is never at risk, he’s using the government as some sort of sacrificial lamb to circumvent the process of lawmaking.
What does democracy mean to you? Like this is a grand video just overall describing these forms of 'representative democracies'. It definitely doesn't acknowledge corruption within parties and the constant funding of political campaigns, which tends to overall increase chances for specific parties to claim seats despite the majority of policies being largely unpopular and mostly damaging to the masses. Overall there doesn't really exist much democracy within Capitalist societies. I'd prefer myself a one party state that gets shit done rather than multiple parties that don't do anythings. But again, the success and prosperity of a nation depends on its political, social and economic base. If that base is designed by the working people for the working people, then we won't need multiple competing parties, we'll have an overall workers party with parties within it to represent different aspects of collective thought, that's if the base of that society was already fundamentally built that way like what Socialist countries tend to be. Which includes the DPRK...
Talks about corruption within political parties, advocates for one party system. Talks about prosperity, advocates for shitholes. Most intelligent Marxist.
I'd rather have a cabinet that changes every 6 months over one that the leading party can get entrenched for a decade or more. Here, a corrupt and popularist is in power 80% of the time. It is exhausting.
It took me a bit, but I was finally able to pause the words at 3:53 and screenshot them. They read, "Typically the head of state doesn't attend international meetings and is largely a worthless and obsolete entity but France likes theirs so everyone plays along with it but you really don't need one. You'll see why in a bit but whatever. It's a nebulous position." Just in case anybody was curious Lol
9:18 - There’s also a third type that goes in the complete opposite direction that Canada has, here, the Government can designate *any* vote as a confidence vote, and votes on the Budget are considered confidence by default. Because the Governments in Canada in minority Parliaments are nearly always Minorities, not Majority Coalitions, the Opposition nearly never have the numbers to put in a new government if the incumbent government loses confidence, so it would go to emergency election, so Governments use declaring votes as confidence like a sword of Damocles over the Minor Parties to force them to either vote with the government or cause an election. Basically a massive game of chicken every 6 weeks.
This isn’t a third type of system, this is a standard parliamentary system. Within the parliamentary system, a government can designate any vote as a confidence motion. This has various names, be it a three-line-whip, cabinet question, or other terms for it.
@@LordDim1sure, but he dosen’t mention that in the video, he just mentions explicitly worded non confidence motions and constructive votes of no confidence, so I was just noting the ability of the Government in some systems to designate confidence.
South African President actually is a president though because of a few small differences: 1) he is head of state and possesses ceremonial powers similar to those of a president in countries like Estonia which have ceremonial presidents as well as prime ministers 2) he can only be removed by two thirds majority IN BOTH HOUSES, not a 50% majority in one like a PM can 3) SA used to have a prime minister and President but they merged them and it makes sense to call it a president and not a prime minister
Overall, this is alright, but there is a slight mistake, which may be because it's a very simplified video, but In many Parliamentary Republics, such as Ireland, the President is directly elected by the population, but has very little power; the defining factor between Semi-Presidential and Parliamentary democracies is if the President is involved in the creation of the Executive Branch, as in France, the President is involved, while in Parliamentary Democracies, the President isn't involved in the creation of the executive branch.
Your video was so high quality, I was surprised that you are a small channel! You got a subscriber. By the way, will you ever cover Direct Democracies?
That's actually a cool idea! I was going to talk about sortition at some point, I might combine those two ideas into 1 video. Gonna have to read up on the comparative politics literature for direct democracy tho.
Huh... The Sci-fi government I made as a kid seems to be semi-presidential to an extent. You have the legislator chosen by voters (citizens that have completed their civil service, military, medical, teaching ect). And from the legislative branch (the pool of which is larger then it needs to be to account for this), you pull your HOS/CE (same position) and department heads. The actual vote for the HOS is done by voters who's civil service was in the military (HOS is also Commander in Chief, so the vote is limited to those who have to trust this person's judgement with their lives, basically. For the same reason more or less, the HOS has to have spent time in an enlisted postion.). No confidence votes exist, and while no replacement government needs to be offered, do require 70% to actually take effect. At which point, a whole new general election happens.
There are definitely parliamentary democracies where the ceremonial president is directly elected by the people, such as the Republic of Ireland. It's more that the minimal power of the head of state in fully parliamentary republics is often associated with not having a popular election for them, rather than being a definitional requirement. Since popular election does usually imply a mandate to like, do stuff. An illustrative example: One of the proposed models for the future Australian republic is a very minimalist one where the head of state (Queen represented by Governor-General) are replaced by an elected president, still non-executive, with no other constitutional changes. If that model were to eventuate, it would mean the replacement of a non-elected non-executive head of state in a parliamentary system (just like the UK) with an elected non-executive one. The simple "election = semi-presidential" schema would designate the new system semi-presidential even though nothing had changed from the parliamentary system, except the method of choosing the head of state.
6:34 Funny you should mention that, but during the late 90's and the early 2000's in Israel we had a weird exception to that rule. Due to a pressure from several reform movements the Knesset passed a law that made the prime minister (the chief executive of the state) into a directly elected position, in the hopes that an independent prime minister would be less partisan and influenced by petty politics, and that politics in general would become less political. This caused the bizarre situation in which the prime minister was elected separately to his position on election day, and created a head of government that was both dependent on parliament to approve his initial government and all other activities dictated by our parliamentary system, while not being dependent on the parliament to stay in power. Needless to say, combined with Israel's proportional representation system and history of having around 10 parties in basically every parliament, this caused total chaos as the major parties bled massive amounts of votes to smaller, more sectarian parties in their blocks that campaigned by reminding everyone that they can get their favorite candidate to the prime ministership while voting for them [the smaller parties instead of having to vote for the candidate's actual party to get them in power. The end result of this was that both major parties held less and less of the seats in parliament as time went on and were reliant on unwieldy coalitions were they had a really weak position to bargain from, while largely inexperienced media darlings won the premiership and struggle to keep their fragile (even by Israeli standards) coalitions intact. The whole thing was cancelled only after two regular elections and one special one, and many of the negative effects of this particular chapter of history still haunt our politics to this day.
