The main reason for Kondylis support of the return of the monarchy was apparently strategic; his ambition was to follow the example of Benito Mussolini, and merely retain the monarchy as a means of legitimising his actions. Consequently, democratic reforms could not take place until Tupou IV died in 2006 and was succeeded by Tupou V. A new constitution, which restricted the powers of the monarch, was adopted in 2010. Belgium 1918, 1959, Bhutan 201417, Greece 18641914, 5566, Laos 195458, Lesotho 201316, Liechtenstein 19212017, Luxembourg 190039, 442017, Monaco 19622017, Nepal 19912001, Netherlands 1945, Spain 1977, Sweden 191117, Thailand 1975, 8390, 922005, 201113, Yugoslavia 192128. In almost all cases where a monarch has held powers in a democracy, the powers of the monarch are directly inherited' from or related to the pre-democratic era. The constitution allocates the rest of the government's power to the legislature and judiciary. 10271028). However, the monarch continued to be an influential (although not dominant) actor in Laotian politics until the end of the monarchy in 1975, when the communists came to power. In semi-presidential systems, there is always both a president and a head of government, commonly but not exclusively styled as a prime minister. The colour-coding also appears on the following map, representing the same government categories. For a few years, the king and the prime minister shared executive powers, but it was highly unclear which of the actors that was the most powerful one. Which of the following bodies would be likely to succeed in removing the head of government if it took actions (short of military force) to do so? (Yes = 5, head of state). Establishing cut-off points along the power scale is highly problematic and, to a certain extent, arbitrary. Semi-constitutional monarchic regimes emerge in former autocratic monarchies as they democratise and rarely persist for long periods. People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read. We can then give a final assessment of how our two plausible explanations of monarchic power fare. Collective presidency consisting of three members; one for each major ethnic group. Theoretically, it can be traced back to Ancient Greece, but so far, very few empirical studies have been conducted where size has been given the primary focus among the explanatory variables. In many countries, the process of democratisation was slow, and the monarch was gradually divested of his or her powers. I understand that you are either fed up with the hopeless democratically elected leaders of your country or are under some other form of shitty government like a military dictatorship or an oligarch influenced country. I then proceeded by testing the assumption that semi-constitutional monarchies would emerge primarily in countries which transit from autocratic monarchies to democracies and that small size was conducive for the survival of the regime type in question. Based on the few studies that have been conducted in the field, there are two plausible explanations for why powerful monarchs occur in democratic settings. If the head of state took actions to dismiss cabinet ministers, would he/she be likely to succeed? Yes = 2 or 3. d HOG appointment in practice (v2expathhg). It is far from self-evident that the countries will have a democratic form of government with a powerful monarch as head of state after two or three decades. These systems bear more resemblance to semipresidential systems than to parliamentary ones and therefore the label semi constitutional monarchy is used to denote them. Although the current constitution still formally grants the Grand Duke a leading role in the executive sphere and the power to appoint and dismiss members of the government as well as the power to dissolve the legislature at will, the monarch of Luxembourg possesses significantly less powers in practise. The are allowed to take sides politically but still bound by a constitution that limits what it can do with those unearthed political views. After a short power struggle with holdovers from the Franco regime, democratic elections were held in 1977, and during this year, the monarch possessed considerable powers. In the second alternative, the monarch preserves a substantial part of his or her powers, but coexists with democratic institutions, and, very explicitly, with a prime minister who emerges from and/or is responsible to parliament. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Bhutan 200917, Greece 18641914, 1935, 5066, Liechtenstein 19212017, Lesotho 200216, Luxembourg 190039, Monaco 19622017, Spain 1977, Thailand 1975, 8390, 922005, 201113, Belgium 190013, 191939, 4458, 602017, Denmark 19012017, Japan 19522017, Lesotho 2017, Netherlands 18881939, 19462017, Norway 190939, 19452017, Spain 19782017, Sweden 19182017, United Kingdom 18852017, Bhutan 200917, Liechtenstein 19212017, Luxembourg 19002017, Greece 18641914, Italy 191921, Nepal 19912001, Thailand 1975, 8390, 922005, 1113, Yugoslavia 192128. Of the 193 UN member states, 126 are governed as centralized unitary states, and an additional 40 are regionalized unitary states. Liechtenstein and Monaco are semi-constitutional, and Vatican City is a theocratic absolute elective monarchy. I have chosen to also include countries with scores equalling or exceeding 0.4 on the scale.Footnote2 Regarding the few countries not included in the V-dem dataset, they have been included in the study if they are classified as free by Freedom House. Such cases include former British colonies in which the British monarch formally acts as head of state but where she is represented by a Governor-General. Yet, Boix et al. Results