What is a "Head of State"?

Over and over I keep hearing about some Yuckamuck the Mighty somewhere being a “head of state”, but that selfsame person is not part of the government.

So what does such a “head of state” do? Is this essentially the “National Pig Calling Queen”, qualified to open shopping malls and “formally” greet diplomats but otherwise just there to act as a general distraction for the public away from the activities of government?

Can these “heads of state” simply be replaced with attractive cardboard cutouts?

Definition.

All else are poseurs.

I think Bush would look better as an OSB or MDF cutout.

Now I feel bad.

Ok “head of state” harkens back to the emergence of the nation state. Hobbes’s idea of the nation as a vast body of the common folk ruled by the elite (king) at its head (see Leviathan for details). Eventually in the British system the king’s powers became ceremonial as executive authority passed to the Prime Minister. American opted to go with a Chief of State retaining powers in the office of the president. So do the French for that matter.

Dogface, you may be interested in the threads France has both a president and a prime minister, Britain and its Monarchy, and Questions on Titles of World Leaders. Each thread explores the head of state’s role in modern nations, particularly as distinguished from the head of government’s role.

To whom? Do they have any power (ours does, as Grey mentioned, but only b/c of the dual nature of chief of state)? Or is “Pig-Calling Queen” an appropriate assessment?

Forgot one: The Queen And The Prime Minister.

Every nation whose government is headed by a prime minister also has a head of state who is either a monarch or a president. (There can be some variation on the titles–for example, a prime minister is sometimes called a chancellor or a premier–but the concept is the same by whatever names the prime minister and head of state are called.) See Central Intelligence Agency, Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments; Governments on the WWW: Heads of State.

Some heads of state also head the government: the most familiar example may be the President of the United States, who plays both roles. But no prime minister is also the head of state (except in a few rare cases, including Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, where an autocrat has assumed both titles).

The prime minister always runs the government’s day-to-day business and presides over the other ministers who collectively run the executive branch, but his or her powers and role with respect to the head of state vary widely. When the head of state is a constitutional monarch, such as the British sovereign, the prime minister is almost always the leader of a majority in the national legislature, and is the de facto ruler even though formally the monarch appoints and can dismiss the prime minister. See The Queen And The Prime Minister. When the head of state is a president directly elected by the people, such as France’s president, then the prime minister is clearly subordinate to the president. See France has both a president and a prime minister. When the head of state is appointed by the legislature, as in Israel, then the role is often almost purely ceremonial.

The head of state throughout the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth) nations that have maintained a monarchy is the Crown but, outside the United Kingdom, the Crown as head of state is ordinarily represented by a domestic officer called the governor-general, who is formally appointed by the Crown but as a practical matter is named by the domestic government. A governor-general’s role is analogous to the crown’s: he or she “reigns but does not rule,” and his or her authority is primarily ceremonial and exercised on the advice of the prime minister’s government.

What about countries like Ireland, where the President is directly elected but doesn’t have diddly for power?

What has been stated is correct: head of state refers to a leader, usually styled “President” or something monarchic, who is the titular leader but not necessarily an important political figure.

On the other hand, I’d like to point out two disparate things:

(a) The existence of a Prime Minister, serving under a President, doesn’t necessarily make the President a mere figurehead. See France, the Republic of Korea, etc. In these cases the PM is sort of the way it originally was in Britain, i.e., a minister chosen by the head of state to lead / mediate between / spy on those members of the cabinet with regular portfolios. A President can have very significant power without necessarily being tied down to specifically executive functions like budgeting, appointing officials, etc. The role of the President of France is sort of what de Gaulle wanted it to be: picking the Premier, controlling foreign policy, hobnobbing with diplomats and officials from the French Community (ex-colonies and overseas bits of France), etc.

(b) The term “head of state” is often used loosely to mean “the most important politician in a country” which unfortunately conflicts with the strict definition. That is, when the press has a story saying “the heads of state of the Group of Eight (G8) Industrialized Countries had a meeting today”, Queen Elizabeth probably didn’t attend (the fact that she is theoretically head of state of a quarter of the G8 countries not making the situation any simpler); neither did the Presidents of Germany or Italy (who attended for France, I couldn’t guess).