Your breakdown is not entirely true. There is literally more than a dozen Parliamentary Republic with an elected President that is NOT a semi-presidential system. Here's a list: Austria Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Finland Iceland Ireland Moldova Montenegro North Macedonia Serbia Singapore Slovakia Slovenia None of these are considered semi-presidential, so your breakdown is wrong. In addition, the semi-presidential is not just as simple as you painted it as. There are two types of semi presidential systems: premier-presidential and president-parliamentary. The main difference is the latter has weaker links between the Prime Minister and the Legislature, sometimes the PM don't even need to hold a majority in the legislature, and the President can sometimes dismiss the PM who holds a majority in the legislature. So Premier-Presidential is closer to Parliamentary system, and President-parliamentary is closer to Presidential system. Also, you mentioned that the Head of State goes to international meetings to represent the country; that's not really common. Most of the time these events will be attended by the Head of Government (PM) or the Foreign Minister. The Head of State mostly stay in the country and has the role of welcoming foreign diplomats/leaders.
i feel like it should have been noted that in parliamentary systems the prime minister isnt just elected by the legislature but is also usually a member of the legislature (as are the heads of executive departments/ministries)
Good video subscribed. I like how Italy fit perfectly in the unstable short-lived government: There are a lot of parties, no constructive vote of no confidence and investiture vote. In fact in 73 years we had 65 government, the longest last 1412 days out of the five years and the shortest only 22 days, and the actual one is a very unstable coalition between two parties and I believe it won't last two years.
@@supiworldbuilding2526 the maximum is five years, but election from 1948 to today are on average are every 4 years and not a single government last four years, many time the prime minister and some ministers change but there aren't new election. Sorry if I made some mistakes but I don't know very well English political terms
@@stefanomagari6921 You answered my question exactly. I figured that with some government changes there aren't new elections. I know Norway actually doesn't allow for early elections to be held and wondered if Italy had something similar. Thanks :D
Big mistake: the difference between parliamentary and semi-presidential is not how the president is elected. There are countries that are parliamentary but have a popularly elected president (Ireland, Finland, ...). The difference is that the president actually holds power in a semi-presidential system, like France, Russia, Ukraine, ... It's also worth mentioning the two types of semi-presidential systems: premier-presidential (France, Ukraine, ...) and president-parliamentary (Russia, Syria, ...).
In both presidential and parliamentary democracies, several groups of people with widely different ideologies try to come together and form a majority. The difference is that in a parliament, it can happen after the politicians are elected. In a presidential democracy, it happens before the election.
9:25 interestingly in the Belgian federal constitution it is written that the Flemish government can't be replaced until the end of their term. So while the Flemish legislature picks the Flemish government they can't call a no confidence vote or constructive no confidence vote. It is prohibited by the Belgian federal constitution. Weirdly this rule is not in place for the Wallonian parliament
But wait, Ireland is considered a parliamentary democracy and it elects its president with a direct popular vote. Doesn’t the split between semi-presidential and parliamentary systems come down to what power the president wields? For example when the legislative majority matches the party of the president in France, the president acts as the chief executive, and when they don’t match, the prime minister does.
So that's a common misconception. Ireland is semi-presidential. There are further subcategories within the category of semi-presidential that do depend on the powers of the president though. The parliamentary/semi-presidential split is simply if the Head of State is directly elected or not.
@@VulcanTrekkie45 The classification scheme I use in this video is from a paper by Jose Antonio Cheibub which is an update of one from Adam Przeworski about classifying countries. There are othr schemes that are still commonly used in the field fo com pol but theirs is the most useful since it has the clearest definitions for the three types. I am aware there are other schemes for classifying democracy and none are more right or wrong just some are more or less useful. If you want to read up on it I link the textbook I first learned the classification scheme from in the description. Here's a link to the Chiebub paper: www.jstor.org/stable/40661005 and the textbook is the Third Edition of Clark, Golder, and Golder's Principles of Comparative Politics, Chapter 12.
Ireland (and Finland) are semi-presidential systems but constitution by operate as parliamentary systems. Its just that is rare, usually, a directly elected President is seen as more legitimate than a Prime Minister but I guess in Ireland and Finland's case they think differently. Which isn't that suprising for Finland, however Ireland, not sure
Israel has an interesting formateur picking system. The President asks the head of every Party that got seats in Parliament who they would like to see as PM, whoever gets the most support weighted by party size, gets first dibs at forming a government, then the second, then another election is called.
How is that different from any other country? In most country, the Head of State (President or Monarch) will meet with all the heads of the political parties and determine who is most likely to have the support of the legislature, and appoint them as PM candidate. In some constitutions, the party or coalition that has the most seats gets the first dibs, then second biggest and so on. If no one can form government, a snap election is called.
While you are right that the UK is a Parliamentary system, there is a glaring inaccuracy in your explanation. The UK head of state, the monarch, is not part of the government nor do they generally attend international political meetings as the country's representative. This is true for most of the commonwealth. And thus although under your definition, the UK and Germany are both Parliamentary, they are nothing like similar systems. After all, while the German President (head of state) can be removed by a Vote of No Confidence, the UK monarch (also head of state if not of government) very much can not. And yet the UK government can be removed by a vote of no confidence.
I think this goes to a more general issue with framing which is that despite the monarchical UK being an example, this explainer is kinda more about the types of republics, rather than the types of democracies.
8:55 That's not necessarily correct. Remember that yes, one party may leave, but another may join instead. If you have many different paths towards a majority the leverage of other coalition members isn't that great. Just leaving like that also may make joining a new coalition harder as other parties may see you as unreliable. And voters may punish you if you do so excessively. So while yes, you can *technically* disband the government at any time you need to be able to justify it. Also, in systems that permits minority governments leaving but still supporting the government is just a better middle ground. You're no longer a member, so you are free to vote against the government, but you are still seen as more reliable then someone forwarding a motion of no confidence villy nilly by both coalition partners and voters while still standing up for your values. 9:34 Good!
