Why should we need a head of state?

Great Debates
1

Speaking from the perspective of a modern, egalitarian, freedom-loving, secularist, liberal democrat and republican who believes that national sovereignty derives from the will and dignity of the individuals who make up a nation, I ask why should we need to choose a single person to be head of state?

Now, of course, we need a head of government. Someone has to bear final word for deciding and implementing policy and interacting with foreign heads of government. But that person is our employee, who serves at the whim of the public, not someone who has some innate right to govern.

But we don’t need a single person to represent us as a nation or as a state. What is the nation or the state anyway? It’s us. We need someone to oversee and run things, but we don’t need someone to be the head of “us.” We don’t need someone to represent us qua us. We is us. We represent ourselves. And we don’t need an American-in-chief. We are each our own Americans, whole and complete. No one is a higher American; no one is a lower American.

I say, abolish the office and concept of the head of state. Henceforth, the president of the United States is the head of government only. And we ourselves, the constituent individuals of the nation, we are the state, and we are each our own heads.

What say ye?

2

You can’t not have a head of state. If there wasn’t an official post, the chief executive would get it by default. Somebody has to symbolize the government and the nation. They’ll cheer on the nation, rally the troops, other ceremonial stuff like that.

Canada has the right idea. Divorce the office from the real government, and give the cheerleader job to a monarch on the other side of an ocean and a non-controversial ex-journalist within the country. I’d like to see the US do something similiar. Call the Head of State “President”, to be appointed by the Congress, and the chief executive “Secretay General”, to be elected as the President currently is.

The Secretary General would do all the stuff the Prez does now, while the President would swear in the various federal offices, shake hands with foreign ambassadors, visit the troops, occasionally make stirring public speeches, and generally endevour to be as non-political yet patriotic as humanly possible.

3

During the period 1649-1653, England did not have a head of state. Executive power was wielded by the Rump Parliament and the Council of State. However, in 1653 they decided they needed a head of state, and appointed Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector.

4

It would definately be nice if they were seperate entities - head of state and head of government. The way it is now, when George W. calls me and invites me to dinner, is it George W., bad decision maker, or George W., symbol of the nation? Because one of those people would make me feel honored to attend, and one of those people I wouldn’t set foot in his house. What do I tell my personal secretary? I’d much prefer to have these things be in seperate persons. One very nice thing about a monarchy.

5

Such cheering could be just as easily done by self-appointed individuals on an ad hoc basis. Why should such a person be given a position, a budget, privileges, etc.? Why do we have to create an office for this function? The head of government would represent the government. Why do we need someone to represent the state?

Can anyone define what the state is as opposed to what the government is?

Why does a modern, secular, democratic republic need to swear people in? It seems to me a letter of appointment (from the electoral college, for example) with a signature to abide by the law should be sufficient.

Ambassadors are government functionaries. The head of government or his or her representative (say an ambassador-at-large or somesuch) should be sufficient to shake hands with foreign ambassadors.

These also seem to be principally governmental functions. How are such things “state” matters and not “government” matters?

We don’t have such an office now, and I don’t see why we’d need one. I think we could do with a non-political civil service, but I don’t see why we need a “head.”

What is a head of state representing and why is it essential that such function be performed by a single, officiated, individual?

6

From a classical perspective (and I’m oversimplifying in this post), you need a head of state because the head of state is the nation…he or she is the person from whom legitimacy flows, he holds the divine mandate, however you want to put it. Or, as Louis XIV put it, “L’Etat, c’est moi”.

The better question is, “Why isn’t the head of state usually head of government?”, because for a very long time, of course, the head of state was also the head of government. Louis XIV had ministers who decided day to day policy, and he could, if he had wanted (he didn’t) summon the Estates-General to pass laws and vote him extra taxes, but ultimately, the final decision about policy was Louis’, and he could override any of his ministers or bureaucrats. As time went on, though, and the people realized they didn’t neccesarily like having their lives ruled by somebody who’s only qualification was that he was somebody’s son, they set up representative assemblies, which kept stripping more and more power from the monarch. And, since parliaments and legislators had most of the power, they were able to force the Head of State, (from whom, remember, all legitimacy comes), to name the head of the legislative body the Head of State’s “Prime Minister”, who can exercise all the powers that the Head of State used to be able to (subject, of course, to the legislature letting him).

