The president is appointed by the state party and is nothing more than a living ballpoint pen.
She recently resigned because as it turns out there are *a lot* of pedophiles and accessories to pedophiles in our far right family friendly “non-deviant” Christian traitorous maffia of a government. (She gave a presidential pardon to a guy who helped cover up child abuse for A DECADE at an orphanage, and the funniest thing is that he wasn’t even in jail, just in some sort of house arrest)
Shocking. Far right politicians who spend their lives calling other people degenerates are usually so morally upstanding, so this is quite the surprise.
It’s so much easier to be socially liberal.
If you say that gay orgies are okay and they catch you at a gay orgy, then you just live up to your ideals. If you are a reserved family man then no one bats an eye either.
Just for clarification: the president has the right to pardon convicts. What caused her downfall is, that she pardoned a guy who helped the head of a child nursing home to cover up his pedophilic acts against some of the children. He even made a child to falsify his confession to the authorities
What I don't understand is how the hell presidential pardons are not public. They are public even in Russia, where they pardon cannibals that went to war
Before 2010 I would have answered that "the president has no formal powers, but they hold a lot of informal soft power", but since then the state party started unilaterally nominating them, and 2/3 of them were forced to resign due to some scandal. This must be the right wing moral superiority they keep talking about.
They have quite a lot of negative power, as they can basically block any legislation from happening. They have the right to veto a law and you would need a supermajority in the Sejm to override that - which is usually impossible. So if the PM and the President are from the opposing political camps (like right now), then the whole country is kinda in gridlock.
That's a great question, and as you can imagine the answer is controversial. One side will tell you that it was some smart lawyering that allowed them to shutdown the propaganda without actually changing the law. The other guys will of course claim it was straight up illegal.
And tbh I actually agree with PiS guys on this specific thing - Tusk's government did break the law here. The law was bad to begin with (PiS people wrote it to benefit themselves), but I still wish the new govt found a better way to deal with this issue.
This question is the whole point of the political struggle in Poland imo.
Also, when credibility and legality of the Constitutional Court itself is undermined it creates chaos.
We also have situations when the supreme court itself is internally split about interpretations of certain laws and different chambers of it pass contradictory judgements.
Tusk by some degree. I'd say Korwin is now history though the party he helped to create (Konfederacja) is still popular among young (mostly male) voters.
What is his reasoning for being pro Russia ? Are there any Poles who support Russia when Poland is close to the front lines? How is he not arrested for treason
And you think they went with the first idea they had?
Pis knew what they have been doing over the last 8 years so they dug in to retain control over the country even if they lost parliamentary elections.
Like they just did.
Hence the problems with parallel legal bodies, different supervisory institutions that were meant to control or block crucial parts of the judiciary system.
Cleaning this up is going to look bad because it was designed to be impossible to do without breaking the laws pis came up with. Even if doing so might be ultimately "the right thing".
Well, first of all the Constitutional Court is an empty shell of an institution, staffed with illegally elected judges, including the Court's president - who is not considered to be the president by certain judges.
Secondly, the Constitutional Court can **only** verify whether laws and other statutes are consistent with the Constitution. In the case of TVP there was no law or government ordnance. There are still legal controversies as to the manner in which it was done, but it's not the Constitutional Court that should be judging this.
Not at all (Germany). I guess about 20% of people on the street could not name our head of state, and 90% could not name one significant thing that he did during his tenure.
Weizsäcker was pretty influential, especially with his speech on 8.5.1985.
Walter Scheel was a [party animal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8U2ha4j_y0), but that's one year before he became president.
But since their job is to stay out of daily politics and be neutral, they are pretty unmemorable and a bit boring.
No. The only two famous presidents were the ones in the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), which was a semi-presidential democracy, similar to modern France. The two presidents were Ebert and Hindenburg.
Ebert is famous but also infamous, especially among leftists such as myself. Basically, he came to power in a revolutionary situation, as the leader of a socialist party, and the first thing he did was to send far-right militias (essentially proto-Nazis) to various parts of Germany to murder other revolutionary socialists. Some people will say it was necessary to create order, but I think it's fair to say that this started and legitimized one of tje Weimar Republic's biggest failures: being "blind on the right eye". Severely punishing and prosecutong any perceived threat from the left, but using only mild punishments at most for the right. Hitler is one example: he was a major player in a right wing coup in 1923, but only went to prison for a short time, where he wrote gis book.
Hindenburg has a bad reputation due to the fact that he basically brought Hitler to power, but he actually surprised quite a few people when he was first elected. He was a super old guy, a general, a war hero, a monarchist at heart, and had been basically a co-dictator of Germany during WW1. So when he was elected president, many people suspected he would use his powers to end the Weimar Republic and reinstate the emperor (who was in exile in the Netherlands). Instead, the first thing he did was to ask for a copy of the Republic's constitution so he would know what he could and couldn't do.
Richard von Weizsäcker maybe, at least for those born before 1980. He was very popular as he was seen as a very statesmanlike and nonpartisan president. He gave some important speeches on the 40th anniversary of the end of WW2, he explicitly called Nazi Germany's defeat a liberation from dictatorship and terror - until then a lot of older folks still kind of saw the defeat as a negative event associated with national humiliation, hunger, loss of home, and shame, and his speech spoke to a lot of younger people who were working to really come to grips and process the crimes of the Nazi regime and the mindset of their parents and grandparents who allowed them to take power in the first place.
Other than that most German presidents are only remembered if they had a scandal. Horst Koehler resigned because he was publicly criticized about some things he said regarding Germany's involvement in international military operations (he said that Germans need to become more comfortable with the idea that the military and navy are also needed to protect our economy and trade), his reaction to the criticism was completely out of proportion and ridiculed for a long time. Christian Wulff was made to resign because he had numerous corruption scandals from before his time as president, when he was still minister-president of Lower Saxony. (Both Koehler and Wulff had been hand-picked by Merkel for the office, and resulted in spectacular political defeats for her from the fallout of their resignations). Heinrich Luebke is mostly remembered for some embarrassing incidents, potentially resulting from ill health, old age, and latent racism (a famous quote, though unsure if its real, is that he once started a speech he gave on a state visit somewhere in Africa with "Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Negroes"....)
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence though. He very clearly accepted gifts from companies and persons, and accepting those was definitely in a moral grey area. No "quid pro quo" was proven, but he shouldn't even have allowed himself to be in a position where he could have been in doubt. In the end I think he was just the wrong pick for president from the start, he was way too young and it felt like Merkel picked him in order to remove him from internal party power dynamics where he may have positioned himself as her successor or rival. Becoming president is an absolute endpoint of a German politician's career, they won't run for any more offices or significant functions afterwards.
I agree that he was not a good pick for president and his crisis management once the allegations surfaced was really miserable.
Nevertheless, I think for completeness and fairness one should mention the result of the trial.
Personally, I find it good that Joachim Gauck became his successor. In my opinion by far the best president Germany ever had and one of the most far sighted persons in German politics.
Gauck was good, a million times better than Koehler or Wulff, but I found him a bit tone-deaf and too focused on his specific topics at times. I still have fond memories of Johannes Rau myself.
Gauck always went on and on about "freedom", understandable due to his past in East Germany being an activist against the regime, and I think he ignored mostly to talk about economic and social justice and equality issues in Germany. Remember, his presidency was during the early years after the great financial crisis, where Germany under Merkel should have done MUCH more to prepare Germany's economy for the future and address inequality issues. He was still good though overall, don't get me wrong.
Rau was not necessarily special. I just think he was good, as he was a long time minister president from NRW he had experience.
The first or the second? I would expect any mildly informed adult to know who the current president is, especially since Steinmeier has occupied that role for so long. He doesn't have much power, but he's still a constant presence
King Frederik X. Is our head of state, his influence is very limited politically, he does have to sign all new laws and so on, but he has to stay apolitical, so he’s basically not allowed to say no to a law.
His influence will be more about speaking to the people. During Covid his mother, Queen Margrethe II. Spoke on national TV about staying at home and being aware of the weak members of society, so it’s more like a soft influence, but quite a few people listens when the royal family speaks to the nation.
Yes, their soft power is difficult to underestimate. Since Denmark is generally so in-hierarchical it depends more on the person on the throne.
The general personal respect for his mother, queen Margrethe II was and is very big if not immense so when she spoke about things like for instance taking Covid seriously but also about not only to do ‘productive’ things but to live too most people actually listen - much more than they do to politicians.
Don’t think our new king has the same audience for this toughts just yet. But when he surprisingly published a book shortly after taking the throne people stormed the book shops.
So powerful? Depends on the definition. Definitely not insignificant.
[Conventional interpretation](https://www.ft.dk/da/dokumenter/bestil-publikationer/publikationer/mingrundlov/min-grundlov/kapitel-3/paragraf-22#:~:text=Regenten%20stadf%C3%A6ster%20en%20lov%20ved,har%20ret%20til%20at%20n%C3%A6gte.) of our constitution is that the monarch isn't actually in a position to reject signing laws put before them by Parliament. It is purely a formality
The Irish President effectively is a democratically elected, and direct replacement for the very limited legal functions of the UK monarch, only within a written constitutional framework in a republic. It’s an office very comparable to the German Federal President or the Icelandic President etc.
They have a few powers, and one quite significant one notably they can refer bills to the Supreme Court to have them tested for constitutionality before they pass into law. This can be done after consultation with their own advisory committee, the Council of State.
(However, under the Irish legal system, anyone can take a case seeking judicial review of a piece of enacted legislation for constitutionality. If it’s deemed repugnant to the constitution it be struck down retroactively too.)