You have completely misunderstood semi-presidential systems. There are many democracies with your definition that aren’t basically just parliamentary systems. France is a definition of a semi presidential system but that is due to the powers held by the president/head of state not by how they are elected.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is most certainly a democracy! The principles of Juche philosophy ensure that a great man of the people voted for by the people will always defend the Fatherland for the people against Western imperialist aggressors.
In my Sci-Fi universe I made the UN the overall governemnt for humanity by mostly not touching nation state governments as a whole. While it can pass laws particularily around international/interstellar coventions and can raise taxes in some areas defined by previous treaties amongst the national governments. It still in many ways is more a supranational union like the EU than it is a nation state government. Though it does have a house of delegates, the general assembly is still there (it functions as the senate); the secretary general and fellow Directors (equivalent of cabinet ministers); it in many ways is how aliens see humanity but humans largerly see it in the same way they see the UN today. Mostly far away and not that relevant to their day to day lives though I would imagine it still is more top of mind because the UN is who handles all relations with other species and the UN has its own military which by treaty must amount to 51% of all military spending in humanity. Which makes the UN Security Council so much more important because they can actually authorize interventions and what not that don't use national militaries but use the UN Military (which recruits exclusively from national militaries in peacetime and only augments that with conscripts in wartime)
7:17 That's not accurate for a proportional parliamentarian system at all. Norways cabinets are usually made up of 3-4 parties although a single party cabinet is *technically* possible it hasn't happened in decades. Okay, you covered that a moment later, kind of. The difference is that no one having the majority is the norm in a proportional system, and more common the more proportional your system is. Also it's not necessarily the case that all members of a coalition has a majority together. Sometimes, depending on your laws you can have a minority government run by parties that do not have a majority together but got support from other parties that didn't join the coalition in forming a government in return for concessions. As a non member of the coalition they're not committed to supporting the government and will support them on a case by case basis. This means that the parliament has more power and the cabinet might be required to govern based on budgets and instructions made by other parties then the coalition members. But they still govern the details.
@@supiworldbuilding2526 yeah i did notice that, i went to your channel and saw you hadnt uploaded in ages. Im glad youre still active though, cant wait for more videos from you
It seems crazy to me that you can replace an entire government overnight. How can you ensure stability if the people doing their jobs aren't even sure if they'll be there tomorrow?
Because nobody wants instability, particularly if that isn't going to get them anything. And in particular voters don't. So, usually Prime Ministers only get booted out when a) they've had a major scandal, b) they lose their status as the largest party in the legislature, or c) they prove incapable at solving a major crisis or enacting the manifesto they were elected on. You would need an absolute majority (i.e. a majority of the entire body) to remove a government in most systems, so this isn't usually anywhere that bad. In many parliamentary countries Prime Ministers can last longer than most Presidents, for example Angela Merkel from Prime Minister from 2005 to 2020, and went through 3 Presidents. Usually, it isn't a problem, however their definitely have been examples of places where its been a problem (looking at you Italy, Israel, French Fourth Republic and Wemiar Germany).
Well, usually it is not that every Prime Minister lives in constant fear of losing his job. It all depends on the Parliament and the rules of voting him out. Countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have many political parties and a parliamentary system, so unstable coalitions are normal. But in countries like the UK, electoral system ensures that usually only one party holds a majority, with its leader as PM. So, as a british PM, I would not worry much about losing my job (though, it is possible).
This is not a good categorization scheme. Sure you can split things up this way but there's no reason to think these questions are the most characteristic or important distinctions between types of democracy. Switzerland is way more different from the US than the US is from Britain. This is also all purely theoretical. Calculating this way will tell you the PRC is a parliamentary democracy because the people's congress chooses the leader and can remove him. The scheme is obviously non exhaustive (just ask how this scheme deals with a system where the legislature appoints but cannot remove the leader) and is not really equipped to deal with systems more than slightly different from the prevailing Anglo-American world order.
7:35 well it doesn’t really work like this... they can’t just proclaim themselves as the government, instead the head of state appoints them or, in the case of South Africa and Ireland, they are elected by the legislature. In Italy the head of state must appoint the PM, then the ministers based on the nominations of the PM then the PM and their ministers must present themselves before the chambers of parliament for an initial confidence vote within 10 days.
Hopefully when I make a video on selectorate theory II can explain why democracies are much better places to live than dictatorships and why dictatorships actually face many structural problems democracies don't. Stay tuned!
its a good introduction but it skims over a lot of the primary examples that are suppose to be definitive. the reason has to come from the fact that we don't have direct elections but have representative elections. this body of electors decides on laws however it cannot generate its own legislation. the electors are strongly tied to popular votes but not bound to them. I hate the party analogies because it doesn't give a clear explanation what is going on. the US party system is not what it seems. because of the strict way that local, state, and national elections occur, people tend to simplify the two party system because of the national elections. but on the local and state levels they tend to be much more flexible and diverse. they also tend to completely change ideals in the middle of office as party has no bearing on being or not being in an office. the European systems require you to be in an office to be of the party.
Small nitpick: You tried so hard to pronounce the German words (and you did it beautifully), but failed at the easiest thing: "Ä" is pronounced "E". "Ä" only exists because of etymological reasons and is basically just an "E". So, "Bundespräsident" is pronounced "Bundespresident".
Democracies are great if you like to write political intrigue, and considering our modern democracies, we have plenty of good,err... bad examples. Remember that Hitler was actually democratically elected. In my story for example, I take tons of examples from the Brazilian democracy and all it's rampant corruption.
@@supiworldbuilding2526 You only say that because you dont know which bit the comment refers to lol. I have no issue with your factual analysis of government and in fact think its a very well illustrated overview of modern democracy. Genuinely its a shame you dont work on this channel anymore.
