Unfortunately for Jeb Bush, the term “Spanish Republic” is indelibly connected with Franco in most people’s minds. “Republic of Norway”, say, would just be a mildly amusing mistake; “Republic of Spain” is a painful one.
AAARGH! Scratch that. Reverse it. “Spanish Republic” is connected with the government defeated by Franco in most people’s minds. Brain fart. Still, the point stands: it brings to mind bits of Spain’s history that most people are glad are gone.
India has a President and a Prime Minister as well.
Actually, it works in a quite complicated way. Usually, in parliamentary systems, the head of state (the Queen of England or Netherlands, the german or italian presidents, etc…) have very few powers (or even essentially none at all except a representation job). They aren’t directly elected by the people. The actual political power rest on the shoulders of a prime minister chosen by the parliament in one way or another, who can be ousted by said parliament, and who can generally in turn dissolve the parliament.
The other system, the presidential system, is well-known by most posters, since it’s the american one. The parliament and the head of state are both elected by the people and are totally independant one from the other. The governement is chosen by the president and essentially only responsible toward him.
The french system, though considered as a parliamentary system is actually a mix of both.
-The president is directly elected by the people hence has a democratic and political legitimacy.
-The prime minister is chosen by the president but must be voted in by the parliament. When the president and the parliament are on the same political side, the choice of the prime minister is for the most part actually made by the president (with all the negociations necessary to ensure that the various components of the majority will be adequately represented in the governement, though). When the president and the parliament are on the opposite political side, it works mostly like in an usual parliamentary system : the choice of the prime minister is essentially dependant on the will of the parliament’s majority, though the president still has some giggle room if said majority is divided enough.
As for the respective powers of the president and the prime minister, the constitution itself isn’t very clear, and just by reading it, one wouldn’t be able to know who is in charge of what exactly, except on very specific issues. Since, I’m not going to begin a lecture about french constitutionnal law, I’ll only explain roughly how it works in practice. There are actually two situations :
-The president and the parliament are on the same political side (it’s the current situation) :
Essentially, the president is the actual ruler of the country. He defines the overall policy, generally not involvig himself too much in day-to-day issues and the prime minister implement it. Also, the prime minister tend to be in charge mostly of the interior policy (economy, security, social affairs, etc…) while the president is much more active in his “reserved domain” : foreign affairs and defense. The president can also sack the government and pick anopther PM when it is polically convenient (That’s in practice. In theory the government has to resign, the parliament has to vote in the new government, etc…). So, in this situation, the PM is essentially a second-in-command mostly in charge of interior issues (and sometimes a safety fuse used to protect a president when facing a disgruntled public opinion).
-The president and the parliament are on opposite political sides. Then, the prime minister is in charge and define the country’s policy. However, foreign affairs and defense are still sort of a shared domain, and though the PM is the prime decision maker even on these issues, the president follows them closely, is present at important international meeting, has (customarily, not legally) to agree on the choice of the ministers of defense and foreign affairs, and serious disagreement between the PM and the president on these issues are (usually, not always) settled by negotiations.
Also, even in other domains, the president still retain several personal powers which make his agreement necessary on several major issues : dissolving the parliament, organizing a referendum, changing the constitution, issuing “executive orders” (which, in France, are actuallly similar to “temporary laws”, enacted when the parliament isn’t sitting, are approved [or not] by the parliament a-posteriori, and are very common on all kind of issues), sending back a law to the parliament or to the constitutionnal court, etc… He’s also present at all the meetings of the government.
So, in this second situation, the PM is mostly in charge, though the president keep an eye on defense and foreign affairs and can retain a large power of annoyance on important issues, if he wants to do so.
Anecdotically, the art. 16 of the french constitution allows the president to take dictator-like powers (the only thing he can’t do is dissolving the parliament but he’s under no obligation to care about the parliament’s votes or opinions). Though the circumstances are strictly defined (roughly the nation must be seriously threatened and the regular constitutional power unable to work properly…this has been included to avoid a situation like the french parliament “commiting suicide” in 1940, or in case of a nuclear war, a military coup, etc…), and though various bodies must be consulted or informed, legally, nobody can check or oppose his decision. So, the president could theorically state tomorrow that since a french soldier in Afghanistan is drunk (hence the execution of france’s international agreements is seriously threatened) and an old senator seems a little senile (hence the regular operation of the constitutionnal powers is interrupted), he has to use the art. 16 and take over for as long as he sees fit. That would be, constitutionnally speaking, perfectly OK.
There are no term limits. Until recently (the last presidential election) the terms were 7 years long. The french president who stayed the longer in power was the late Mitterrand who kept his seat during two full terms, for a total of 14 years. All other presidents who got elected a second time either died or resigned during their second term.
I think there would have been no defference whatsoever in the outcome, nor in the process. One president served out his complete term, another started on his appointed day. So there would be no need of an interim caretaker.
The SCOTUS would certainly be involved, as that’s where “all due legal processes and appeals were worked through.”
Emphatically no.
Sir John Kerr was:
[ul]
[li]a member of the Labor party (though he resigned years before his Vice Regal appointment)[/li][li] appointed in 1974 by the same (Labor) Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, whom he later dismissed.[/li][li]never elected to political office[/li][/ul]