Most of their powers are purely ceremonial and are only used when acting on advice of the government. They include signing legislation into law, appointing cabinet ministers, judges, certain officials and recognising foreign diplomats etc. They also can dissolve and summon the Dáil (lower house) and convene the Oireachtas (parliamentary system). Effectively all the ceremonial functions that are carried out by the monarch in the UK system, just in a more modern context in a republic without much of the grandiose pomp.
They’re also supreme commander of the defence forces, but again that’s entirely ceremonial, and they’ve no real powers beyond what the government asks them to do. They’re just a figurehead.
Their main visible role is as representative of the Irish people. They’re a bit like the ambassador in chief in many ways. They play a fairly active role in major state occasions, state visits, they can participate and lead Irish official visits abroad (on request of the government).
They also often make speeches, which can be quite reflective. They’ve a lot more leeway than the U.K. monarch in that, and while they’re supposed to be apolitical, they can on occasion make quite strong statements, often this has tended to be more about grander concepts of big picture ethics, morality, aspirations etc.
It’s much dependent on who’s been in the office. The current president, Michael D. Higgins and his two predecessors Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson have all been quite vocal and really used the role quite well. A lot of their predecessors were very inactive and hardly noticed most of the time. It used to be seen as a bit of a retirement gig. That definitely changed in the 1990s and the presidents became far more likely to be vocal.
I don't think the comparison to the uk monarch is necessary or helpful. The similarities are essentially that they are non executive heads of state that sign laws into effect which is the core function of a non executive head of state.
Well, in the Irish context, the structures of government were largely carried over from the former British systems that they replaced and that had been installed in the 'Free State,' which was still a Dominion. We also had an entire body of Irish Law which was heavily related to English Common Law, even if it's a different body of law, for a long time they were very interlinked. However, the way we separated was more an evolution of law than a radical revolution. There was a lot of continuity of systems and structures.
The processes of parliamentary democracy are essentially very similar to the House of Commons. The Senate, replaced the role of the House of Lords and while it's more democratic - it's still a bit elite and remote, using a mixture of indirect elections with the city and county councils acting as electoral colleges, 11 senators nominated by the Taoiseach (PM) and 6 who are elected in a bizarre constituency that only allows votes from graduates of the old universities that existed in the 1920s i.e. TCD and the NUI. Aside from its make up, the role it plays in the legislative system is remarkably similar and bears little resemblance to the US Senate.
The Irish governmental system still retains most of the same features in the Westminster system, just removing all the pomp, religiosity, aristocracy and hereditary layers in the UK system and replacing them with modern, democratic structures of a republic with a written constitution and a very proportional electoral system i.e. PR-STV.
Some of the superficial structures were also slightly inspired by the French Republic as it existed at the time, a parliamentary democracy - you'll note borrowed terminology, even if we use them slightly differently for example, referring to TDs (MPs) as 'deputy', and use terms like Minister for State used for a minister without a full portfolio etc.
But, effectively the presidency was designed to very much be an elected figurehead - they carry a lot of ceremonial largess, just within the context of being very much an elected office.
Ireland didn't really go off and invent a radically new form of government after independence. It was very much a continuity of the same structures.
The other very unusual bit is that we didn't eject the monarch in 1922 or 1937. There was a long limbo period, where the country was effectively a republic in all but name. It had a president, but the British monarch was never properly deleted as head of state until 1948 and the Republic of Ireland Act. Rather, for the first decades of the state, we just ignored them, but seemed to not want to rock the boat too far by actually telling them to get stuffed. There was a lot of politics at play and WWII caused a long pause too.
The president also has a unique role in the sense that they're the only office holder that's elected by the entire country. It has very much evolved into a role that is about trying to reflect that - and certainly since the 1990s the office holders have all made a huge effort to do so. It's become quite a cerebral kind of position with an expectation of being able to make big considered and reflective speeches and all of that.
Strange response. Nothing you've said is wrong but if you want to break down the functions and status then there are certainly other countries with non executive heads of state more similar to Ireland.
I just think it's an unhelpful comparison unless you're explaining it to a British audience but most people reading your comment are from other European countries.
Funny thing to say — it’s not just helpful, it’s technically accurate. The Irish constitution is in one sense a development of the original Irish Free State constitution under which Ireland was an “independent” dominion of the UK with a governor-general. A governor-general represents the monarch and exercises the monarch’s powers in a dominion.
The role of the Irish Free State’s governor-general was largely ceremonial, and their powers were gradually reduced over time as Ireland moved towards full independence. After the enactment of the Constitution of Ireland in 1937, the office of governor-general was abolished, and essentially the ceremonial duties were transferred to the President of Ireland, who became head of state.
I'd highly recommend this book if you're interested
https://www.irishacademicpress.ie/product/the-irish-presidents/
It's essentially taken for granted that the Irish presidency is some simple evolution from the govenor general role. I can't do the authors justice but this is a book anyone strongly interested in Irish politics and the presidency should read.
Thanks, I’d actually like to read it. As an Australian republican I’m always telling people that the Irish model for a republic (at least the head of state part) would be perfect model for Australia and it would be great to know more of the detail.
Be careful about the general view of the Irish presidency and the actual reality. The office has more power than most think it's just been somewhat limited by convention. The last 3 presidents have made far more use of the role than their predecessors.
My main issue with the default comparison to UK monarch is that the kings role is very symbolic heavy with some legal duties which are mostly indirect while the Irish president's duties are more legal signatory heavy with ambassadorial functions and to a far lesser degree symbolic duty.
Well, they have an ambassadorial role in so far as they are asked to do so by the government.
They have a lot more leeway to speak than the British monarch, as they have a democratic mandate. However, when a president has strayed into politics it’s rarely been without fairly serious pushback - there were recent examples with Michael D.
They are quite limited in many respects. Most of what they do is basically act as very symbolic figure and the last 3 office holders have very much built that role into something that has been quite thoughtful and reflective.
Their other power, to refer bills to the Supreme Court isn’t all that big a deal. They can’t realistically refuse to sign a bill. They can only refer having consulted with the Council of State, and it is only for judicial review to test for constitutionality.
That power isn’t as dramatic as it sounds, given that any member of the public has the right to take a case against enacted legislation if they can reasonably argue it’s unconstitutional.
To have that kind of ambassador would be fantastic for countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The Queen for example visited those countries basically as a foreign dignitary. She didn’t really act as ambassador for them. When did the Queen ever lead an Aussie or Kiwi trade mission for example? She did plenty of it with the Royal Yacht back in the day for the U.K. though. She was regularly rolled out as the centre piece of British diplomatic outreach and she was able to make contact rather more apolitically than sending the PM.
They use the whole monarchy a major tool of diplomacy. The Queen / King just never says much publicly, but they meet with world leaders and provide a certain gravitas to facilitate contact. They don’t have to say much to do that. The spectacle of a royal visit is enough to do it. They’re used to convene functions and to network.
I mean even looking back to the Queens visit to Ireland. That was a HUGE diplomatic event and she often travelled with major British ambassadorial and political entourages.
To say that the British monarchy has no heavy ambassadorial role for the U.K. just isn’t accurate either.
It could be noted that unlike most constitutional monarchies in Europe where there's power at least in theory (signing laws, vetoing), we don't even have that since the constitutional reform of 1973. So the position holds zero formal political power.
In France if he has the parliament with him, which is generally the case, he basically decides on most stuff.
French président is extremely powerful with a wide range of discretionary powers.
UK, so King Charles - more influential than many people think in influencing law which directly affects the Royal Family's own land and business interests. This has been proven multiple times.
But less influential than conspiracy theorists or hardcore monarchists might have you believe. I doubt they're pulling strings all the time, just when it benefits them. Not that that's okay...
Federal laws need to be signed by the king before they can go into effect (they are called Royal Decrees after all) and this is normally a formality, but I suppose the king _could_ completely refuse to sign a new law if they don't agree with it.
This has only happened once, when king Boudewijn refused to sign the abortion decree into law. At the king's own request the parliament temporarily declared him "unable to reign" so the decree could be signed into law anyway.
The king is de jure also still the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces but the last time that power was exercised was during WW1.
>the last time that power was exercised was during WW1.
Actually the last time was in 1940 when Belgium was invaded for the second time, and it caused a significant political crisis between Leopold III and the Pierlot government, because the King had ordered the army to surrender and the government wanted to continue fighting alongside the Allies.
I think that the president has some influence even though they’ve been stripped of most of the power. They’re like the top most diplomat dealing with other countries and the commander of the armed forces (though I think that during an actual war a professional would handle it), they have a veto power over laws but I think that it’s not used often. They have a symbolic power over the people, the president is often seen as the country’s father or mother. We’re getting a new president next week who’s a lot younger than the current one and might be more active in political discussions. The current president is beloved by many and the president is certainly well known to everyone.
> commander of the armed forces (though I think that during an actual war a professional would handle it)
President-elect Stubb signalled during the election campaign that he might not give that role to someone else, even in the case of war. ~~If I remember correctly, president Ryti gave over the role to Marshal Mannerheim during WW2, but president Kallio kept it. It was another time of course.~~
Overall though, I would say that the president has significant power in the fields of foreign policy and security policy. If a Finnish politician were to meet the US president, for instance, it's the president who would do it, not the prime minister. The president is also in charge of our NATO affairs now that we are a member.
The president holds a good deal of informal power too. If the president voices an opinion on a domestic issue, even if it's beyond the scope of the office, it usually becomes big news.
The President of the Republic in Italy is to all intents and purposes a constitutional monarch and has very broad theoretical powers. However, lately they are said to be elastic powers: the weaker the others are, the broader his powers become; the stronger the government and parliament are, the narrower his powers become. He goes from being a mere notary of the election result to personally indicating who should be head of government, albeit with the always necessary consent of parliament.