![Supi [ World Building ]](http://yt3.ggpht.com/ytc/AIdro_mYiHW3r6KzCIUR3xM_fvAT6PkeVhMcYYm0-McnPhSNT6g=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Check out my new channel! It might be political but it's not rants and is heavily researched. The same style but just a different set of topics! :D
ruclips.net/channel/UCG26M_Kd3q6oij10d_7OeBA
Read Gray Mirror and use it as reference. Unism FTW!
In parliamentary systems the president can also be elected by the people. The distinction isn’t weather it’s elected it’s weather the president has significant power. Czechia and Ireland are parliamentary systems but have a popularly elected president. The president of France Russia and Portugal have significant power which makes them semi presidential systems
I think it's a case of the terminology used in political science discourse not perfectly aligning with how those terms are used in real life. They had to name these systems *something,* I guess.
Me, an American with tears in my eyes learning that a vote of no confidence is a thing: I- its beautiful....
you say that like its a good thing. Here in Australia, we have no confidence votes every two fuckin seconds. Out terms are 3 years, yet weve have 5 Prime Ministers in 5 years
But it sounds useful, because you know Trump is so bad and Corrupt.
@@tr3ybod857 imo its actually undemocratic. The people voted for whoever is getting no-confidence-voted, getting rid of him early is, as i said, undemocratic. If a successful vote of no confidence triggered a referendum, i would be okay with it, but generally its just party politics which in most places is just a giant meme
@@australiananarchist480 Oh! Fair enough, so we need a referendum to boot Trump Out. And not create a national crisis.
@@tr3ybod857 better than party politics dictating shit
Chancellor Palpatine: *I love democracy.*
I love the illusion of democracy even more 😏
@@SimGunther Yeah, genius. That is the implication of palpatine's statement.
When you had a bit trouble pronouncing "Bundespräsident" my german ass was laughing and like "But actyally, most people have worse pronunciation" and then you pronounced "Ministerium" perfect and my german ass was quiet
What separates a parliamentary and semi-presidential system isn’t whether the Head of State is popularly elected, but rather if the Head of State has significant power. In Ireland, for example, the Head of State (president) is elected directly by the people, but it is a parliamentary system because there’s little power he can exercise on his own.
Yes. I know that in Finland the president doesn't have much power any more but once did. In 2000 it turned from a semi to a parliamentary. In a really over-simplified way, the video is right. I think it's just generally voted in presidents tend to have more power.
@@williamswindler105 but the video isn't right in that respect though, the difference between the two is the powers of the head of state, not their method of election/how they are chosen. This is a case of correlation not equalling causation.
@@jgill551 I was guessing that that is why the video said that. After all, a lot of semi-presidential republics vote for their president, and a lot of parliamentary republics don't. I'm guessing he made an assumption that all did. Thinking about it now, that seams more logical. Before I thought he was maybe generalising. I guess not. Though, it is not in anyway "a case of correlation not equalling causation."
I know this channel is dead, but I wanted to mention that heads of state often have varying levels of power. All the way from being on par with the premier to being so powerless that the head of government is the de facto head of state. The former includes states like Ukraine and France, the latter includes most constitutional monarchies
I’d say that parliamentary vs semi presidential is much less about the electoral system used and more about the power the president has, and whether his power is ceremonial or political.
For example Slovakia directly elects its president but it is mainly a ceremonial role and therefore Slovakia is a parliamentary democracy.
I was just about to say that. If I want to know if a republic is parliamentary or semi-presidential, I ask the question, "If I replaced the head of state with a constitutional monarch, would anything change?" For example, if the President of India was replaced with the King or Queen of India, what would change? The answer? Not much. The prime minister would still be the most powerful person in the country.
A fellow Sloval
It sounds like while the President is popularly elected, they are not necessarily the Head of State, therefore yes, parliamentary democracy
8:18 - This may just be a thing in Canada and not other commonwealth Countries, but the tradition here is that if no Party has a Majority after an election, the initial Formateur is the incumbent Prime Minister/Premier, not necessarily the leader of the largest party.
That happened most recently in 2018 in the Province of New Brunswick, the Incumbent Liberals finished second, but it was a minority parliament, so the incumbent Premier was the Initial Formateur, lost a confidence vote, and only then was the leader of the largest party made formateur.
In Australia and New Zealand there is no formal procedure for government formation when nobody has a majority of seats.
In Australia, in most parliaments it's pretty rare to lack a majority party due to single member electorates. In the cases it's happened it's usually been obvious who has the path to majority confidence, or the key "kingmaker" MPs have indicated who they will support after the numbers become clear.
In New Zealand it's because there's not been a majority party since the 1990s due to the proportional voting system, and the parties... Just kind of figure it out. So far they haven't had numbers tight and even enough to cause a crisis over whether Labour or the Nationals will lead the government, but it may happen one day.
@@arwon2227nteresting, In Canada in a hung parliament situation it just defaults to the incumbent Prime Minister/Premier being allowed to test confidence, even if it’s very clear the government is going to lose confidence.
It happened in British Columbia in 2017, the Greens had already signed a confidence and supply deal with the NDP, but the BC Liberals still went through the motions of holding a speech from the throne then it being voted down, and then they advised dissolution, were refused and dismissed as premier, then the NDP leader was commissioned form government.
@@WanukeX yeah you won't see that here where New South Wales just passed from a Liberal minority government to a Labor one in their election last weekend.
Labor are a couple seats shy of majority with the Libs 10 seats behind them where previously the Libs were in that situation.
Three independents quickly made it known they'd provide supply and confidence to the new govt just as they had the old one after it slipped into minority, and that was that.
There's no step in the post election process that'll involve pretending the Libs have any role in relinquishing anything as far as I know, the new govt will just be sworn in. I believe the mechanism is that the Governor just has to be satisfied that the new govt has confidence and can gather that information for themselves, it doesn't need to be formally tested first unless there's real doubt.