are presented in Table 2 and they tell us that the number of cases and countries where a monarch possesses powers is surprisingly high. In order to remove a prime minister or their cabinet from power, the president may dismiss them or the parliament can remove them by a vote of no confidence. Finally, I account for the ability of the monarch to dissolve the legislature, which is a power that affects the legislative sphere directly and the executive sphere indirectly (e.g. These regimes lack a constitutional basis. I then proceed by excluding republics and independent countries ruled by the monarch of another country. In recent years, it has become much easier to make cross-country comparisons on the basis of political practice. The period of 'semi-constitutional' monarchy in Britain was a period of vast expansion of power and influence in the world, not to mention the opening of commerce and prosperity. In many ways this make perfect sense; since there is no place for a powerful hereditary monarch in a democratic system, one could argue that systems with powerful monarchs do not qualify as democracies. These are systems in which the head of state is a constitutional monarch; the existence of their office and their ability to exercise their authority is established and restrained by constitutional law. First, it is uncontroversial, in the sense that it separates systems where the monarch has ceremonial powers only from systems where the monarch can exercise at least some influence in the political sphere. He has published widely in the field of political science. It has generally been pointed out that the case of Bhutan is unique in the sense that democratic reforms were voluntarily initiated by the king and not reluctantly, as a result of popular protests or demands. aDisregarding periods of occupation during WW1 and WW2. Patterns of emergence and consolidation of semi-constitutional monarchies 18002017. The UK, for example, is a . (Citation2017) argue, is linked to two features that are likely to make monarchies persist in democratic settings, institutional fidelity and personalisation (see also Jugl, Citation2020, p. 287). The most obvious example of this shortcoming concerns the link between size and democracy. Since the coding is based on expert surveys among a large number of country experts it is evident that the coding criteria can vary substantially between the experts (e.g. In the Netherlands, the monarch is considered to have been powerful in 1945. The following year the new king postponed the scheduled elections indefinitely and concentrated executive powers into his own hands, whereby Nepal returned to authoritarian rule. 1914 qualify as a long-term semi-constitutional monarchy. In Greece, the monarchy was restored in 1935, after a referendum installed (and probably heavily rigged) by Prime minister and General Georgios Kondylis. Based on a study of Bhutan, Liechtenstein, and Tonga, Corbett et al., Citation2017 (pp. Although, if a vote of no confidence is successful and they do not resign, it triggers the dissolution of the legislature and new elections (per section 92 of the, Some monarchs are given a limited number of discretionary, One of fifteen constitutional monarchies which recognize the. Particularly the death of the monarch provides a good opportunity to strip the monarch of his or her powers (see also Huntington, Citation1968, 180). [online] Retrieved May 30, 2016, from, Constitution-making in Bhutan: A complex and sui generis experience, Country size and the survival of authoritarian monarchies: Developing a new argument, Classifying political regimes revisited: Legitimation and durability, Introduction: Understanding Thailands politics, Millennialism, Theravada Buddhism, and Thai Society, Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule, Center for Systemic Peace, George Mason University, Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand, Seeking more power, Thailands new king is moving the country away from being a constitutional monarchy, More inequality, more killings: The Maoist insurgency in Nepal, Portugals semi-presidentialism (re)considered: An assessment of the presidents role in the policy process, 19762006, The Kingdom of Bhutan: A democracy by obligation, Review article: Citizens, presidents and assemblies: The study of semi-presidentialism beyond Duverger and Linz, Semi-presidential systems: Dual executive and mixed authority patterns, Democracy from above: Regime transition in the Kingdom of Bhutan, Different types of data and the validity of democracy measures. During the period 18091974, the Swedish constitution stipulated that executive powers were conferred to the monarch whereas legislative powers were shared by the monarch and the legislature. Country. In effect, "presidents" in this system function the same as prime ministers do in other parliamentary systems. It is somewhat difficult to assess the influence of the monarch in Thai politics. Second, since a monarch in a semi-constitutional monarchy lacks democratic legitimacy (in contrast to a president in a semi-presidential system) very powerful monarchs are, by definition, not possible within democratic contexts, and the threshold must consequently be situated at low levels of the power-scale. Smallness, Corbett et al. Veenendaal, Citation2013, pp. rezzacci 10 mo. After the end of the German occupation, the country was ruled by a caretaker government, appointed by the monarch and functional for a short period, when the parliament had not yet become functional after the occupation. States in which political power is by law concentrated within one political party whose operations are largely fused with the