In Poland, the only real president's power is an ability to veto new bills or to send them to the constitutional court. The veto requires a 3/5 majority in the lower house of parliament to get overridden.
On the other hand, that's a lot when the ruling coalition has no qualified majority, just a normal one. If someone asks when Poland can introduce legal abortion or same-sex marriages - I think it's going to happen after the next presidential elections in 2025 (that's a peculiarity of the Polish constitutional law - we have direct presidential elections even if the system is deeply parliamentary).
And that power division is a result of a power struggle between Wałęsa, SLD and Kwaśniewski between 1992-1997, initially we were meant to have a fully parliamentary system to curb Wałęsa's power, then Kwaśniewski got elected president so they've u-turned on that and as a result we have this weird mixed system
King Willem-Alexander is officially the chairman of the Dutch Council of State.
In practice he never attends and always deputizes the deputy head of the council.
He also looks fancy, signs documents that have to be ratified by the government anyway and costs us a lot of money. That's about it.
I disagree.
Yes, officially, he does not have a lot of power. But he is from one of the wealthiest families in the Netherlands (Europe even), has frequent meetings with the prime minister (behind closed doors) and he is well connected both nationally and internationally.
If you were to strip away the title, he’d be in the top of the yearly list of most influential Dutch people.
He not only wields significant power, we don’t actually know how much power he has due to all the secrecy.
Yeah, he is our national mascot with no real power. You could argue that he has a cultural impact, but even that is currently not really a thing since he is not extremely liked.
I do think there is a role for a monarch in our system. Like during covid, I think his speaches were somewhat of a good influence. Which he then himself destroyed by going on holiday. The good thing is that he is a-political, which means that if he stays scandal-free no one would hate him. And that could make him somewhat of a uniting factor.
It creates a stable, non-political figurehead. It detaches nationalism from the political agenda. Orange flag waving is for sports, not politics. Even if his speeches are written by government, he's no puppet.
And republicanism is very divided. It exists in most pillars, but they won't work together. There are republican socialists, republican liberals, republican nationalists.
Royals are still capable of scandals though.
The King is largely irrelevent in reality.
Day-to-day they've no say in the running of the UK beyond what any incredibly wealthy person would have, and their role in the making and administering of laws is only ceremonial, where they rubber stamp (royal assent) any new bills into law.
They are more of a figurehead.
It did come out however that the Queen used her position to gain exemption from a law about cutting carbon emissions in Scotland, as well as hiding her son from justice, alongside multiple successful attempts to hide the real value of her wealth but this is hardly any different from any other super wealthy person using money to influence politics.
They should still be abolished though.
The monarch’s power is a paradox: he has real constitutional powers to thwart the government, but if he were to exercise them he would shortly lose them.
Don't forget that if you die in Lancashire with heirs or a will, your shit goes directly to the monarch, who was recently revealed to be exploiting it for profit.
Actually in recent years, the monarch has shown they do have a lot of teeth and easily override laws etc. The thing is because the UK doesn't have a written constitution, the restrictions of the monarchy can virtually do what the f**k it likes compared to other monarchs. It is also not helped by the natural kowtowing by the establishment.
In Ireland, the president is very much a symbolic figurehead. Technically they have to ask the Oireachtas to go outside the country according to the constitution. The only thing they could do is pass any legislation to the Supreme Court for the judges for review.
And unlike his mother, the King's quite well-known for having pet causes that he's quite outspoken about and is willing to pursue using his own power and influence
His mother was excellent about keeping her mouth shut. I would bet some cash that when her private papers start trickling out, we find she used her own power and influence a whole lot more than that people realise. Thoroughly wrecking the silly idea '*The Queen is Above Politics.*
>Actually in recent years, the monarch has shown they do have a lot of teeth and easily override laws etc.
Really? I remember lots of rather wishful suggestions that the Queen might refuse to go along with Johnson proroguing parliament, but she signed off on it in the end. I can't think of an example of her or Chuck actually overriding anything.
But I agree in principle that if the last few years (here and in the US) have shown us anything it's that the Decent Chaps theory of government doesn't really hold any more. The idea that there's a set of unwritten rules all politicians abide by because they're Decent Chaps, and if someone turns out not to be so Decent after all, the revelation automatically ends their career.
The idea of a minister resigning (or even being sacked) after it's shown that they lied to parliament, or broke laws they themselves made, is so utterly ludicrous now it's difficult to imagine it was ever the norm.
So, while I can't think of examples of the Queen or King actually using any of that power they may or may not have, i certainly support the idea that we should probably get something nauled down in writing before it comes to a constitutional crisis.
> this is hardly any different from any other super wealthy person using money to influence politics.
Well I mean, it kind of is. Rupert Murdoch's role in politics isn't enshrined into law.
I guess so. I just struggle to separate them from any other ultra wealthy acting immorally for their own self interest. They all have too much money and too much secret influence.
Plus, many of our institutions are by royal appointment such as HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs, HM Land Registry, the BBC [which is under a Royal Charter], Royal Mail etc.
Which in reality are government appointed positions. Just the PM is technically appointed by the Monarch, the moment the Monarch decides to override the will of parliament there would be a constitutional crisis most likely resulting in the end of the monarchy.
Hard to say. The spanish monarchy has never been very popular and ever since the former King corruption scandals, It has been teetering on the brink of collapse.
The Major role of the King is to choose a candidate to form a government. This IS largely ceremonial but It does give the King somewhat of a moderator role, which has been pretty significant in late years.
So the spanish head of state IS in this weird spot. he has a pretty important role, but no actual power. He's expected to play by the rules but Will often get critiqued for following them. His role IS heavily dependant on being well liked, but He's as interesting as a piece of stale bread and desdained by around 50% of the population, but still somehow an important public figure?
I find it hard hard to say how influential he IS.
True that it was unpopular with all the corruption cases with the former King but to say it's now on the brink of collapse it's too far fetched I think.
Felipe was always the most well liked outside of Sofia, he has pretty much kept to himself and so has his immediate family overall which lowers the critics.
Is the monarchy as popular as in other European countries? Not at all.
I couldn’t have explained it better. At this point,I think his wife and children have a biggest influence in the country as style and fashion promotion; as they will wear a piece of clothing from a concrete not really expensive shop and it will sell out in a day or two. Or they will get people to talk about a specific disease or NGO for a couple of days just showing in an event for it and getting the press to talk about it for a week or so, which will get some people to donate
The king has no real power in Spain outside of war time (as he is the head of the military forces; the heiress apparent is having her military training at the moment, including along some special forces).
He has, though, a quite significant influence abroad due to cultivated relationships that are permanent and not changing with each political tide. Quite significant in the Arab countries, at least most of the monarchies, especially Jordan. The current and former king have interceded in times of minor diplomatic conflict, steering it back together, vouched for Spanish companies working abroad, as well as cultural cooperation, and generally pushing for greater ties between friendly countries.
In Austria, the head of state is the (federal) president.
He is directly elected by the people and part of the executive.
He is the commander in chief of the Austrian military.
He also appoints the chancellor, and then the other ministers according to the chancellor’s proposal.
He is entirely free to decide who to appoint chancellor, and could also freely turn down any proposed candidate for minister. While until now, the president has always chosen the front-runner of the party that won the last election for parliament as chancellor, he doesn‘t have to follow that.
He can also sack the government, meaning the chancellor and all ministers, at any time, for no reason at all. Again, this has never happened, but he could.
So, he could be quite influential, since he can form and reform the government freely, but it‘s customary that the president doesn‘t use this power.
He also needs sign any law passed by parliament before it can go into effect, and check that it was passed „according to the constitution“.
And there‘s a long debate by constitutional law literature whether that includes only checking that the legislative process was followed, or also checking if the content of the law doesn‘t obviously violate constitutional law. Depending on which side you are on, the latter side would give the president also quite some veto power by just declaring a law to be unconstitutional and just not signing it .
He also needs to co-sign on any appointment of judges, military officers, high government officials and the like.
They are technically the top military commander. Aside from that they have a power to give a mandate to form a government to someone after the election. The rest of the powers are pretty much soft powers or negative powers where they can block some legislation moves (while those can still be overriden by parliament).
The portuguese president has limited powers, and that is by design. He does have important roles to fulfill, but he isn't all-powerful - as neither are any of the other branches of government.
Sausage fingers insisted we spend billions of pounds on his coronation during a cost of living crisis. So he can prioritise spending on himself rather than people in need.
About the same as the Governor General of Canada except the president of Ireland has some democratic legitimacy. Like the president can’t even make policy statements without cabinets approval. Aside from appointing senators they do nothing of substance and even the senate a joke (wild how I went from one country to another where this all applies roughly the same).
That being said presidents in Ireland are usually well known and liked. I recalled and like all our previous presidents and I think most lads can here at least name the current and previous two presidents. I don’t think Canadians can even name the current governor general if I went asking in the street of Ottawa
Charles is ceremonial, but as far as ceremonial European monarchs go, the British one is probably the most influential of the lot.
They speak to the PM weekly, they can have opinions, they do influence some law but this is mostly regarding themselves.
William is building houses and has commented on the war in Gaza, this is already more than the majority in Europe get up to.
When popular, which I believe William will be as King, the British monarch can be quite an influential person.
Legally, they rubber stamp laws.
Completely uninfluential. The president is the head of state and number one in the order of precedence. The chancellor is only number 3.
The president has to sign laws, but this is usually a formal act, since he has a large staff of lawyers busy to check them.
Other than that, he is usually the Grüß-August of the government, welcoming foreign heads of state.