G’day

In Australia our head of state is a cove rejoicing in the title of ‘governor general’, and in the general course of things the G-G might as well be hog-calling queen. On paper the G-G’s powers are enormous and frightening. In practice, however, he is allowed to employ them only on the advice (ie. at the direction) of the Prime Minister.

But, when circumstances arise that were not forseen by the people who framed the unwritten constitution, for example when it becomes unclear who is or ought to be Prime Minister, the written constitution comes into play, and the Governor-General steps in to resolve the constitutional crisis.

Teh clearest recent example occurred on 11 November 1975. As a result of various bits of skulduggery, the government lost control of the Senate. In a blatant play for power, Opposition senators blocked the budget bill. But the Prime Minister of the time (Edward Gough Whitlam) refused to advise the G-G to dissolve the parliament, which is what Constitutional convention demands a Prime Minister should do when the governemtn does not have the confidence of Parliament… So, on the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court (an Opposition figure), the G-G sacked the government and appointed a Prime Minister who would advise him to dissolve Parliament.

The move was highly controversial, but it did lead to a democracy-in-action. If you conclude that the Australian constitution is an astonishingly ramshackle piece of work, I will not disagree.

Regards,
Agback

Agback, I believe the Queen is the Head of State of Australia, the Governer General is merely her representative residing in the country.

To put it briefly, there are arguments both ways. (The better view, IMO, is that the G-G is our Head of State.)*

The confusion arises because the Commonwealth Constitution does not contain the expression “Head of State”. Section 2 merely describes the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative in Australia.

  • (1) By In practice, the G-G performs the roles of a Head of State. (2) Section 61 provides that the executive power resides in the G-G – and not with Her Maj.

Then, what specific features are unique to a “Head of State” and no other office?

For example, the President of the USA is both “Head of Government” and “Head of State”. What specific features of his office are unique to being “Head of State” and are not part of being “Head of Government”?

Such a description would have to be able to include QEII, the President of Ireland, and other such “Heads of State”.

I think the answer is that there are no specific features which characterise a head of state. The head of state of a nation is determined by a combination of tradition and law; the relevant proportions of tradition and law will vary from nation to nation. In some the head of state has executive or legislative power, the ability to enter into treaties, and the power to declare war and dissolve the government; in other countries the head of state’s role is limited to kissing babies. If you want a better answer, you’re out of luck.

In Canada, and I assume in Australia and other countries still acknowledging the Queen as ruler, the Queen is the Head of State, and the Governor-General carries out the duties of the Head of State as the Queen’s delegated representative in her absence. However, when Liz drops by for a visit, the GG reverts to Royal Lackey status for the duration. This is usually emphasized by the Queen carrying out some of the Head of State functions normally done by the GG, such as signature of bills passed by Parliament (Royal Assent), receiving new ambassadors, opening Parliament, etc.

Maybe this will help. The Head of State was/is the leader of the executive branch. The executive branch issues and enforces all laws. Originally the province of the King (Hobbes’s head in Leviathan) this power was taken over by the legislative branch in British style parliamentary systems. There you had the emergence of an executive branch of government within the legislative. Laws, however, continued to be issued in the name of the monarch. This gives us the Canadian/Australian setup of GG being the Queen’s Representative. The American system divorced the executive out of the legislative by creation of the presidency. Since laws needed to be approved by the president the term Chief of State was attached to the office. As for the French President/PM I really don’t know.

And Dogface I understood that the president was not the leader of the US government. Is it thought of that way?

So it seems that (a) Head of State was once a real position but (b) it’s since been superseded by modern elected legislative/executive posts, and, where it still exists, exerts virtually no power whatsoever.