government hierarchy (as opposed to states where the law establishes a multi-party system but this fusion is achieved anyway through electoral fraud or simple inertia). When monarchies form the object of research, focusing exclusively on constitutional provisions is likely to aggrandise the powers of the monarch. The president chooses a prime minister and cabinet from the parliament with approval from the parliament, however only the parliament may remove them from office with a vote of no confidence. Nevertheless, it is evident that in comparison with other monarchs operating within a democratic framework, the Prince of Monaco is an extremely powerful actor in terms of both constitution and practice (see Chagnollaud de Sabouret, Citation2015; DOnario, Citation2014). The aim of the present study is to study to what extent the occurrence of semi-constitutional monarchies, i.e. 66109). The crucial question is to draw a line between the two categories. These are systems in which a president is the active head of the executive branch of government, and is elected and remains in office independently of the legislature. There is generally no prime minister, although if one exists, in most cases they serve purely at the discretion of the president. For these countries, classifications have been made by the author for the time periods for which data is lacking (Liechtenstein 18661990, Monaco 18621993). Jordan - Semi-Constitutional Monarchy Monarch: King Abdullah II Like Bahrain, Jordan has a king who has more power than a conventional constitutional monarch, but there is a government beneath him that also has the power to independently make decisions. The result is that monarchs are not remote or distant figures, thus undermining the potential for the regime to become a symbol of oppression. As pressures for democratic reforms started in the absolute monarchy, King Tupou IV and his government responded by using all the strategies that Huntington outlines, including attempts to co-opt progressive elites, repression, prosecution, and intimidation (Corbett et al., Citation2017, p. 695). Finally, three monarchies classified as democracies are not included in the V-dem dataset, namely Liechtenstein, Monaco and Tonga. If we disregard the exceptional cases of Belgium and the Netherlands dealt with above, Greece is the only country where the powers of the monarch have not been directly inherited from the pre-democratic period. Although this network monarchy has been challenged, in particular by prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted of power in a military coup, in 2006, it is evident that the concept is still highly relevant for describing the Thai form of governance. This turbulent period paved the way for the military takeover in 1967. The leader who is at the head of the monarchy is called a monarch. If the head of state took actions to dissolve the legislature, would he/she be likely to succeed? (Yes = responses 2 or 3). Muck like Italy and Yugoslavia, neither Laos nor Nepal conforms to a model where executive power is gradually transferred from the monarch to a government responsible to parliament, after which democracy becomes consolidated. Commonly, monarchies are classified into absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies, but since this classification essentially is based on the powers the monarch possesses, the difference between the categories is one of degree rather than kind. In this tradition, the king is believed to be meritorious, meaning that he is in possession of vast reservoirs of merit accumulated in past lives, which can be translated into the improvement of this-worldly conditions of those who are linked with them (Keyes, Citation1977, p. 288). Laos gained its independence in 1953 but the semi-constitutional monarchic constitution had been adopted several years earlier, namely in 1947, in close cooperation with French officials. At the same time, monarchies are not on the verge of extinction; currently there are approximately 30 democracies with a monarch as head of state and among authoritarian regimes, monarchies in particular have been shown to be very stable (e.g. (Citation2017), I therefore introduce an additional category labelled semi-constitutional monarchy. The results of the present study has demonstrated that there is a strong relationship between population size and the stability of semi-constitutional monarchies. Countries that meet the criteria of democracy with a monarch as a head of state are consequently either constitutional monarchies or semi-constitutional monarchies. It is noteworthy that some scholars in the People's Republic of China claim that the country's system of government is a "semi-presidential system combining party and government in actual operation". Other constitutional monarchies include Belgium, Cambodia, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Thailand. Countries that are semi-presidential republics include, but are not limited to: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Congo (Democratic Reppublic of the), Congo (Republic of the), East Timor, Egypt, France, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, Romania, (Citation2017) have noted, the heart of the matter is that the king simultaneously devolved authority and cemented the monarchys place in Bhutanese socio-political life [whereby] he ensured a peaceful transition to democracy and sidestepped Huntingtons Kings Dilemma, at least for a time (Corbett et al., Citation2017) see also Sinpeng (Citation2007, p. 39). In reality, however, the Norwegian monarch has not had any influence in the government formation process since 1928 (Narud & Strm, Citation2000, p. 172). The constitution transformed Bhutan into a constitutional monarchy as the monarch gave up a significant part of his powers. This is notably the case regarding the power to appoint the prime minister. The hereditary monarch also has the power to dissolve parliament and veto powers. 