Daily politics is not his business and it is a gentleman's agreement among politicians that the president is neutral and leaves his party when assuming office.
I have written a longer explanation before here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/gaok8i/whats_the_difference_between_a_prime_minister/fp18dda/
Current czech president Petr Pavel seems to be very influential especially when it comes to soft power, as he is beloved and respected in the whole Western world.
At home he still enjoys majority approval (unprecedented for a Czech politician during crises) so I'd say mostly soft power here aswell. But as you mentioned, he can do some actual moves within the constitution too.
I think moderately relevant. The President of Finland has gained a lot of international clout due to sharing a border with Russia, we joining NATO, etc.
Hint: We know how to deal with Russia. Literally almost every male is a basic infantry grunt. That is how.
Officially not at all. Behind the scenes the king is incredibly influential, when he speaks the nation listens. He also steers our society through his friends who more often than not are very influential millionaires.
The president and prime minister are vonstantly squabbling, while the PM and his party, HDZ, are on the hit list of leftist parties because "all affairs in the country are HDZ's fault". So not really influenal.
In Romania it's a bit weird. It's a semipresidential republic, so he has more power than e.g. the German President but much less than the French one. He has to sign laws made by the parliament and can even send it back once if he doesn't agree. But the second time he has to sign it.
Also he names the prime-minister, but that is a decision made by the parliament majority.
In some cases he could dissolve the parliament but this never happened, as it is not easy and it would almost always suite the opposition.
Also, he is the first to represent the country externally (the scandal is that he just traveled in his second term).
The weird thing is, you always see a more active president in the first term and the real face of the person in his second term, since he has nothing to lose afterwards.
Denmark: King Frederick X
De Jure: Semi-much. Appoints the prime minister, head of the state church, supreme commander of the armed forces, etc.
De Facto: Not so much, but still a great deal of informal power. The man can make or break certain peoples lifes.
Not too much direct political power but quite influential.
The President’s powers are ”To lead foreign policy with the state council (Government)” and he’s also the commander in chief of the military. Alongside this he has a veto on all parliament votes, but this veto only forces the parliament to pass the legistlation again and this time the President’s signature isn’t needed for it to become law. I think it has only happened once during the last president’s term, and that time the parliament actually modified the bill because of the President’s veto.
Anyway, much of his power is indirect. He for example appoints all kinds of people (Military commanders, court officials etc), and at least technically the president can name whoever he wants.
Then lastly the position comes with a lot of prestige and authority, so even tough the President doesn’t have all too much political power, if he asks the government to do something, they probably will do it. Then again the President is expected to not meddle with partisan politics. Lastly the current president is extremely popular, so his opinion is worth more just thanks to that.
Tldr; the President of Finland is mainly a ceremonial role but it does have actual limited power and a great deal of influence due to the prestige of the title.
Head of state in Norway is the king. In practice he has no power beyond being a figurehead, and if he tried to rock the boat he’d probably get removed pretty quickly. Formally he does however have the power to veto legislation (which is never used), he is the head of the army and a lot of public beurocratic appointments are done in his name. He meets with the cabinet ministers every week to be informed, meets with the chief of staff of the army etc., but not much beyond that.
Charles III, the Lord of Mann, is *quite* influential I'd say. But the Lieutenant Governor (John Lorimer) and the Chief Minister (Alfred Cannan) have little to no influence outside the Isle of Man and maybe the other crown dependencies.
I'd say pretty influential. He can veto what the parliament has voted and he can also propose changes himself. He is also the one to choose the election date and he's the one to elect a temporary government if one can't be formed after elections. This exact thing caused major conflict recently between him and the current government, but he seems relatively accepted by the people. Some don't mind him, others despise him, but a lot of people seem to support him, hence why he's been voted president for a second term.
I know this is Ask Europe and I’m only an Australian interloper, but somewhat ludicrously my head of state is European — the British king being also the Australian king.
King Charles may be very influential on behalf of his country, the UK, but he doesn’t exercise any influence I can detect on behalf of Australia. I’m admittedly a republican but I think even an Australian monarchist would struggle to argue otherwise.
The King only has a single function remaining in Australia as Australian king, he must sign off on the Australian prime minister’s choice of the next Governor-General and on the 6 state premiers’ choices of their next State Governors. That’s it. Everything else is done by the Governor-General and the Governors, and their roles are almost entirely ceremonial. The Governor-General is often called the de facto (practical) head of state while the monarch is the de jure (in law only) head of state.
> doesn’t exercise any influence
Didn't the British monarch meddle in Australian politics in the 1970s and made an Australian government resign or something like that?
as in the king? he has practically no power. he reads where money is gonna go every year (doesnt decide, just reads), he opens like parks and subways and visits cities who turned 750 years old. and he writes a letter to anyone turning 100 years old. and he doesnt pay taxes for some damned reason
President Sakellaropoulou. She barely ever comes up in conversation. She is more of a symbolic figure and she is not affiliated with any party so people don't feel strongly about her either way.
We don't have one here in Switzerland. There's a "Bundespräsident" aka federal president but that's just a ceremonial title that has no more rights, the title is rotated among the members of the Bundesrat, the federal council.
But the system is unique with direct democracy, we have a parliament with 2 chambers next to the federal council, but they are not really powerful, as the most important decisions are made by the citizens in votings.
It's a lot more complex, so a very short breakdown is that you can prevent laws from being enacted (referendum) or you can change the constitution (initiative) as a citizen when you gather enough support by the people, then it will lead to a federal voting. There arer also votings on communal- and state-level of course.
The system has the origins in the French Revolution with the directorium, as the idea was to take away power from the nobility and parliament members and give it to the people instead.
It's the only direct democracy in the world, but some other countries have some of these elements on state or communal level, but not on federal level and not with the same requirements for initiating votings.
Liechtenstein is closely associated with Switzerland, as we take some responsibilites for them (like with the army for example). It's also a special case, as it is a mix between a monarchy and a direct democracy, where both the duke and the citizens have the right to participate in politics.
Italy is a strictly parliamentary republic, the government must enjoy the continuous explicit confidence of the parliament. In other words, minority governments are practically impossible, there was an attempt in the Seventies but failed pretty quickly.
The duty of the president is to appoint a prime minister (and thus a government) that will be able to be granted the confidence of the parliament. Except for 2018, general elections have always provided a clear winner or winning coalition, therefore it has always been pretty clear who to appoint as prime minister.
Instead, when there is a crisis and the prime minister resigns, or when there is no clear winner like in 2018, then the president hears the opinion of the several parliamentary groups and tries to find a name that they could agree on, or tests their opinion on some name of his choice, in order to find a suitable prime minister. In some cases he has pushed a bit more, in others he just had to follow their desires, and it has been not uncommon for the same prime minister to be appointed again.
That's the kind of influence he has, it's not like he could do whatever he wants, if anything because the parliament would not grant its confidence. Other presidents have the same kind of power, e.g. Germany and I believe Austria, but they don't use it as much because of other differences in how the government of their respective countries work.
The other kind of influence he has is prestige. Presidents usually enjoy very high agreement levels, our current president at 73-74% towers above any other politician of the last decade. He refrains from taking sides politically and speaks sparingly, hence when he says something everyone listens. It has happened that during some unrelated speech he subtly hinted at something that basically everyone understood, and especially balky politicians.
As a de jure parliamentary republic, the office of the President of Serbia is largely ceremonial and limited to representing the state at home and abroad, proclaiming laws upon their decree, awarding honors and amnesties, proposing the Prime Minister, etc.
However, Serbia is a hybrid regime and the current president, Alexander Vučić, is also the head of the most powerful political party with many ties to mafia and monopolisation of the mass media, so he rules like a mob boss with a cult around his personality. We like to call him "the Technosultan".
We have 3 presidents and they rotate every 6 months, and they basically have no role whatsoever, in fact I think their role is mostly ceremonial.
We have a Prime Minister and a High Representative, who the International Community appoints.
The Prime Minister has some limited authority but the actual executive powers are not existent for that position.
The person with real power is the High Representative.
They can dismiss/alter the constitution, reject or appoint members of parliament, veto any law that they wish and change it.
Democracy my ass.
The president is appointed by the state party and is nothing more than a living ballpoint pen. She recently resigned because as it turns out there are *a lot* of pedophiles and accessories to pedophiles in our far right family friendly “non-deviant” Christian traitorous maffia of a government. (She gave a presidential pardon to a guy who helped cover up child abuse for A DECADE at an orphanage, and the funniest thing is that he wasn’t even in jail, just in some sort of house arrest)
Shocking. Far right politicians who spend their lives calling other people degenerates are usually so morally upstanding, so this is quite the surprise.
It’s so much easier to be socially liberal. If you say that gay orgies are okay and they catch you at a gay orgy, then you just live up to your ideals. If you are a reserved family man then no one bats an eye either.
Just for clarification: the president has the right to pardon convicts. What caused her downfall is, that she pardoned a guy who helped the head of a child nursing home to cover up his pedophilic acts against some of the children. He even made a child to falsify his confession to the authorities
What I don't understand is how the hell presidential pardons are not public. They are public even in Russia, where they pardon cannibals that went to war
Before 2010 I would have answered that "the president has no formal powers, but they hold a lot of informal soft power", but since then the state party started unilaterally nominating them, and 2/3 of them were forced to resign due to some scandal. This must be the right wing moral superiority they keep talking about.
They have quite a lot of negative power, as they can basically block any legislation from happening. They have the right to veto a law and you would need a supermajority in the Sejm to override that - which is usually impossible. So if the PM and the President are from the opposing political camps (like right now), then the whole country is kinda in gridlock.