In Tasmania there's currently the silly possibility that Labor keep saying they'll refuse to govern in minority with Greens support, so if the next election comes to that situation, we may be both parties trying to refuse to govern in minority and trying to make the other one do it, and the Governor having to intervene more explicitly.
Whether a country is parliamentary or semi-presidential is not determined by whether the president is elected by the citizens. This is true for major western European democracies (compare Italy and Germany to France), but there are many parliamentary democracies where the president is elected by the citizens.
Nice explanation video 👍
I wonder what a proportional government would look like. The number of representatives a party has in the Legislature corresponds to how many people from that party have in the Cabinet. For example, if a party has 40 of the seats in the Legislature out of 100, then 4 out of the possible 10 cabinet positions can be from that party.
parliamentary systems can have directly elected presidents, therefore wether a system is semi-presidential or parliamentary system depends on how powerful the HOS(president) is
The flash of text at 3:53 that is only there for like half a milisecond and was super hard to catch says:
Typically the head of state doesn't attend international meetings and is largely a wrothless and obsolete entity but France likes theirs so everyone plays along with it but you really don't need one. You'll see why in a bit but whatever. It's a nebulous position.
Little explanation on France. The Fifth Republic is a very peculiar system, that gives a lot more power to the President than they should have in a semi-presidential system. Because the President cannot actually get kicked out by Parliament ( or not more than in the U.S), it’s the Prime Minister who is. Also, the President can dissolve the National Assembly ( the part of Parliament who actually has power, think House of Commons in the UK) and call new elections. Also, the President can do what is called a "49-3", passing a law without debate or vote in Parliament, and if the Parliament wants to fight this law, they must call and succeed in a vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister with a two-third majority.
Wait, wtf is the Prime Minister getting caught here ? Well, you see, the President isn’t the one actually using the 49-3, he’s asking his Prime Minister to do it for him, and engaging the responsibility of the government. Because yes, If the vote of no confidence succeed, the whole governments except the President, all the Ministers, get kick out. The President is never at risk, he’s using the government as some sort of sacrificial lamb to circumvent the process of lawmaking.
What does democracy mean to you?
Like this is a grand video just overall describing these forms of 'representative democracies'. It definitely doesn't acknowledge corruption within parties and the constant funding of political campaigns, which tends to overall increase chances for specific parties to claim seats despite the majority of policies being largely unpopular and mostly damaging to the masses. Overall there doesn't really exist much democracy within Capitalist societies. I'd prefer myself a one party state that gets shit done rather than multiple parties that don't do anythings. But again, the success and prosperity of a nation depends on its political, social and economic base. If that base is designed by the working people for the working people, then we won't need multiple competing parties, we'll have an overall workers party with parties within it to represent different aspects of collective thought, that's if the base of that society was already fundamentally built that way like what Socialist countries tend to be. Which includes the DPRK...
Talks about corruption within political parties, advocates for one party system. Talks about prosperity, advocates for shitholes.
Most intelligent Marxist.
Love how short and sweet this video is. Almost feels like a crash course in comparative constitutional law.
I'd rather have a cabinet that changes every 6 months over one that the leading party can get entrenched for a decade or more. Here, a corrupt and popularist is in power 80% of the time. It is exhausting.
Thank god... This bloody thing is the one wch I was searching for 1 & a half years..... Just great.
It took me a bit, but I was finally able to pause the words at 3:53 and screenshot them. They read, "Typically the head of state doesn't attend international meetings and is largely a worthless and obsolete entity but France likes theirs so everyone plays along with it but you really don't need one. You'll see why in a bit but whatever. It's a nebulous position." Just in case anybody was curious Lol
9:18 - There’s also a third type that goes in the complete opposite direction that Canada has, here, the Government can designate *any* vote as a confidence vote, and votes on the Budget are considered confidence by default.
Because the Governments in Canada in minority Parliaments are nearly always Minorities, not Majority Coalitions, the Opposition nearly never have the numbers to put in a new government if the incumbent government loses confidence, so it would go to emergency election, so Governments use declaring votes as confidence like a sword of Damocles over the Minor Parties to force them to either vote with the government or cause an election. Basically a massive game of chicken every 6 weeks.
This isn’t a third type of system, this is a standard parliamentary system. Within the parliamentary system, a government can designate any vote as a confidence motion. This has various names, be it a three-line-whip, cabinet question, or other terms for it.
@@LordDim1sure, but he dosen’t mention that in the video, he just mentions explicitly worded non confidence motions and constructive votes of no confidence, so I was just noting the ability of the Government in some systems to designate confidence.
South African President actually is a president though because of a few small differences:
1) he is head of state and possesses ceremonial powers similar to those of a president in countries like Estonia which have ceremonial presidents as well as prime ministers
2) he can only be removed by two thirds majority IN BOTH HOUSES, not a 50% majority in one like a PM can
3) SA used to have a prime minister and President but they merged them and it makes sense to call it a president and not a prime minister
Overall, this is alright, but there is a slight mistake, which may be because it's a very simplified video, but
In many Parliamentary Republics, such as Ireland, the President is directly elected by the population, but has very little power; the defining factor between Semi-Presidential and Parliamentary democracies is if the President is involved in the creation of the Executive Branch, as in France, the President is involved, while in Parliamentary Democracies, the President isn't involved in the creation of the executive branch.
Thanks for the tips, am starting a country next week.
Not cool making the info on Duverger's Theory at 12:18 pop up for a short time, it was a pain in the ass trying to pause.
Your video was so high quality, I was surprised that you are a small channel! You got a subscriber.
By the way, will you ever cover Direct Democracies?
That's actually a cool idea! I was going to talk about sortition at some point, I might combine those two ideas into 1 video. Gonna have to read up on the comparative politics literature for direct democracy tho.
5:13 We don't elect the Prime Minister in France, they are named by the President who is popularly elected.
There are some inaccuracies in this video! For example Ireland is a parliamentary democracy that has an elected president by popular vote
The president can also be elected directly in parliamentary democracies
Huh... The Sci-fi government I made as a kid seems to be semi-presidential to an extent.