1 The basic strategy has been to compare Freedom Houses scores with Boix, Miller and Rosatos classifications during the period 20122015 and thereafter check if Freedom Houses scores have changed during the years 20162017. Yet, the question how much powers monarchs possess has not aroused a great deal of interest among political scientists. Every case listed under any of questions 14 is categorised as meeting the criterion of monarchic executive powers (EP), and every case listed under questions 8 or 9 is considered to fulfil the criterion of monarchic legislative powers (LP). The president does not have the right to dismiss the prime minister or the cabinet. In the data set by Boix et al. Therefore, their statuses resemble more a president in parliamentary systems than a monarch in a hereditary monarchy. Indeed, the majority of the Bhutanese population was, in fact, against the reforms (e.g. classifies the country as a democracy during the whole period it is included in the dataset (i.e. A constitutional monarchy is different than an absolute monarchy because in absolute monarchies, the monarch is able . In this kind of setup, the monarch has influence over the state almost to the degree of an absolute monarchy. Skaaning, Citation2018, pp. When identifying semi-constitutional monarchic systems the task of separating democracies from autocracies is therefore crucial. The president chooses the prime minister and the cabinet without a confidence vote from the parliament, but must have the support of a parliamentary majority for their selection. In addition, the dataset does not account for all possible power prerogatives. The democratic era of Laos ended in 1959, after the military forced Prime Minister Sananikone to resign. (Citation2017), constitutional developments in Tonga constitute a very good example of the Kings dilemma. This finding alone, lays good ground for further research in the field. (Citation2017) point out that smallness is likely to counteract the gloomy prospects for the monarch outlined in the kings dilemma. This cut-off point makes sense for two reasons. For the purpose of the present study, we are concerned with situations where absolute monarchies democratise, which means that the first and, particularly, the second strategies are relevant. [online] Retrieved February 10, 2019, from, Hellenic Parliament. Bhutan 201416, Greece 1874, 195566, Liechtenstein 19212017, Luxembourg 1944, Monaco 19622017, Sweden 191116, Thailand 1975, 8390, 922005, 201113, Yugoslavia 192128. The following list includes democratic and non-democratic states: Full presidential systems In full presidential systems, the president is both head of state and head of government. Iyer, Citation2019; Muni, Citation2014). This is a list of sovereign states by system of government. Generally, they have existed for short periods of time in former monarchies immediately after the countries in question have surpassed the threshold of democracy, for . Unlike in Sweden and Spain, where the monarch retained some powers during a transitional phase as democracy consolidated, the Yugoslavian monarch gradually increased his powers, and in 1929, he abolished the constitution and concentrated powers into his own hands, thus returning Yugoslavia to the category of autocratic systems. The index varies between 0.0 and 1.0. Semi-constitutional monarchies with a ceremonial monarch, but where royalty still hold significant executive or legislative power Absolute monarchies where the monarch leads the executive One-party states (in principle republics) Countries where constitutional provisions for government have been suspended Five of these refer explicitly to powers in the executive sphere, whereas two refer to legislative powers. The literature on the role of monarchs in democratic systems is scarce. In Thailand, the semi-constitutional monarchic form of government has been interrupted on four occasions since 1975, but essentially, the position of the monarch has not been very much affected. [21] The term "parliamentary monarchy" may be used to differentiate from semi-constitutional monarchies. Ever since, the country has hovered between democracy and autocracy. The results also showed, that while semi-constitutional monarchic forms of government tend to emerge in rather similar settings and under similar circumstances (i.e. A new constitution was adopted in 1978, and from that year, the Spanish monarch no longer possesses any significant powers. The constitution adopted the same year gave King Alexander I extensive powers. a government led by a prime minister. A state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (sub-national units) exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Systems in which a prime minister is the active head of the executive branch of government. Neto & Lobo, Citation2009; Shugart, Citation2005, pp. He came to power in 1964, and almost immediately clashed with prime minister Papandreou over the control of the military. democratic regimes in which power is shared between a prime minister and a monarch, can be explained by reference to Huntingtons notion of the Kings dilemma and the size of countries. In addition, I include powers over domestic policy (DPP), referring to question 6 and dissolution powers (DP), referring to question 7 in the analysis.
How To Clean Seashells With Rubbing Alcohol,
Jeopardy Calendar 2022,
Articles S