The situation in the United States is kind of different. The US Constitution was written in 1787, using the British government as a model, so when it divided up power, it divided it up (and then codified it) in accordance with the way power was divided up in Britain at the time. And Britain at the time was undergoing that shift in power I mentioned eariler. For example, in Britain, the King was the commander in chief of the army, so the President is the commander in chief of the army. The King could coin money, so the President can coin money. The King enforced the laws and prosecuted criminals, so the President enforces the laws and prosecuted criminals. On the other hand, Parliament imposed taxes and made a budget, so the Congress imposes taxes and makes a budget. Parliament passed laws, so Congress passes laws. Parliament declared wars, so Congress declares war. And since this was codified, it’s been hard to change, and since the President is elected rather than just born to the job, nobody has seen much of a need to change it.

So in effect, the US doesn’t really have a head of government, or maybe you could say it has several. The President is head of those governmental functions granted him, and the Speaker of the House (and, since the official Senate leadership ((the President of the Senate and the President pro Tempore)) is largely ceremonial, the Senate Majority Leader) is head of those governmental functions granted Congress.

7

Your answer should depend upon in which capacity he’s making the invitation. If your invitation is from the President, in his capacity as head of the government, then by all means go (and, as the military is told, “if you can’t salute the man, salute the uniform”). If your invitation is from Chimpface the temporary federal employee, in his capacity as The Decider, you should decline. There wouldn’t be much overlap in a real situation. It doesn’t really matter that both functions are performed by the same person.

8

And this is exactly why I say that we from the modern perspective do not need and should not have a head of state. We don’t believe in divine mandate. Sovereignty and legitimacy flows from the consent of the governed.

I understand this question, but it’s a rather simple one and one more easily addressed. It’s not the one I was interested in addressing here. I am interested in exploring the concept of “state” and “head of state” and whether they are relevant to us now.

And as time goes on, what if we realize that we don’t like to have or need to have our sovereignty, nationhood, legitimacy, Americanness, whatever, represented by a single human being?

I don’t think this bit is true, but it’s a technical matter that doesn’t interest me for now.

That’s fine with me. We don’t need a single head of government. For different purposes, different people, or even groups of people serve as heads of government.

Why do we need a single individual to represent the state? What is the state?

My argument is that (if indeed any such thing as the “state” exists) we, the people, are the state and we don’t need to be symbolized by or embodied in a single person.

9

The essential purpose in having a head of state is (1) to furnish continuity at times of change of government, (2) to be the source from which the authority to form a government flows, (3) to choose a head of government when the popular choice is not obvious, and (4) to keep the head of government from becoming dictatorial by having reserved powers which may only be exercised in emergencies by head-of-state consent.

Think this through. HoG decides to pass controversial law X, legislature refuses to do so. HoG makes it a confidence issue, demanding his supporters vote for it. Legislature still refuses to do so. What happens now?

You can’t say HoG resigns or a new election is called. Who decides? HoS, that’s who. If it’s clear that Leader of Opposition can put together a new coalition with a majority, then LoO and HoG switch places, no election. But HoG may be entitled to take the issue to the public and get a legislature that agrees with him. Assessing which is the case is the job for HoS.

Further, suppose the results of the election are Social Democrats 58, Liberal Democrats 54, Radical Conservatives 38. There is no combination of party leaders that can agree on a platform that gets a 76-vote or greater majority. At this point it’s mandatory to have a HoS who can make a decision on how to get past this impasse: national government? short term limited-issues coalition brokered by HoS? Another election? HoS is the person with the authority to make that call.

Finally, there may be circumstances calling for temporary, limited abrogation of rights, as during an insurrection. There may be occasions when rule by decree is essential, during a crisis. But those are going to be few and far between. If HoG can only do that when he’s able to convince HoS that it’s necessary, he can’t turn into a dictator. If it’s his choice when he’ll do that, he becomes the Man on Horseback – an àpropos metaphor for the present situation.

10

The Head of State is the walking, talking, version of the flag or the national anthem. He’s a focal point for national pride and identity. While the head of government may only represent his own party or ideology, the HoS represents the nation directly.

I submit that without changing the concept of the nation-state, there will always be a HoS. If one isn’t named explictly, then the chief executive will simply be assumed to have the role.

It’s not for the officeholder, it’s for the people. They need to see all the pagentry surrounding the transfer of power and the new regime taking (or renewing) their grave responsibilities.

I think your main problem here is that your don’t see the symbolic value that people place in their government. They don’t want it to be a sterile office building full of bureaucrats and squabbling committees, it’s the office of Freedom, the thing that our Founding Fathers Shed their Blood For. A gvernment that fails to hold that kind of resonance will fall.

A separate head of state would separate the ceremonial aspects of government from the actually governing. It would allow us to criticize our government without criticizing the nation itself.

11

I don’t think this function is really necessary in the American form of government.

We don’t “form” governments here. The Congress is elected. The president is elected. They do what the constitution gives them power to do.