You have the legislator chosen by voters (citizens that have completed their civil service, military, medical, teaching ect).
And from the legislative branch (the pool of which is larger then it needs to be to account for this), you pull your HOS/CE (same position) and department heads.
The actual vote for the HOS is done by voters who's civil service was in the military (HOS is also Commander in Chief, so the vote is limited to those who have to trust this person's judgement with their lives, basically. For the same reason more or less, the HOS has to have spent time in an enlisted postion.).
No confidence votes exist, and while no replacement government needs to be offered, do require 70% to actually take effect. At which point, a whole new general election happens.
There are definitely parliamentary democracies where the ceremonial president is directly elected by the people, such as the Republic of Ireland.
It's more that the minimal power of the head of state in fully parliamentary republics is often associated with not having a popular election for them, rather than being a definitional requirement. Since popular election does usually imply a mandate to like, do stuff.
An illustrative example: One of the proposed models for the future Australian republic is a very minimalist one where the head of state (Queen represented by Governor-General) are replaced by an elected president, still non-executive, with no other constitutional changes.
If that model were to eventuate, it would mean the replacement of a non-elected non-executive head of state in a parliamentary system (just like the UK) with an elected non-executive one. The simple "election = semi-presidential" schema would designate the new system semi-presidential even though nothing had changed from the parliamentary system, except the method of choosing the head of state.
6:34 Funny you should mention that, but during the late 90's and the early 2000's in Israel we had a weird exception to that rule. Due to a pressure from several reform movements the Knesset passed a law that made the prime minister (the chief executive of the state) into a directly elected position, in the hopes that an independent prime minister would be less partisan and influenced by petty politics, and that politics in general would become less political. This caused the bizarre situation in which the prime minister was elected separately to his position on election day, and created a head of government that was both dependent on parliament to approve his initial government and all other activities dictated by our parliamentary system, while not being dependent on the parliament to stay in power.
Needless to say, combined with Israel's proportional representation system and history of having around 10 parties in basically every parliament, this caused total chaos as the major parties bled massive amounts of votes to smaller, more sectarian parties in their blocks that campaigned by reminding everyone that they can get their favorite candidate to the prime ministership while voting for them [the smaller parties instead of having to vote for the candidate's actual party to get them in power. The end result of this was that both major parties held less and less of the seats in parliament as time went on and were reliant on unwieldy coalitions were they had a really weak position to bargain from, while largely inexperienced media darlings won the premiership and struggle to keep their fragile (even by Israeli standards) coalitions intact. The whole thing was cancelled only after two regular elections and one special one, and many of the negative effects of this particular chapter of history still haunt our politics to this day.
Back again! This video I try to add some knowledge to the oftentimes misinformed worldbuilding that goes on with democracies.
10:15 Correction, Finland hasn't had a minority government since the 70's.
Reject electoral democracy, embrace sortition democracy.
I really hate that some European 'democracies' still essentially ban independents through an an entirely party-list system.
Same here. I wish democracies would be run by independents as well as regional-lists.
Your breakdown is not entirely true. There is literally more than a dozen Parliamentary Republic with an elected President that is NOT a semi-presidential system. Here's a list:
Austria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Finland
Iceland
Ireland
Moldova
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Serbia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
None of these are considered semi-presidential, so your breakdown is wrong.
In addition, the semi-presidential is not just as simple as you painted it as. There are two types of semi presidential systems: premier-presidential and president-parliamentary. The main difference is the latter has weaker links between the Prime Minister and the Legislature, sometimes the PM don't even need to hold a majority in the legislature, and the President can sometimes dismiss the PM who holds a majority in the legislature.
So Premier-Presidential is closer to Parliamentary system, and President-parliamentary is closer to Presidential system.
Also, you mentioned that the Head of State goes to international meetings to represent the country; that's not really common. Most of the time these events will be attended by the Head of Government (PM) or the Foreign Minister. The Head of State mostly stay in the country and has the role of welcoming foreign diplomats/leaders.
i feel like it should have been noted that in parliamentary systems the prime minister isnt just elected by the legislature but is also usually a member of the legislature (as are the heads of executive departments/ministries)
Good video subscribed. I like how Italy fit perfectly in the unstable short-lived government:
There are a lot of parties, no constructive vote of no confidence and investiture vote. In fact in 73 years we had 65 government, the longest last 1412 days out of the five years and the shortest only 22 days, and the actual one is a very unstable coalition between two parties and I believe it won't last two years.
What's the maximum allowed time between elections in Italy? Do the governments typically last that long or are new elections called frequently?
@@supiworldbuilding2526 the maximum is five years, but election from 1948 to today are on average are every 4 years and not a single government last four years, many time the prime minister and some ministers change but there aren't new election. Sorry if I made some mistakes but I don't know very well English political terms
@@stefanomagari6921 You answered my question exactly. I figured that with some government changes there aren't new elections. I know Norway actually doesn't allow for early elections to be held and wondered if Italy had something similar.
Thanks :D
Big mistake: the difference between parliamentary and semi-presidential is not how the president is elected. There are countries that are parliamentary but have a popularly elected president (Ireland, Finland, ...). The difference is that the president actually holds power in a semi-presidential system, like France, Russia, Ukraine, ... It's also worth mentioning the two types of semi-presidential systems: premier-presidential (France, Ukraine, ...) and president-parliamentary (Russia, Syria, ...).
In both presidential and parliamentary democracies, several groups of people with widely different ideologies try to come together and form a majority.
The difference is that in a parliament, it can happen after the politicians are elected. In a presidential democracy, it happens before the election.
Bussin video!
9:25 interestingly in the Belgian federal constitution it is written that the Flemish government can't be replaced until the end of their term. So while the Flemish legislature picks the Flemish government they can't call a no confidence vote or constructive no confidence vote. It is prohibited by the Belgian federal constitution. Weirdly this rule is not in place for the Wallonian parliament
You forgot the role of "kingmaker".