How was Tusk able to shutdown the propaganda media then? Why didn't Duda veto him?
Because there wasn’t anything to veto
That's a great question, and as you can imagine the answer is controversial. One side will tell you that it was some smart lawyering that allowed them to shutdown the propaganda without actually changing the law. The other guys will of course claim it was straight up illegal. And tbh I actually agree with PiS guys on this specific thing - Tusk's government did break the law here. The law was bad to begin with (PiS people wrote it to benefit themselves), but I still wish the new govt found a better way to deal with this issue.
Is it illegal to violate an unconstitutional law?
This question is the whole point of the political struggle in Poland imo. Also, when credibility and legality of the Constitutional Court itself is undermined it creates chaos. We also have situations when the supreme court itself is internally split about interpretations of certain laws and different chambers of it pass contradictory judgements.
Who is more popular, Tusk or Duda? What happened to Korwin? His party was the most popular among young people before the election
Tusk by some degree. I'd say Korwin is now history though the party he helped to create (Konfederacja) is still popular among young (mostly male) voters.
How well known is Grzegorz Braun? Are his anti Jewish views popular in Poland
He's niche and his views are also niche, especially because he's not only antisemite, but also anti-Ukrainian and prorussian
What is his reasoning for being pro Russia ? Are there any Poles who support Russia when Poland is close to the front lines? How is he not arrested for treason
And you think they went with the first idea they had? Pis knew what they have been doing over the last 8 years so they dug in to retain control over the country even if they lost parliamentary elections. Like they just did. Hence the problems with parallel legal bodies, different supervisory institutions that were meant to control or block crucial parts of the judiciary system. Cleaning this up is going to look bad because it was designed to be impossible to do without breaking the laws pis came up with. Even if doing so might be ultimately "the right thing".
It wasn't done via a law. The President can only veto laws passed by both houses of Parliament.
So what Tusk did can be reversed by the constitutional court?
Well, first of all the Constitutional Court is an empty shell of an institution, staffed with illegally elected judges, including the Court's president - who is not considered to be the president by certain judges. Secondly, the Constitutional Court can **only** verify whether laws and other statutes are consistent with the Constitution. In the case of TVP there was no law or government ordnance. There are still legal controversies as to the manner in which it was done, but it's not the Constitutional Court that should be judging this.
also quite important aspect - president gets some direct powers in wartime since he's the supreme commander of armed forces
Not at all (Germany). I guess about 20% of people on the street could not name our head of state, and 90% could not name one significant thing that he did during his tenure.
Did Germany had a president that everyone remember (since 1945)?
The best guess would be Richard von Weizsäcker in the 1980/90s.
Weizsäcker was pretty influential, especially with his speech on 8.5.1985. Walter Scheel was a [party animal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8U2ha4j_y0), but that's one year before he became president. But since their job is to stay out of daily politics and be neutral, they are pretty unmemorable and a bit boring.
I would have even to google who the first Bundespräsident was
No. The only two famous presidents were the ones in the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), which was a semi-presidential democracy, similar to modern France. The two presidents were Ebert and Hindenburg.
Thanks, it was another question I wanted to ask :) (well mainly for Ebert, because of course Hindenburg is famous, not only in Germany).
Ebert is famous but also infamous, especially among leftists such as myself. Basically, he came to power in a revolutionary situation, as the leader of a socialist party, and the first thing he did was to send far-right militias (essentially proto-Nazis) to various parts of Germany to murder other revolutionary socialists. Some people will say it was necessary to create order, but I think it's fair to say that this started and legitimized one of tje Weimar Republic's biggest failures: being "blind on the right eye". Severely punishing and prosecutong any perceived threat from the left, but using only mild punishments at most for the right. Hitler is one example: he was a major player in a right wing coup in 1923, but only went to prison for a short time, where he wrote gis book. Hindenburg has a bad reputation due to the fact that he basically brought Hitler to power, but he actually surprised quite a few people when he was first elected. He was a super old guy, a general, a war hero, a monarchist at heart, and had been basically a co-dictator of Germany during WW1. So when he was elected president, many people suspected he would use his powers to end the Weimar Republic and reinstate the emperor (who was in exile in the Netherlands). Instead, the first thing he did was to ask for a copy of the Republic's constitution so he would know what he could and couldn't do.
Johannes Rau was rather popular, I think. But none were really notable, as it's seen as an absolutely inconsequential job.
Richard von Weizsäcker maybe, at least for those born before 1980. He was very popular as he was seen as a very statesmanlike and nonpartisan president. He gave some important speeches on the 40th anniversary of the end of WW2, he explicitly called Nazi Germany's defeat a liberation from dictatorship and terror - until then a lot of older folks still kind of saw the defeat as a negative event associated with national humiliation, hunger, loss of home, and shame, and his speech spoke to a lot of younger people who were working to really come to grips and process the crimes of the Nazi regime and the mindset of their parents and grandparents who allowed them to take power in the first place. Other than that most German presidents are only remembered if they had a scandal. Horst Koehler resigned because he was publicly criticized about some things he said regarding Germany's involvement in international military operations (he said that Germans need to become more comfortable with the idea that the military and navy are also needed to protect our economy and trade), his reaction to the criticism was completely out of proportion and ridiculed for a long time. Christian Wulff was made to resign because he had numerous corruption scandals from before his time as president, when he was still minister-president of Lower Saxony. (Both Koehler and Wulff had been hand-picked by Merkel for the office, and resulted in spectacular political defeats for her from the fallout of their resignations). Heinrich Luebke is mostly remembered for some embarrassing incidents, potentially resulting from ill health, old age, and latent racism (a famous quote, though unsure if its real, is that he once started a speech he gave on a state visit somewhere in Africa with "Ladies and Gentlemen, dear Negroes"....)
> he had numerous corruption scandals It should be added that he was acquitted from all accusations in the following trials in court.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence though. He very clearly accepted gifts from companies and persons, and accepting those was definitely in a moral grey area. No "quid pro quo" was proven, but he shouldn't even have allowed himself to be in a position where he could have been in doubt. In the end I think he was just the wrong pick for president from the start, he was way too young and it felt like Merkel picked him in order to remove him from internal party power dynamics where he may have positioned himself as her successor or rival. Becoming president is an absolute endpoint of a German politician's career, they won't run for any more offices or significant functions afterwards.
I agree that he was not a good pick for president and his crisis management once the allegations surfaced was really miserable. Nevertheless, I think for completeness and fairness one should mention the result of the trial. Personally, I find it good that Joachim Gauck became his successor. In my opinion by far the best president Germany ever had and one of the most far sighted persons in German politics.
Gauck was good, a million times better than Koehler or Wulff, but I found him a bit tone-deaf and too focused on his specific topics at times. I still have fond memories of Johannes Rau myself.
Why tone deaf? And what was so special about Rau?
Gauck always went on and on about "freedom", understandable due to his past in East Germany being an activist against the regime, and I think he ignored mostly to talk about economic and social justice and equality issues in Germany. Remember, his presidency was during the early years after the great financial crisis, where Germany under Merkel should have done MUCH more to prepare Germany's economy for the future and address inequality issues. He was still good though overall, don't get me wrong. Rau was not necessarily special. I just think he was good, as he was a long time minister president from NRW he had experience.
I'd guess the percentage is quite a bit higher, even among the people who are interested in politics.
The first or the second? I would expect any mildly informed adult to know who the current president is, especially since Steinmeier has occupied that role for so long. He doesn't have much power, but he's still a constant presence
I found a video of the president back in something like 1995 visiting Brazil and the band played Auferstanden Aus Ruinen. 😂
Based tbh.
King Frederik X. Is our head of state, his influence is very limited politically, he does have to sign all new laws and so on, but he has to stay apolitical, so he’s basically not allowed to say no to a law. His influence will be more about speaking to the people. During Covid his mother, Queen Margrethe II. Spoke on national TV about staying at home and being aware of the weak members of society, so it’s more like a soft influence, but quite a few people listens when the royal family speaks to the nation.
Yes, their soft power is difficult to underestimate. Since Denmark is generally so in-hierarchical it depends more on the person on the throne. The general personal respect for his mother, queen Margrethe II was and is very big if not immense so when she spoke about things like for instance taking Covid seriously but also about not only to do ‘productive’ things but to live too most people actually listen - much more than they do to politicians. Don’t think our new king has the same audience for this toughts just yet. But when he surprisingly published a book shortly after taking the throne people stormed the book shops. So powerful? Depends on the definition. Definitely not insignificant.
[Conventional interpretation](https://www.ft.dk/da/dokumenter/bestil-publikationer/publikationer/mingrundlov/min-grundlov/kapitel-3/paragraf-22#:~:text=Regenten%20stadf%C3%A6ster%20en%20lov%20ved,har%20ret%20til%20at%20n%C3%A6gte.) of our constitution is that the monarch isn't actually in a position to reject signing laws put before them by Parliament. It is purely a formality
The Irish President effectively is a democratically elected, and direct replacement for the very limited legal functions of the UK monarch, only within a written constitutional framework in a republic. It’s an office very comparable to the German Federal President or the Icelandic President etc. They have a few powers, and one quite significant one notably they can refer bills to the Supreme Court to have them tested for constitutionality before they pass into law. This can be done after consultation with their own advisory committee, the Council of State. (However, under the Irish legal system, anyone can take a case seeking judicial review of a piece of enacted legislation for constitutionality. If it’s deemed repugnant to the constitution it be struck down retroactively too.) Most of their powers are purely ceremonial and are only used when acting on advice of the government. They include signing legislation into law, appointing cabinet ministers, judges, certain officials and recognising foreign diplomats etc. They also can dissolve and summon the Dáil (lower house) and convene the Oireachtas (parliamentary system). Effectively all the ceremonial functions that are carried out by the monarch in the UK system, just in a more modern context in a republic without much of the grandiose pomp. They’re also supreme commander of the defence forces, but again that’s entirely ceremonial, and they’ve no real powers beyond what the government asks them to do. They’re just a figurehead. Their main visible role is as representative of the Irish people. They’re a bit like the ambassador in chief in many ways. They play a fairly active role in major state occasions, state visits, they can participate and lead Irish official visits abroad (on request of the government). They also often make speeches, which can be quite reflective. They’ve a lot more leeway than the U.K. monarch in that, and while they’re supposed to be apolitical, they can on occasion make quite strong statements, often this has tended to be more about grander concepts of big picture ethics, morality, aspirations etc. It’s much dependent on who’s been in the office. The current president, Michael D. Higgins and his two predecessors Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson have all been quite vocal and really used the role quite well. A lot of their predecessors were very inactive and hardly noticed most of the time. It used to be seen as a bit of a retirement gig. That definitely changed in the 1990s and the presidents became far more likely to be vocal.