The United States has constitutional mechanisms for this. The 2000 election didn’t result in a breakdown of government and there was no foreseeable chance that it could have. Congress was in place. The Supreme Court was in place. If the Supreme Court had not stepped in, then perhaps the House of Representatives would have been called on to fullfil its constitutional role.

The U.S. government, theoretically, avoids dictatorship through federalism, limited powers, and separation of powers. Now, one might argue that this isn’t a perfect system in theory or in fact, but neither is the British system. And both systems have had varying degrees of effectiveness on this point.

This example is based on the particulars of the British parliamentary system. In the United States we don’t have confidence issues. The power to enact laws is dependent on the assent of both houses of Congress and the president. Should any one of them disagree, the law does not pass. Period. It happens all the time here, and it doesn’t become a constitutional crisis.

12

We have a flag, we have a national anthem, we have seals and other symbols of national identity. Why is it inevitable that they need a human embodiment?

This is merely a conclusory assertion.

Okay, fine, I concede that people like ceremony. However, in our existing system, we do not require our head of state to be an actor in these ceremonies. (Indeed, it seems to me that usually judges are called upon to officiate.) Those who officiate at swearing in ceremonies are chosen by a variety of methods, sometimes by appointment of other elected bodies, sometimes by assignment of law, sometimes by appointment of government functionaries, sometimes by the choice of the elect himself or herself (as in the case of the president).

In each case, some system or other is used to determine who will represent the nation as a whole for the purposes of a particular ceremony. It doesn’t matter to us if it is the chief justice of the United States, a judge of the Common Pleas Court of Ross County, or the officer-elect’s father or minister, who holds no official position (which isn’t all that uncommon).

No, I don’t see that it is necessary for such symbolic value to be placed in one person. For ceremonial purposes, any one of us or all of us, as circumstances require, can represent the nation as a whole.

13

One odd situation is that of Australia – though the same issue must come up in countries with a similar constitution, like Canada and New Zealand. In Australia there is no general agreement on who the head of state actually is. For political reasons, generally monarchists argue that the Governor General is head of state, while republicans (that’s a small “r” – they have nothing much to do with US Republicans) argue that the Monarch is the head of state. And indeed the Monarch does carry out some head-of-state functions, especially while physically pesent in the country, while the GG carries out others.

14

How do you figure? Let’s take away the bias here and say that you can’t tell if it’s the President in his/her role similar to the Queen’s or the President in his/her role similar to the Prime Minister’s. (This President particularly would leave me in a quandary in this regard, but everybody hates some President.) To decline the Prime Minister’s invitation is a political or ethical decision, while to decline the monarch’s seems more like a patriotic decision.

15

hee hee :smiley:

16

My pet idea of late is to abolish the Presidency, & have the government run by a Triumvirate, with each “triumvir” heading a collection of different departments. I’m not sure how to divide up the triumvirate. Last night, before I knew there was this thread (or, indeed, that anyone else in America was thinking the same thing I was) it occured to me that the three could be called the Attorney General, Governor General, & Secretary General, respectively. But I’m leaning toward making the Atty Gen. separate, not one of the Triumvirate.

I would allow the Presidential Palace (the “White House”) to stand, for the sake of architectural-historical value. I would have it house the Head of State, who would be chosen by lottery from the Populace General & replaced every week.

No, really.

17

As an American, I would resent any living human claiming to be the state. I reserve the right to refuse the invitation of the Queen of England.

The Europeans (at least I guess you’re Europeans) responding to this thread amuse me with your description of a Head of State that is not a Head of Government, that somehow is the anthropomorphic embodiment of the country, & leads the country, but is somehow “not political.”

18

I’m pretty sure that anyone who gets an invitation to the White House knows what for.

19

There wouldn’t be much overlap in a real situation? Is that true? It seems to me that these days all presidential interactions with the public are caclulated for optimal political effect. The Constitution certainly doesn’t require the president to engage in any specific purely formal ceremonies and dinners for the prupose of serving his role as “embodiment of the state.” So, it seems to me that any rational administration would choose to participate only in those functions that result in a political benefit.

Article II refers to the president’s role as holder of “executive power,” as the holder of an “office,” as “commander in chief” of armed forces, and is given several powers, relating to governmental functions like appointing other officers, make treaties, demanding opinions from subordinates, convene and adjourn Congress (under certain circumstances), interact with representatives of other countries, etc.

In all places, it talks about certain duties and powers relating to governmental authority. Nowhere does it state or even allude to “symbolizing the government and the nation” or to “be the nation” or the source of legitimacy. In fact, I would think that the founders would be offended by the very notion.

20

Aye. The symbol of our nation, & our head of state, is Liberty, who we used to put on all the money. *Not * the President.