But wait, Ireland is considered a parliamentary democracy and it elects its president with a direct popular vote. Doesn’t the split between semi-presidential and parliamentary systems come down to what power the president wields? For example when the legislative majority matches the party of the president in France, the president acts as the chief executive, and when they don’t match, the prime minister does.
So that's a common misconception. Ireland is semi-presidential. There are further subcategories within the category of semi-presidential that do depend on the powers of the president though.
The parliamentary/semi-presidential split is simply if the Head of State is directly elected or not.
Supi [ World Building ] Really? Because I just looked it up and that’s not what my comparative politics textbooks say
@@VulcanTrekkie45 The classification scheme I use in this video is from a paper by Jose Antonio Cheibub which is an update of one from Adam Przeworski about classifying countries. There are othr schemes that are still commonly used in the field fo com pol but theirs is the most useful since it has the clearest definitions for the three types.
I am aware there are other schemes for classifying democracy and none are more right or wrong just some are more or less useful. If you want to read up on it I link the textbook I first learned the classification scheme from in the description.
Here's a link to the Chiebub paper: www.jstor.org/stable/40661005
and the textbook is the Third Edition of Clark, Golder, and Golder's Principles of Comparative Politics, Chapter 12.
Ireland (and Finland) are semi-presidential systems but constitution by operate as parliamentary systems. Its just that is rare, usually, a directly elected President is seen as more legitimate than a Prime Minister but I guess in Ireland and Finland's case they think differently. Which isn't that suprising for Finland, however Ireland, not sure
Its Parliamentary because the sovereignty is in the legislature, the president has as little power as the crown of the UK
Israel has an interesting formateur picking system. The President asks the head of every Party that got seats in Parliament who they would like to see as PM, whoever gets the most support weighted by party size, gets first dibs at forming a government, then the second, then another election is called.
How is that different from any other country? In most country, the Head of State (President or Monarch) will meet with all the heads of the political parties and determine who is most likely to have the support of the legislature, and appoint them as PM candidate. In some constitutions, the party or coalition that has the most seats gets the first dibs, then second biggest and so on. If no one can form government, a snap election is called.
While you are right that the UK is a Parliamentary system, there is a glaring inaccuracy in your explanation.
The UK head of state, the monarch, is not part of the government nor do they generally attend international political meetings as the country's representative.
This is true for most of the commonwealth. And thus although under your definition, the UK and Germany are both Parliamentary, they are nothing like similar systems.
After all, while the German President (head of state) can be removed by a Vote of No Confidence, the UK monarch (also head of state if not of government) very much can not.
And yet the UK government can be removed by a vote of no confidence.
I think this goes to a more general issue with framing which is that despite the monarchical UK being an example, this explainer is kinda more about the types of republics, rather than the types of democracies.
8:55
That's not necessarily correct.
Remember that yes, one party may leave, but another may join instead.
If you have many different paths towards a majority the leverage of other coalition members isn't that great.
Just leaving like that also may make joining a new coalition harder as other parties may see you as unreliable.
And voters may punish you if you do so excessively.
So while yes, you can *technically* disband the government at any time you need to be able to justify it.
Also, in systems that permits minority governments leaving but still supporting the government is just a better middle ground.
You're no longer a member, so you are free to vote against the government, but you are still seen as more reliable then someone forwarding a motion of no confidence villy nilly by both coalition partners and voters while still standing up for your values.
9:34
Good!
You have completely misunderstood semi-presidential systems. There are many democracies with your definition that aren’t basically just parliamentary systems. France is a definition of a semi presidential system but that is due to the powers held by the president/head of state not by how they are elected.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is most certainly a democracy! The principles of Juche philosophy ensure that a great man of the people voted for by the people will always defend the Fatherland for the people against Western imperialist aggressors.
In my Sci-Fi universe I made the UN the overall governemnt for humanity by mostly not touching nation state governments as a whole. While it can pass laws particularily around international/interstellar coventions and can raise taxes in some areas defined by previous treaties amongst the national governments. It still in many ways is more a supranational union like the EU than it is a nation state government.
Though it does have a house of delegates, the general assembly is still there (it functions as the senate); the secretary general and fellow Directors (equivalent of cabinet ministers); it in many ways is how aliens see humanity but humans largerly see it in the same way they see the UN today. Mostly far away and not that relevant to their day to day lives though I would imagine it still is more top of mind because the UN is who handles all relations with other species and the UN has its own military which by treaty must amount to 51% of all military spending in humanity. Which makes the UN Security Council so much more important because they can actually authorize interventions and what not that don't use national militaries but use the UN Military (which recruits exclusively from national militaries in peacetime and only augments that with conscripts in wartime)
7:17
That's not accurate for a proportional parliamentarian system at all.
Norways cabinets are usually made up of 3-4 parties although a single party cabinet is *technically* possible it hasn't happened in decades.
Okay, you covered that a moment later, kind of.
The difference is that no one having the majority is the norm in a proportional system, and more common the more proportional your system is.
Also it's not necessarily the case that all members of a coalition has a majority together.
Sometimes, depending on your laws you can have a minority government run by parties that do not have a majority together but got support from other parties that didn't join the coalition in forming a government in return for concessions.
As a non member of the coalition they're not committed to supporting the government and will support them on a case by case basis.
This means that the parliament has more power and the cabinet might be required to govern based on budgets and instructions made by other parties then the coalition members.
But they still govern the details.
Such an interesting topic (especially within worldbuilding) and such a nice video. Thank you very much for the great work.
8:29 it's crazy how the borders of greece and bulgaria match up almost perfectly like that
That’s because they border each other.
@@person8087 i didn't ask. i think we shuld just maervel about how perfectly they match up anyways
@@imEden0 wtf are you talking about?
I like your style of videos, hope you will make more of worldbulding
I still, as I used to, and as many others do, laugh at my country, South Africa.
Woah, how do you only have 1.75k subs? this video was awesome!
thanks :D
my low sub count is probably because i don't upload often enough.