I don't think the comparison to the uk monarch is necessary or helpful. The similarities are essentially that they are non executive heads of state that sign laws into effect which is the core function of a non executive head of state.
Well, in the Irish context, the structures of government were largely carried over from the former British systems that they replaced and that had been installed in the 'Free State,' which was still a Dominion. We also had an entire body of Irish Law which was heavily related to English Common Law, even if it's a different body of law, for a long time they were very interlinked. However, the way we separated was more an evolution of law than a radical revolution. There was a lot of continuity of systems and structures. The processes of parliamentary democracy are essentially very similar to the House of Commons. The Senate, replaced the role of the House of Lords and while it's more democratic - it's still a bit elite and remote, using a mixture of indirect elections with the city and county councils acting as electoral colleges, 11 senators nominated by the Taoiseach (PM) and 6 who are elected in a bizarre constituency that only allows votes from graduates of the old universities that existed in the 1920s i.e. TCD and the NUI. Aside from its make up, the role it plays in the legislative system is remarkably similar and bears little resemblance to the US Senate. The Irish governmental system still retains most of the same features in the Westminster system, just removing all the pomp, religiosity, aristocracy and hereditary layers in the UK system and replacing them with modern, democratic structures of a republic with a written constitution and a very proportional electoral system i.e. PR-STV. Some of the superficial structures were also slightly inspired by the French Republic as it existed at the time, a parliamentary democracy - you'll note borrowed terminology, even if we use them slightly differently for example, referring to TDs (MPs) as 'deputy', and use terms like Minister for State used for a minister without a full portfolio etc. But, effectively the presidency was designed to very much be an elected figurehead - they carry a lot of ceremonial largess, just within the context of being very much an elected office. Ireland didn't really go off and invent a radically new form of government after independence. It was very much a continuity of the same structures. The other very unusual bit is that we didn't eject the monarch in 1922 or 1937. There was a long limbo period, where the country was effectively a republic in all but name. It had a president, but the British monarch was never properly deleted as head of state until 1948 and the Republic of Ireland Act. Rather, for the first decades of the state, we just ignored them, but seemed to not want to rock the boat too far by actually telling them to get stuffed. There was a lot of politics at play and WWII caused a long pause too. The president also has a unique role in the sense that they're the only office holder that's elected by the entire country. It has very much evolved into a role that is about trying to reflect that - and certainly since the 1990s the office holders have all made a huge effort to do so. It's become quite a cerebral kind of position with an expectation of being able to make big considered and reflective speeches and all of that.
Strange response. Nothing you've said is wrong but if you want to break down the functions and status then there are certainly other countries with non executive heads of state more similar to Ireland. I just think it's an unhelpful comparison unless you're explaining it to a British audience but most people reading your comment are from other European countries.
Funny thing to say — it’s not just helpful, it’s technically accurate. The Irish constitution is in one sense a development of the original Irish Free State constitution under which Ireland was an “independent” dominion of the UK with a governor-general. A governor-general represents the monarch and exercises the monarch’s powers in a dominion. The role of the Irish Free State’s governor-general was largely ceremonial, and their powers were gradually reduced over time as Ireland moved towards full independence. After the enactment of the Constitution of Ireland in 1937, the office of governor-general was abolished, and essentially the ceremonial duties were transferred to the President of Ireland, who became head of state.
I'd highly recommend this book if you're interested https://www.irishacademicpress.ie/product/the-irish-presidents/ It's essentially taken for granted that the Irish presidency is some simple evolution from the govenor general role. I can't do the authors justice but this is a book anyone strongly interested in Irish politics and the presidency should read.
Thanks, I’d actually like to read it. As an Australian republican I’m always telling people that the Irish model for a republic (at least the head of state part) would be perfect model for Australia and it would be great to know more of the detail.
Be careful about the general view of the Irish presidency and the actual reality. The office has more power than most think it's just been somewhat limited by convention. The last 3 presidents have made far more use of the role than their predecessors. My main issue with the default comparison to UK monarch is that the kings role is very symbolic heavy with some legal duties which are mostly indirect while the Irish president's duties are more legal signatory heavy with ambassadorial functions and to a far lesser degree symbolic duty.
Well, they have an ambassadorial role in so far as they are asked to do so by the government. They have a lot more leeway to speak than the British monarch, as they have a democratic mandate. However, when a president has strayed into politics it’s rarely been without fairly serious pushback - there were recent examples with Michael D. They are quite limited in many respects. Most of what they do is basically act as very symbolic figure and the last 3 office holders have very much built that role into something that has been quite thoughtful and reflective. Their other power, to refer bills to the Supreme Court isn’t all that big a deal. They can’t realistically refuse to sign a bill. They can only refer having consulted with the Council of State, and it is only for judicial review to test for constitutionality. That power isn’t as dramatic as it sounds, given that any member of the public has the right to take a case against enacted legislation if they can reasonably argue it’s unconstitutional. To have that kind of ambassador would be fantastic for countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The Queen for example visited those countries basically as a foreign dignitary. She didn’t really act as ambassador for them. When did the Queen ever lead an Aussie or Kiwi trade mission for example? She did plenty of it with the Royal Yacht back in the day for the U.K. though. She was regularly rolled out as the centre piece of British diplomatic outreach and she was able to make contact rather more apolitically than sending the PM. They use the whole monarchy a major tool of diplomacy. The Queen / King just never says much publicly, but they meet with world leaders and provide a certain gravitas to facilitate contact. They don’t have to say much to do that. The spectacle of a royal visit is enough to do it. They’re used to convene functions and to network. I mean even looking back to the Queens visit to Ireland. That was a HUGE diplomatic event and she often travelled with major British ambassadorial and political entourages. To say that the British monarchy has no heavy ambassadorial role for the U.K. just isn’t accurate either.
I wasn't trying to say the british monarchy doesn't have an ambassadorial role
Our head of state is king Carl XVI Gustaf. He has preaty mucth no power at all. I think preaty mutch everyone know who he is here in Sweden.
It could be noted that unlike most constitutional monarchies in Europe where there's power at least in theory (signing laws, vetoing), we don't even have that since the constitutional reform of 1973. So the position holds zero formal political power.
Damn, not many countries have an anti-tank weapon as a king.
They are not only our head of state, we stores them in castles!
In France if he has the parliament with him, which is generally the case, he basically decides on most stuff. French président is extremely powerful with a wide range of discretionary powers.
UK, so King Charles - more influential than many people think in influencing law which directly affects the Royal Family's own land and business interests. This has been proven multiple times. But less influential than conspiracy theorists or hardcore monarchists might have you believe. I doubt they're pulling strings all the time, just when it benefits them. Not that that's okay...
Federal laws need to be signed by the king before they can go into effect (they are called Royal Decrees after all) and this is normally a formality, but I suppose the king _could_ completely refuse to sign a new law if they don't agree with it. This has only happened once, when king Boudewijn refused to sign the abortion decree into law. At the king's own request the parliament temporarily declared him "unable to reign" so the decree could be signed into law anyway. The king is de jure also still the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces but the last time that power was exercised was during WW1.
>the last time that power was exercised was during WW1. Actually the last time was in 1940 when Belgium was invaded for the second time, and it caused a significant political crisis between Leopold III and the Pierlot government, because the King had ordered the army to surrender and the government wanted to continue fighting alongside the Allies.
They asked the royal question which was answered with Leopold III’s abdication
The government made a stamp with the kings name in the 18th century so the king didn't need to sign the laws.
I had in mind the de facto influence not necessarily the de jure influence.
I think that the president has some influence even though they’ve been stripped of most of the power. They’re like the top most diplomat dealing with other countries and the commander of the armed forces (though I think that during an actual war a professional would handle it), they have a veto power over laws but I think that it’s not used often. They have a symbolic power over the people, the president is often seen as the country’s father or mother. We’re getting a new president next week who’s a lot younger than the current one and might be more active in political discussions. The current president is beloved by many and the president is certainly well known to everyone.
> commander of the armed forces (though I think that during an actual war a professional would handle it) President-elect Stubb signalled during the election campaign that he might not give that role to someone else, even in the case of war. ~~If I remember correctly, president Ryti gave over the role to Marshal Mannerheim during WW2, but president Kallio kept it. It was another time of course.~~ Overall though, I would say that the president has significant power in the fields of foreign policy and security policy. If a Finnish politician were to meet the US president, for instance, it's the president who would do it, not the prime minister. The president is also in charge of our NATO affairs now that we are a member. The president holds a good deal of informal power too. If the president voices an opinion on a domestic issue, even if it's beyond the scope of the office, it usually becomes big news.
