A Prime Minister is not a president. They are simply the leader of whichever party has he most seats in parliament and is therefore the “face” of the government in many ways.
Most importantly this means that there is no such thing as “executive orders” because there is no “executive” branch, per se. Meaning even if we (Canada) had fucked up and elected Trump-lite, Pollieve, his ability to do the same shit Trump is doing would be severely limited in that everything goes through parliamentary vote without exception (for the most part).
A ruling party has something called the Emergencies Act, that can, to a limited degree, allow them to enact a few things without parliamentary vote, but its use is generally highly controversial and is still very controlled by judicial review.
Long story short (too late, I know) is that the tsunami of bullshit that Orange Hitler is doing is because he’s using executive orders to enact things and then fighting congress in court when they push back rather than getting congressional approval BEFORE enacting it.
Something that is far more limited in a governmental system where that much power HASN’T been given to one person.
Because, and not to sound flippant, that’s just the easiest and most natural way to do it without a lot of extra paperwork.
See technically, a "president* is meant as a drop in replacement for a monarch. A republic doesn’t get rid if its king, they just replace one who was born into it with one they chose and one they pretend to have a bit more control over.
Canada’s equivalent to Trump isn’t Carney, technically it’s King Charles. And the U.S equivalent to Prime Minister would be who’ve leads the majority party in congress.
Could we go through the constitutional rigamarole to change that? Sure. But why bother when he’s content to stay out of things.
Essentially, a parliamentary democracy means that our “Trump” is a deadbeat dad who lives in another country.
I’ll happily keep that buffer in place versus whatever the fuck the U.S had gotten themselves into.
There are lots of republics where the president does serve as a literal figurehead without any consequential powers, so a republic does not necessarily turn up with a Trump. In fact the US is rather unique in how it has combined republic with absolute monarchy in the office of the president, probably very much a sign of how antiquated the constitution is.
Additionally, a figurehead monarch doesn’t address any of the issues with a successful Trump-like politician. Here in the UK I often hear people saying “would you want a President Boris Johnson?” No, I wouldn’t, but him being called Prime Minister instead of President removed literally none of his practical political power
I feel like that’s sarcasm? But yes, I legitimately feel that our system, where the only person who has any “theoretical” power to make unilateral decisions without parliament is some old guy who is content to just stay out of it, is better.
Imagine an America where they could tell Trump. “Okay, you’re king. Here…we’ll even put you on our money. Now go live overseas and fuck off”
A Parliamentary Republic with a ceremonial president or Semi-Presidential system with the President and Prime Minister sharing executive powers could also acheive the same thing.
Republics give you Trump…
What I mean is this:
A Prime Minister is not a president. They are simply the leader of whichever party has he most seats in parliament and is therefore the “face” of the government in many ways.
Most importantly this means that there is no such thing as “executive orders” because there is no “executive” branch, per se. Meaning even if we (Canada) had fucked up and elected Trump-lite, Pollieve, his ability to do the same shit Trump is doing would be severely limited in that everything goes through parliamentary vote without exception (for the most part).
A ruling party has something called the Emergencies Act, that can, to a limited degree, allow them to enact a few things without parliamentary vote, but its use is generally highly controversial and is still very controlled by judicial review.
Long story short (too late, I know) is that the tsunami of bullshit that Orange Hitler is doing is because he’s using executive orders to enact things and then fighting congress in court when they push back rather than getting congressional approval BEFORE enacting it.
Something that is far more limited in a governmental system where that much power HASN’T been given to one person.
That’s an argument against an executive branch of government, not an argument against a constitutional monarchy.
You could have (and many countries do) a parliamentary system like you describe without having a monarch figurehead.
The question I think OP is asking is: why have the monarch figurehead.
Because, and not to sound flippant, that’s just the easiest and most natural way to do it without a lot of extra paperwork.
See technically, a "president* is meant as a drop in replacement for a monarch. A republic doesn’t get rid if its king, they just replace one who was born into it with one they chose and one they pretend to have a bit more control over.
Canada’s equivalent to Trump isn’t Carney, technically it’s King Charles. And the U.S equivalent to Prime Minister would be who’ve leads the majority party in congress.
Could we go through the constitutional rigamarole to change that? Sure. But why bother when he’s content to stay out of things.
Essentially, a parliamentary democracy means that our “Trump” is a deadbeat dad who lives in another country.
I’ll happily keep that buffer in place versus whatever the fuck the U.S had gotten themselves into.
There are lots of republics where the president does serve as a literal figurehead without any consequential powers, so a republic does not necessarily turn up with a Trump. In fact the US is rather unique in how it has combined republic with absolute monarchy in the office of the president, probably very much a sign of how antiquated the constitution is.
Additionally, a figurehead monarch doesn’t address any of the issues with a successful Trump-like politician. Here in the UK I often hear people saying “would you want a President Boris Johnson?” No, I wouldn’t, but him being called Prime Minister instead of President removed literally none of his practical political power
Yeah our system of government is clearly far superior.
I feel like that’s sarcasm? But yes, I legitimately feel that our system, where the only person who has any “theoretical” power to make unilateral decisions without parliament is some old guy who is content to just stay out of it, is better.
Imagine an America where they could tell Trump. “Okay, you’re king. Here…we’ll even put you on our money. Now go live overseas and fuck off”
A Parliamentary Republic with a ceremonial president or Semi-Presidential system with the President and Prime Minister sharing executive powers could also acheive the same thing.