Putin is president and I think pretty much is a good example of what the OP is asking. Here is what wiki has to say about what the OP is asking:
I agree that I’ve never heard Kim called President, though wouldn’t be surprised if some news article has that somewhere as it’s easier than his actual title (less words :p). I’ve certainly seen Xi called President in the press, however, and he’s only marginally ‘better’ (for some definitions of that term) than Putin.
This is entirely a hijack.
Look, there are different types of democracies:
Pretty much, other than in a small community, there has* never* been a “pure democracy”. Even Athenian democracy had so little of the population you might even call it a Oligarchy, with only 10-20% of the populations voting.
Back to the OP:
The most powerful man on earth has been the President of the United States for over 100 years, so of course “President” as a title is popular.
Why is it a hijack, in a thread that points and says “they are not allowed to call themselves president. They’re not true democracies!”, while we are not living in true democracies ourselves…
To get back to the OP, the media calls these people Presidents because that’s what they are. It’s the media’s job to report on reality; not report the way they would like things to be.
Lets have a look at the actual titles;
Kim is Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea. Before 2016, he was First Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea.
Erdogan is officially Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanı, which is translated into President.
Putin is officially Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii ( Президент Российской Федерации), which is Russian for,“President of the Russian Federation”.
So, we have one person whose title is not “President” at all, another whose title is translated to President, a third whose actual title is President in his own language.
Gaddaffi to take an example; had no formal title for most of his time in power. He was called الشقيق القائد ومرشد الثورة, which is Arabic for “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution”. This was an unofficial title, and he never held any official position from the 1970’s onwards. During that time several men served as and were recoguzed as Head of State of Libiya. These were various offices, but interesting in none of the cases was the title “President”, even in translation.
ETA: I would disagree with Little Nemo. The media often uses “President” to denote a non-Royal Chief of State, but often times thats not necessarily the name of the title. There are “Presidents” who are not Heads of State, like Spanish (often called PM in English) and Iranian Presidents (whose official title in Persian is not an equivalent to “President”. Media rarely reports reality.
The connotations of different titles have changed significantly over the course of history, and so what rulers call themselves, and what others have called them, have also changed. Originally, for instance, “dictator” referred to a perfectly legitimate and highly limited title for an elected official in the Roman Republic: Ordinarily they invested executive power in a pair of consuls who ruled together for a year, but in times of war or other crisis, the two consuls were replaced by a single dictator who ruled for only six months, and could not serve consecutive terms. It was only when Julius declared himself “dictator for life” that it started to be problematic. Meanwhile, in the same era, no Roman ruler would ever call himself “Rex” (usually translated “king”), even after the Republic turned into the de-facto hereditary monarchy of the Empire, because to the Romans, the word “rex” had much the same connotations that “dictator” does for us.
Likewise, in the 1940s, Hitler chose to call himself “Fuhër” (translated “Leader”), because that was a neutral term that didn’t have all of the negative baggage of “dictator” or even “kaiser”. Now, of course, nobody would ever call themselves that, because of the baggage from Hitler.
Right now, “President” is the popular title, but who knows? Maybe a century from now, that word will be associated with the current crop of autocratic jerks, and everyone will want to call themselves something else, and it will be regarded as a historical curiosity that the legitimate American rulers used to be called that too.
His granddaddy, however (I assume you mean the current Kim) was given the title of 'Eternal President of the Republic '.
Heck, the OP even begins from a misconception about the definition of a republic itself – it does not require the existence of free democratic rule or of maximum democracy.
And therein lies a similar semantic element: the word “president” in the basic level means “who presides”, in the same manner as changing just one letter, “resident” means “who resides”.
That only freely elected ones are “real” presidents and only free democracies are “real” republics is an ideological/philosophical posture. Whether the language is to bend to fit it is up to the users of the language.
No, you individually as a person.
Countries are necessarily run by their permanent institutions, with only some input from politicians, elected or not. They are not going to change any policy because one inhabitant suggests it.
And that’s the essence of powerlessness.
And face it, the results won’t be good if a libertarian ‘I can do what I like on my own property, including storing nuclear waste’ fellow; or a rabid religious ( including atheist ) nut, or a ‘Me wuvs evvybody’ liberal is able to turn the ship of state on a hair.
.
The OP also misstates the nature of a monarchy, as there can be a wide variation in the powers of monarchs in different systems.
I live in a monarchy. The citizens here have the collective power to choose our own government through democratic elections. Her Majesty reigns but does not rule. She appoints the government the people select at the ballot box.
Not any longer. He’s just resigned.
Well, I know it’s not the answer you might expect but yes, through a campaign and petition I have changed policy - albeit at local Gov level at a London borough council.
But I’m active in the constituency, know most of the south London Labour MPs and yes, the grassroots contribute directly to party policy - what do you think Momentum and 38 Degrees and the rest do?
I will concur that, for most western european countries it holds true that, at a local level, public opinion can indeed often influence political decision making. Also that party programmes and principles are adhered to more often and can have a clear effect on the city.
On the other hand, there are also plenty of examples where popular protests and referendi have been crassly ignored by city councils.
The fact is liberal democracy has become the de-facto form of government in the last 50 years (and for all its faults, that is one of the ways the lot of your average human being has improved in that time). In the 1800s or even as late as the early 1900s a newly minted dictator would call themselves a king, as monarch was the de-facto form of government at the time.
If you suggest that the rise liberal democracy isn’t a good thing, I’d suggest spending time in a dictatorship or talking to someone who has (and wasn’t part of the elite close to the regime)
Didn’t Qaddafi generally still go by his old title of “Colonel”? I seem to recall that the junta leaders in Greece in the 1970s did the same thing. It’s amusing in its way, implying that the ruler is somehow not even a top commanding officer.
Apparently his official title was “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya”.
Yes, which means that the OP can be turned on its head. The powers of Louis XIV were very different to, say, those of the kings of Poland. (That’s still true even if one recognises that many historians would dispute whether Louis XIV was ever actually ‘absolute’.) Those of the current king of the Belgians are also very different to those of the king of Thailand. Yet all of them get called ‘king’. The common denominator is simply that this was what they themselves and their subjects call them. To take the extreme example, one can recognise that in some meaningful sense, Bokassa really was the emperor of the Central African Empire, even while thinking that his adoption of the title was completely absurd.
Exactly the same principle applies to presidents etc. One can think that in some cases the use of such titles is equally absurd, but it still usually simpler just to use the titles they use for themselves.
The term “president” does not in any way imply democracy. I don’t know why some people are under the impression that it does. Monarchy is hereditary.
Highly debatable.
Except with Brexit.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It is usually hereditary now: the German Emperor, or the Goth Kings of Toledo, were elected among a very specific group of people. In the case of the German Emperor, the electors were all regnants of at least one other domain.
And a monarch may not be a king; prince is the most common other option but again that’s current practice. The Princes of Monaco and the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg are hereditary monarchs; the Princes of Andorra are chosen by the RCC (Bishop of Seo de Urgell) or elected by the French (President of France).