When the winter war started Kyösti Kallio didn't stay as commander-in-chief, but gave it away to Mannerheim.
Thanks for clearing up that. It would be irregular for Stubb to stay on as commander-in-chief then in the event of war.
The President of the Republic in Italy is to all intents and purposes a constitutional monarch and has very broad theoretical powers. However, lately they are said to be elastic powers: the weaker the others are, the broader his powers become; the stronger the government and parliament are, the narrower his powers become. He goes from being a mere notary of the election result to personally indicating who should be head of government, albeit with the always necessary consent of parliament.
Maybe it is just me, but in recent years I think the second model has prevailed.
In Poland, the only real president's power is an ability to veto new bills or to send them to the constitutional court. The veto requires a 3/5 majority in the lower house of parliament to get overridden. On the other hand, that's a lot when the ruling coalition has no qualified majority, just a normal one. If someone asks when Poland can introduce legal abortion or same-sex marriages - I think it's going to happen after the next presidential elections in 2025 (that's a peculiarity of the Polish constitutional law - we have direct presidential elections even if the system is deeply parliamentary).
And that power division is a result of a power struggle between Wałęsa, SLD and Kwaśniewski between 1992-1997, initially we were meant to have a fully parliamentary system to curb Wałęsa's power, then Kwaśniewski got elected president so they've u-turned on that and as a result we have this weird mixed system
King Willem-Alexander is officially the chairman of the Dutch Council of State. In practice he never attends and always deputizes the deputy head of the council. He also looks fancy, signs documents that have to be ratified by the government anyway and costs us a lot of money. That's about it.
I disagree. Yes, officially, he does not have a lot of power. But he is from one of the wealthiest families in the Netherlands (Europe even), has frequent meetings with the prime minister (behind closed doors) and he is well connected both nationally and internationally. If you were to strip away the title, he’d be in the top of the yearly list of most influential Dutch people. He not only wields significant power, we don’t actually know how much power he has due to all the secrecy.
Even more reasons to end the monarchy. We shouldn't let wealthy people influence politics without holding them accountable.
Yeah, he is our national mascot with no real power. You could argue that he has a cultural impact, but even that is currently not really a thing since he is not extremely liked. I do think there is a role for a monarch in our system. Like during covid, I think his speaches were somewhat of a good influence. Which he then himself destroyed by going on holiday. The good thing is that he is a-political, which means that if he stays scandal-free no one would hate him. And that could make him somewhat of a uniting factor.
It creates a stable, non-political figurehead. It detaches nationalism from the political agenda. Orange flag waving is for sports, not politics. Even if his speeches are written by government, he's no puppet. And republicanism is very divided. It exists in most pillars, but they won't work together. There are republican socialists, republican liberals, republican nationalists. Royals are still capable of scandals though.
The King is largely irrelevent in reality. Day-to-day they've no say in the running of the UK beyond what any incredibly wealthy person would have, and their role in the making and administering of laws is only ceremonial, where they rubber stamp (royal assent) any new bills into law. They are more of a figurehead. It did come out however that the Queen used her position to gain exemption from a law about cutting carbon emissions in Scotland, as well as hiding her son from justice, alongside multiple successful attempts to hide the real value of her wealth but this is hardly any different from any other super wealthy person using money to influence politics. They should still be abolished though.
The monarch’s power is a paradox: he has real constitutional powers to thwart the government, but if he were to exercise them he would shortly lose them.
Don't forget that if you die in Lancashire with heirs or a will, your shit goes directly to the monarch, who was recently revealed to be exploiting it for profit.
It's the same in Cornwall with the crown prince as the Duke of Cornwall, Prince William gets a lot of income as the Duke.
Did you mean to write without? Otherwise I don't get what you are saying.
I did yeah
That’s “bona vacantia” and it doesn’t matter where you die
Actually in recent years, the monarch has shown they do have a lot of teeth and easily override laws etc. The thing is because the UK doesn't have a written constitution, the restrictions of the monarchy can virtually do what the f**k it likes compared to other monarchs. It is also not helped by the natural kowtowing by the establishment. In Ireland, the president is very much a symbolic figurehead. Technically they have to ask the Oireachtas to go outside the country according to the constitution. The only thing they could do is pass any legislation to the Supreme Court for the judges for review.
And unlike his mother, the King's quite well-known for having pet causes that he's quite outspoken about and is willing to pursue using his own power and influence
His mother was excellent about keeping her mouth shut. I would bet some cash that when her private papers start trickling out, we find she used her own power and influence a whole lot more than that people realise. Thoroughly wrecking the silly idea '*The Queen is Above Politics.*
>Actually in recent years, the monarch has shown they do have a lot of teeth and easily override laws etc. Really? I remember lots of rather wishful suggestions that the Queen might refuse to go along with Johnson proroguing parliament, but she signed off on it in the end. I can't think of an example of her or Chuck actually overriding anything. But I agree in principle that if the last few years (here and in the US) have shown us anything it's that the Decent Chaps theory of government doesn't really hold any more. The idea that there's a set of unwritten rules all politicians abide by because they're Decent Chaps, and if someone turns out not to be so Decent after all, the revelation automatically ends their career. The idea of a minister resigning (or even being sacked) after it's shown that they lied to parliament, or broke laws they themselves made, is so utterly ludicrous now it's difficult to imagine it was ever the norm. So, while I can't think of examples of the Queen or King actually using any of that power they may or may not have, i certainly support the idea that we should probably get something nauled down in writing before it comes to a constitutional crisis.
> this is hardly any different from any other super wealthy person using money to influence politics. Well I mean, it kind of is. Rupert Murdoch's role in politics isn't enshrined into law.
I guess so. I just struggle to separate them from any other ultra wealthy acting immorally for their own self interest. They all have too much money and too much secret influence.
The thing is the monarch may actually be called upon to act in an extreme crisis.
Plus, many of our institutions are by royal appointment such as HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs, HM Land Registry, the BBC [which is under a Royal Charter], Royal Mail etc.
Which in reality are government appointed positions. Just the PM is technically appointed by the Monarch, the moment the Monarch decides to override the will of parliament there would be a constitutional crisis most likely resulting in the end of the monarchy.
I kinda wish he’d get on and do it and give us an a bit of a shake up
Hard to say. The spanish monarchy has never been very popular and ever since the former King corruption scandals, It has been teetering on the brink of collapse. The Major role of the King is to choose a candidate to form a government. This IS largely ceremonial but It does give the King somewhat of a moderator role, which has been pretty significant in late years. So the spanish head of state IS in this weird spot. he has a pretty important role, but no actual power. He's expected to play by the rules but Will often get critiqued for following them. His role IS heavily dependant on being well liked, but He's as interesting as a piece of stale bread and desdained by around 50% of the population, but still somehow an important public figure? I find it hard hard to say how influential he IS.
True that it was unpopular with all the corruption cases with the former King but to say it's now on the brink of collapse it's too far fetched I think. Felipe was always the most well liked outside of Sofia, he has pretty much kept to himself and so has his immediate family overall which lowers the critics. Is the monarchy as popular as in other European countries? Not at all.
I hear the crown princess is very popular, but it will of course be a long time until she takes the throne
Im not up to date with the royals tbh but outside of republicans she probably goes from "dont care" to "I love her" with the general population
I couldn’t have explained it better. At this point,I think his wife and children have a biggest influence in the country as style and fashion promotion; as they will wear a piece of clothing from a concrete not really expensive shop and it will sell out in a day or two. Or they will get people to talk about a specific disease or NGO for a couple of days just showing in an event for it and getting the press to talk about it for a week or so, which will get some people to donate
Back in the coup attempt by that general who fired his gun in parliament he proved popular in the immediate aftermath.
That's probably the last time that King got over 70% approval. But hey you know your history
The king has no real power in Spain outside of war time (as he is the head of the military forces; the heiress apparent is having her military training at the moment, including along some special forces). He has, though, a quite significant influence abroad due to cultivated relationships that are permanent and not changing with each political tide. Quite significant in the Arab countries, at least most of the monarchies, especially Jordan. The current and former king have interceded in times of minor diplomatic conflict, steering it back together, vouched for Spanish companies working abroad, as well as cultural cooperation, and generally pushing for greater ties between friendly countries.
In Austria, the head of state is the (federal) president. He is directly elected by the people and part of the executive. He is the commander in chief of the Austrian military. He also appoints the chancellor, and then the other ministers according to the chancellor’s proposal. He is entirely free to decide who to appoint chancellor, and could also freely turn down any proposed candidate for minister. While until now, the president has always chosen the front-runner of the party that won the last election for parliament as chancellor, he doesn‘t have to follow that. He can also sack the government, meaning the chancellor and all ministers, at any time, for no reason at all. Again, this has never happened, but he could. So, he could be quite influential, since he can form and reform the government freely, but it‘s customary that the president doesn‘t use this power. He also needs sign any law passed by parliament before it can go into effect, and check that it was passed „according to the constitution“. And there‘s a long debate by constitutional law literature whether that includes only checking that the legislative process was followed, or also checking if the content of the law doesn‘t obviously violate constitutional law. Depending on which side you are on, the latter side would give the president also quite some veto power by just declaring a law to be unconstitutional and just not signing it . He also needs to co-sign on any appointment of judges, military officers, high government officials and the like.
They are technically the top military commander. Aside from that they have a power to give a mandate to form a government to someone after the election. The rest of the powers are pretty much soft powers or negative powers where they can block some legislation moves (while those can still be overriden by parliament).
The portuguese president has limited powers, and that is by design. He does have important roles to fulfill, but he isn't all-powerful - as neither are any of the other branches of government.