I don’t really think that a head of state is necessarily more closely related to the executive branch than other branches. The British crown is one of the traditional branches of Parliament, correct? (And it isn’t necessary to point out the crown has no real power; almost the same could be said of the House of Lords.) Furthermore, it seems like many heads of state top their countries judicial branches no less than their executive branches.

As refusal has said, there is little that unites heads of state other than “heading” their “states”. Their roles vary as much as the definitions of those words. (The Japanese constitution doesn’t even call the Emperor the head of state - it calls him “the symbol of the unity of the state” or something like that … and moves to change the wording arouse controversy.)

That’s all practice. What about theory? In terms of political theory, the difference between a head of state and a head of government is as important as the difference between state and government. Let’s say, for example, that the government is run almost entirely by socialists, and you are a capitalist. Or maybe the government is full of isolationists, and you are an internationalist. When you run for office, you run against the government.

Is this treason? Heavens no. Treason is when you oppose the state; it is heavily discouraged (it’s the last thing you can be executed for in the UK; other countries frown on it as well). Opposing the government is heartily enouraged - the freedom to do so is part of the definition of democracy.

Look at the term for the second biggest party in the House of Commons: “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” … loyal to the Queen, opposed to the Prime Minister. Countries which fail to properly distinguish between state and government lack something very important: a safe space for the political opposition to occupy.

Most American republics lack a separate head of government. George Bush is indeed head of state and head of government in one person. This can put the opposition in an uncomfortable position, symbolically. When protesters march through the streets carrying anti-government signs, do they shout, “Down with head of government George Bush. Long live head of state George Bush!” Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

I’m not saying anti-government protests are automatically considered treasonous in American republics, but they are considered seditious and disloyal way too often. I seriously believe the symbolism is important - if you could imagine those protesters with a beaming picture of the head of state on their wall next to an old carboard sign saying “The prime minister is a fink!” maybe their marches wouldn’t make their opponents imagine a coup d’etat around every corner.

Some countries try to have it both ways, perhaps. In France, the principle that opposing the state is seditious worms its way into the constitution in the form of a clause which outlaws “offensive criticism” of the President. This would make perfect sense if the Presidency were a benign office charged with baby kissing and red-carpet-for-foreign-dignitaries-rolling. However, the President of France is far from a figurehead. Some say it is a dangerous hybrid, with the Presidency have broad but vague constitutional powers, and the Premier being saddled with all the dirty work.

It is possible to make too much out of the head of state / head of government distinction. I hope I’m not doing that. Americans can distinguish between state and government even if they don’t use that language to do the distinguishing. (A European might say, “Of course I love my state, even if I despise its current government;” an American would say something like “Of course I love my country, even if I despite the current administration.”) I’m just saying: It’s not just executive orders, vetoes, budgets, and chains of command that are important. Symbols are important, and people are important.

Bookkeeper’s answer is consistent with the Queen’s own website:

Boris B’s answers are excellent. Let me also suggest two theoretical models for distinguishing between the functions of a head of state and a head of government:

First, the head of state is primaily concerned with the nation as a member of the international community–exercising what Locke called the “federative” power–while the head of government is more concerned with the nation’s internal constituency and its domestic affairs. Thus, ordinarily, a head of state represents the nation in making treaties, exchanging ambassadors, and declaring war. The head of government runs the country. (Obviously there are several functions that are, under this model, neither fish nor fowl, such as making laws, commanding the armed forces, and representing the nation at international conferences.)

Second, the head of state performs those governmental functions that are beyond politics–that is, they outlast the government of the day–while the head of government’s writ runs only as long as he or she holds political power. Thus, in the United States, the President is acting as head of state in making treaties, signing bills into law, appointing judges, and granting reprieves and pardons. But the President acts only as head of government in recommending a legislative agenda, proposing a budget, and appointing the cabinet and other officers who serve at the President’s pleasure. (Of course, other nations distribute these powers diffrently.)

These distinctions are only theoretical, however: as refusal has pointed out, the line between the two functions may not be a bright line (especially where the same person performs both roles), and each nation tailors its own constitution and institutions according to its own political culture.