@@supiworldbuilding2526 yeah i did notice that, i went to your channel and saw you hadnt uploaded in ages. Im glad youre still active though, cant wait for more videos from you
Interesting fact: Taiwan/Republic of China used to have 5 branches of government
The DPRK is a democracy.
It seems crazy to me that you can replace an entire government overnight. How can you ensure stability if the people doing their jobs aren't even sure if they'll be there tomorrow?
Because nobody wants instability, particularly if that isn't going to get them anything.
And in particular voters don't. So, usually Prime Ministers only get booted out when a) they've had a major scandal, b) they lose their status as the largest party in the legislature, or c) they prove incapable at solving a major crisis or enacting the manifesto they were elected on.
You would need an absolute majority (i.e. a majority of the entire body) to remove a government in most systems, so this isn't usually anywhere that bad. In many parliamentary countries Prime Ministers can last longer than most Presidents, for example Angela Merkel from Prime Minister from 2005 to 2020, and went through 3 Presidents. Usually, it isn't a problem, however their definitely have been examples of places where its been a problem (looking at you Italy, Israel, French Fourth Republic and Wemiar Germany).
Well, usually it is not that every Prime Minister lives in constant fear of losing his job. It all depends on the Parliament and the rules of voting him out. Countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have many political parties and a parliamentary system, so unstable coalitions are normal. But in countries like the UK, electoral system ensures that usually only one party holds a majority, with its leader as PM. So, as a british PM, I would not worry much about losing my job (though, it is possible).
This is not a good categorization scheme. Sure you can split things up this way but there's no reason to think these questions are the most characteristic or important distinctions between types of democracy. Switzerland is way more different from the US than the US is from Britain. This is also all purely theoretical. Calculating this way will tell you the PRC is a parliamentary democracy because the people's congress chooses the leader and can remove him. The scheme is obviously non exhaustive (just ask how this scheme deals with a system where the legislature appoints but cannot remove the leader) and is not really equipped to deal with systems more than slightly different from the prevailing Anglo-American world order.
can you explained how a country would run like the un? where people vote on many people and then they vote on stuff?
He's back! I'm sure this video will give this channel the umpf to pass 1k subs. So underappreciated, keep it up with the great work Supi!
Here's hopping! I'll have to do something special if we get there.
You make such good content please keep it up :)
Thank you! I hope to
@11:24 there is one blue guy who shouts for a red only Government. What a complete traitor!
7:35 well it doesn’t really work like this... they can’t just proclaim themselves as the government, instead the head of state appoints them or, in the case of South Africa and Ireland, they are elected by the legislature. In Italy the head of state must appoint the PM, then the ministers based on the nominations of the PM then the PM and their ministers must present themselves before the chambers of parliament for an initial confidence vote within 10 days.
See you again in 100 uears, Supi!
Next video is already written! It's on social cleavages and duverger's theory!
FYI, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of Britain
yep! that's why the United Kingdom is categorized as parliamentary
this is actually super useful. nice.
This is why most people worldbuild in a medival setting. Lol
Dead channel, 3 year old video. The mistakes between parliamentary and semi-presidential systems are understandable.
So many ways for people to argue over who gets to enslave whom.
Hi man! I love the presentation .how i can make similar presentation?what program do you use?
Glad you're back! Your videos are amazing, can't wait until you get more popular
Ah yes, no agreement over the government, 2 years without one, I love my country 🇧🇪
Informative video, but the best thing about it getting to hear a guy I never knew of butcher languages.
Wow
This should rather be called "How to pick one of the preexisting democracies" instead of "How to DESIGN democracies" :q
Wonderful vid~
Great video! Can these rules apply to smaller-scale governments too? (Like local governments)
Yep! In the US all of the state governors can't be voted out by the state legislature so there all presidential
This video will literally teach you more than entire political science degree
Only 15k views ? I thought way more
This has improved my view on dictatorships.
Hopefully when I make a video on selectorate theory II can explain why democracies are much better places to live than dictatorships and why dictatorships actually face many structural problems democracies don't. Stay tuned!
Just realized the french flag is technically backwards...
Hell your flowchart doesn't even answer the question "Is x a democracy?"
Because that’s not the point, maybe pay attention next time?
its a good introduction but it skims over a lot of the primary examples that are suppose to be definitive. the reason has to come from the fact that we don't have direct elections but have representative elections. this body of electors decides on laws however it cannot generate its own legislation. the electors are strongly tied to popular votes but not bound to them.
I hate the party analogies because it doesn't give a clear explanation what is going on. the US party system is not what it seems. because of the strict way that local, state, and national elections occur, people tend to simplify the two party system because of the national elections. but on the local and state levels they tend to be much more flexible and diverse. they also tend to completely change ideals in the middle of office as party has no bearing on being or not being in an office. the European systems require you to be in an office to be of the party.
Small nitpick: You tried so hard to pronounce the German words (and you did it beautifully), but failed at the easiest thing: "Ä" is pronounced "E".
"Ä" only exists because of etymological reasons and is basically just an "E". So, "Bundespräsident" is pronounced "Bundespresident".
Who wants to design a peaceful world?
Laughing so hard cuz iam from South Africa
Why would I want a Virgin democracy when I could create a Chad monarchy?
Android Boy honestly this is very much like saying “why would you have many glasses of milk when you can eat one utter?”
Democracies are great if you like to write political intrigue, and considering our modern democracies, we have plenty of good,err... bad examples. Remember that Hitler was actually democratically elected.
In my story for example, I take tons of examples from the Brazilian democracy and all it's rampant corruption.
Democracy and monarchy are not mutually exclusive. Of the top 10 best democracies, 7 are monarchies, such as Norway, Denmark or the UK
Not great
i agree
@@supiworldbuilding2526 You only say that because you dont know which bit the comment refers to lol. I have no issue with your factual analysis of government and in fact think its a very well illustrated overview of modern democracy. Genuinely its a shame you dont work on this channel anymore.
Please leave Lizzy alone.