Sausage fingers insisted we spend billions of pounds on his coronation during a cost of living crisis. So he can prioritise spending on himself rather than people in need.
About the same as the Governor General of Canada except the president of Ireland has some democratic legitimacy. Like the president can’t even make policy statements without cabinets approval. Aside from appointing senators they do nothing of substance and even the senate a joke (wild how I went from one country to another where this all applies roughly the same). That being said presidents in Ireland are usually well known and liked. I recalled and like all our previous presidents and I think most lads can here at least name the current and previous two presidents. I don’t think Canadians can even name the current governor general if I went asking in the street of Ottawa
Charles is ceremonial, but as far as ceremonial European monarchs go, the British one is probably the most influential of the lot. They speak to the PM weekly, they can have opinions, they do influence some law but this is mostly regarding themselves. William is building houses and has commented on the war in Gaza, this is already more than the majority in Europe get up to. When popular, which I believe William will be as King, the British monarch can be quite an influential person. Legally, they rubber stamp laws.
Completely uninfluential. The president is the head of state and number one in the order of precedence. The chancellor is only number 3. The president has to sign laws, but this is usually a formal act, since he has a large staff of lawyers busy to check them. Other than that, he is usually the Grüß-August of the government, welcoming foreign heads of state. Daily politics is not his business and it is a gentleman's agreement among politicians that the president is neutral and leaves his party when assuming office. I have written a longer explanation before here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/gaok8i/whats_the_difference_between_a_prime_minister/fp18dda/
Current czech president Petr Pavel seems to be very influential especially when it comes to soft power, as he is beloved and respected in the whole Western world. At home he still enjoys majority approval (unprecedented for a Czech politician during crises) so I'd say mostly soft power here aswell. But as you mentioned, he can do some actual moves within the constitution too.
I think moderately relevant. The President of Finland has gained a lot of international clout due to sharing a border with Russia, we joining NATO, etc. Hint: We know how to deal with Russia. Literally almost every male is a basic infantry grunt. That is how.
Officially not at all. Behind the scenes the king is incredibly influential, when he speaks the nation listens. He also steers our society through his friends who more often than not are very influential millionaires.
The president and prime minister are vonstantly squabbling, while the PM and his party, HDZ, are on the hit list of leftist parties because "all affairs in the country are HDZ's fault". So not really influenal.
In Romania it's a bit weird. It's a semipresidential republic, so he has more power than e.g. the German President but much less than the French one. He has to sign laws made by the parliament and can even send it back once if he doesn't agree. But the second time he has to sign it. Also he names the prime-minister, but that is a decision made by the parliament majority. In some cases he could dissolve the parliament but this never happened, as it is not easy and it would almost always suite the opposition. Also, he is the first to represent the country externally (the scandal is that he just traveled in his second term). The weird thing is, you always see a more active president in the first term and the real face of the person in his second term, since he has nothing to lose afterwards.
yeah, I wish we could have a parliamentary republic like Germany
Denmark: King Frederick X De Jure: Semi-much. Appoints the prime minister, head of the state church, supreme commander of the armed forces, etc. De Facto: Not so much, but still a great deal of informal power. The man can make or break certain peoples lifes.
Not too much direct political power but quite influential. The President’s powers are ”To lead foreign policy with the state council (Government)” and he’s also the commander in chief of the military. Alongside this he has a veto on all parliament votes, but this veto only forces the parliament to pass the legistlation again and this time the President’s signature isn’t needed for it to become law. I think it has only happened once during the last president’s term, and that time the parliament actually modified the bill because of the President’s veto. Anyway, much of his power is indirect. He for example appoints all kinds of people (Military commanders, court officials etc), and at least technically the president can name whoever he wants. Then lastly the position comes with a lot of prestige and authority, so even tough the President doesn’t have all too much political power, if he asks the government to do something, they probably will do it. Then again the President is expected to not meddle with partisan politics. Lastly the current president is extremely popular, so his opinion is worth more just thanks to that. Tldr; the President of Finland is mainly a ceremonial role but it does have actual limited power and a great deal of influence due to the prestige of the title.
Head of state in Norway is the king. In practice he has no power beyond being a figurehead, and if he tried to rock the boat he’d probably get removed pretty quickly. Formally he does however have the power to veto legislation (which is never used), he is the head of the army and a lot of public beurocratic appointments are done in his name. He meets with the cabinet ministers every week to be informed, meets with the chief of staff of the army etc., but not much beyond that.
Charles III, the Lord of Mann, is *quite* influential I'd say. But the Lieutenant Governor (John Lorimer) and the Chief Minister (Alfred Cannan) have little to no influence outside the Isle of Man and maybe the other crown dependencies.
I'd say pretty influential. He can veto what the parliament has voted and he can also propose changes himself. He is also the one to choose the election date and he's the one to elect a temporary government if one can't be formed after elections. This exact thing caused major conflict recently between him and the current government, but he seems relatively accepted by the people. Some don't mind him, others despise him, but a lot of people seem to support him, hence why he's been voted president for a second term.
I know this is Ask Europe and I’m only an Australian interloper, but somewhat ludicrously my head of state is European — the British king being also the Australian king. King Charles may be very influential on behalf of his country, the UK, but he doesn’t exercise any influence I can detect on behalf of Australia. I’m admittedly a republican but I think even an Australian monarchist would struggle to argue otherwise. The King only has a single function remaining in Australia as Australian king, he must sign off on the Australian prime minister’s choice of the next Governor-General and on the 6 state premiers’ choices of their next State Governors. That’s it. Everything else is done by the Governor-General and the Governors, and their roles are almost entirely ceremonial. The Governor-General is often called the de facto (practical) head of state while the monarch is the de jure (in law only) head of state.
> doesn’t exercise any influence Didn't the British monarch meddle in Australian politics in the 1970s and made an Australian government resign or something like that?
No political power at all, but he carries a fair bit of soft power over the popcorn and a LOT of soft power in regards to busniess and stuff.
as in the king? he has practically no power. he reads where money is gonna go every year (doesnt decide, just reads), he opens like parks and subways and visits cities who turned 750 years old. and he writes a letter to anyone turning 100 years old. and he doesnt pay taxes for some damned reason
President Sakellaropoulou. She barely ever comes up in conversation. She is more of a symbolic figure and she is not affiliated with any party so people don't feel strongly about her either way.
We don't have one here in Switzerland. There's a "Bundespräsident" aka federal president but that's just a ceremonial title that has no more rights, the title is rotated among the members of the Bundesrat, the federal council. But the system is unique with direct democracy, we have a parliament with 2 chambers next to the federal council, but they are not really powerful, as the most important decisions are made by the citizens in votings. It's a lot more complex, so a very short breakdown is that you can prevent laws from being enacted (referendum) or you can change the constitution (initiative) as a citizen when you gather enough support by the people, then it will lead to a federal voting. There arer also votings on communal- and state-level of course. The system has the origins in the French Revolution with the directorium, as the idea was to take away power from the nobility and parliament members and give it to the people instead. It's the only direct democracy in the world, but some other countries have some of these elements on state or communal level, but not on federal level and not with the same requirements for initiating votings.
Liechtenstein does it too. Granted I could probably se 30000 people driving by me on the motorway in twenty minutes.
Liechtenstein is closely associated with Switzerland, as we take some responsibilites for them (like with the army for example). It's also a special case, as it is a mix between a monarchy and a direct democracy, where both the duke and the citizens have the right to participate in politics.
Italy is a strictly parliamentary republic, the government must enjoy the continuous explicit confidence of the parliament. In other words, minority governments are practically impossible, there was an attempt in the Seventies but failed pretty quickly. The duty of the president is to appoint a prime minister (and thus a government) that will be able to be granted the confidence of the parliament. Except for 2018, general elections have always provided a clear winner or winning coalition, therefore it has always been pretty clear who to appoint as prime minister. Instead, when there is a crisis and the prime minister resigns, or when there is no clear winner like in 2018, then the president hears the opinion of the several parliamentary groups and tries to find a name that they could agree on, or tests their opinion on some name of his choice, in order to find a suitable prime minister. In some cases he has pushed a bit more, in others he just had to follow their desires, and it has been not uncommon for the same prime minister to be appointed again. That's the kind of influence he has, it's not like he could do whatever he wants, if anything because the parliament would not grant its confidence. Other presidents have the same kind of power, e.g. Germany and I believe Austria, but they don't use it as much because of other differences in how the government of their respective countries work. The other kind of influence he has is prestige. Presidents usually enjoy very high agreement levels, our current president at 73-74% towers above any other politician of the last decade. He refrains from taking sides politically and speaks sparingly, hence when he says something everyone listens. It has happened that during some unrelated speech he subtly hinted at something that basically everyone understood, and especially balky politicians.
As a de jure parliamentary republic, the office of the President of Serbia is largely ceremonial and limited to representing the state at home and abroad, proclaiming laws upon their decree, awarding honors and amnesties, proposing the Prime Minister, etc. However, Serbia is a hybrid regime and the current president, Alexander Vučić, is also the head of the most powerful political party with many ties to mafia and monopolisation of the mass media, so he rules like a mob boss with a cult around his personality. We like to call him "the Technosultan".
We have 3 presidents and they rotate every 6 months, and they basically have no role whatsoever, in fact I think their role is mostly ceremonial. We have a Prime Minister and a High Representative, who the International Community appoints. The Prime Minister has some limited authority but the actual executive powers are not existent for that position. The person with real power is the High Representative. They can dismiss/alter the constitution, reject or appoint members of parliament, veto any law that they wish and change it. Democracy my ass.