Site Loader

In this paper we are going to thoroughly discuss about the roles of a monarch and a president. The reason for choosing this particular topic was that it realizes the distinctive nature of the Head of States in different parts of the world. Some countries are ruled by the monarch while the others are governed by the President or Republic, whereby elected representatives hold the public offices and possess supreme power over all the others legislative policies, executive powers and judicial regimes. An example of which could be Saudi Arabia (monarchy) and United States of America that is ruled by the Presidential system. Although, people know that they are different, only a few can tell precisely as to how and why they are different. For that reason, we are going to look into this matter by analyzing the differences through the spheres of power structures and legislation. We will try to cover every aspect this topic entails and analyze to the best of our abilities.
Although, a monarchy and a president are both, forms of government as well as political systems. The two, they tend to vary significantly in general. The first difference one could talk about is the power that they possess in terms of the base and structure. A monarchy is a form of government whereby citizens are ruled by a king, who often claims themselves to hold absolute power by the divine right or in other words the will of God whereas in a presidential system the government is elected by the general public through the process of voting and fair elections. In countries like, Thailand, for instance, the king is regarded as the Head of State, who is enthroned in a position of reverence, is respected by all and cannot be violated or defied. No one can expose the King to any sort of accusation or other royalties for that matter. On the other hand, Presidents can be chosen either indirectly by representatives of those elected by the people, or by the people directly. When the president is elected indirectly, then we can call the regime a parliamentary republic. Indirectly elected presidents are selected by an electoral college. For example, in Hungary the president is elected by members of the sole house of parliament, and the National Assembly. The president elected by the people is and can be challenged and questioned by the general public if charged with cases of corruption or any other scandal. And since he is elected by the people, he is bound to respect them and make policies for a better future for its citizens.
The second difference, which lies in these particular political systems, is the time period that they last to rule over their subjects. In a monarchy, the crown is hereditary, the concept of divine rule lingers here and the fact that it is passed down from one generation to another, whereas in a presidential system, citizens vote their representatives democratically through free and fair elections. In addition to that, a monarchy allows for a life time rule through the passing of the crown down family line contrary to a president, where government representatives are allowed to serve for a stipulated duration of time after which elections are held again.
Another difference that lies ahead is that of the legislation. A monarch has the power to make, amend and repeal laws. However, it’s not the same for the president. The president cannot enforce the laws, he can veto it though. The power lies with the monarch for instance, in Saudi Arabia, the king drafts out the law and order, he decides on behalf of the citizen’s but with the president, the power to make laws lies with senate and the parliament.
Over time, there has been a shift from monarchies to republics and, within republics, from parliamentary republics to semi-presidential regimes (Elgie, 2012).
The monarchy has lately been a wane, in midst of it emerged the constitutional monarchy whereby the king or queen sits back and a prime minister runs the affairs of the country. The monarch has to stay neutral in other words they are apolitical. However, it is still a throwback to this era, which means it is seen as an elitist family in a position of privileged success that they didn’t work to earn. For this matter, we believe that a presidential form of government would help counter all the hassles that reside with the existence of monarchy and absolute power.
The president has been granted certain powers such as negotiating and signing treaties with foreign countries rather foreign diplomats with the consent of the Congress and has the power to veto laws. In addition to that, they also have the power to appoint ambassadors, the cabinet and federal judges. For instance, President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme court. Other constitutional powers include them to command the military, i.e. to commit troops as the Commander in Chief of all American military forces.
Along with certain formal powers, the US president has multiple informal powers which in general may lead to his advantage when compared with constitutional monarchy.
US is a very stable presidential democracy where power is shared at the federal level between the President (the executive body), the Congress (the legislative body) and the Supreme Court (the judicial body). Presidential system in other countries has often been associated with very powerful, sometime authoritarian presidents. For this reason, pure presidential regime is often viewed as an unattractive or risky choice for newly independent or democratizing countries. Therefore, even though most former communist countries in Europe chose a directly elected president, none chose a pure presidential regime.

Post Author: admin