File talk:Forms of government.svg

Portugal is NOT semi-presidential

The Portuguese President is a cerimonial one. The executive powers are in government's hands, which in turn is supported by the Parliament. Fix the map please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.241.77 (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this source states the opposite of what you are claiming: Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive And Mixed Authority Patterns. And for the case you know, the president has the initiative to name PM and can dissolve the assembly at his own discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.220.112 (talk) — B.Lameira (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The role of the President has been fading over the years, with the Constitutional revisions and customary procedures. His powers have been reduced since the 1976 Constitution and he can now be considered ceremonial. Jorge Sampaio even formed the Arraiolos meeting, a meeting of non-executive presidents of European Union.

I can cite the current Constitution (7th Revision, 2005) to show how the limited the Presidential role is, making him de facto subordinate to the Parliament:

- Article 127 - The President is inaugurated before the Parliament. He takes an oath to comply with the Constitution.

- Article 129 - The President cannot leave the country without the consent of the Parliament. The consequence of not complying with this is his removal from office.

- Article 130 - It is up to the Parliament to impeach the President, if he commits crimes, and make him stand for trial.

- Article 131 - Should he resign, he must do so by presenting the resignation to the Parliament.

- Article 133 e) - The President can ONLY dissolve the Parliament and call for elections AFTER meeting with the parties AND the Council of State. (not at his own discretion)

- Article 133 f) - The President names the Prime Minister AFTER meeting with the parties AND taking into account the election results. (not at his own discretion)

- Article 133 g) - The President can ONLY remove the Prime Minister, and the rest of the government, from office if they present a threat to the democratic institutions. (not at his own discretion)

- Article 133 h) to p) - The President gives his approval, or not, to the naming of government officials BY the Prime Minister. (not at his own discretion)

- Article 135 c) - The President can ONLY declare war, or sign peace, under the Government's proposal, with CONSENT of the Parliament.

- Article 136 - The President can veto laws, returning them to the Parliament for discussion. If the Parliament, then, approves them by a majority, he CAN'T veto again.

- Article 138 - The President can only declare a State of Emergency with the Parliament's CONSENT.

- Article 161 - It is up to the Parliament to change the Constitution. It's up to the Parliament to discuss and approve laws.

- Article 286 - The President CANNOT veto changes to the Constitution.

- Article 167 - It is up to the Parliament, the Government, organized citizens and Regional Parliaments, to propose laws. (not the President)

HumanCapacitator (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's actually at his own discretion, article 133, can be interpreted as the president wants to do it. --B.Lameira (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And since it is so powerless, how the former Prime Minister Pedro Santana Lopes could be dismissed by the president against the will of many people, who said he had no valid reason to do it, by that time, back in 2004? --B.Lameira (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And no, article 133 e) does not require the meeting with the parties or parliament, only the meeting with the Council of State, whose PM is a member of it, which is a consultative organ with NO REAL power, it's only purpose is to let the PM be informed he is about to be kicked of government. --B.Lameira (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, this was already discussed on Commons, which was a hot discussion, almost 2 years ago. --B.Lameira (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And what do you say about the Arraiolos meeting? Or the President not even being allowed to travel without parliamentary consent? The President IS mostly ceremonial, both de jure and by customary procedure. Just because you want something to be the truth, does not make it true. HumanCapacitator (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget Arraiolos, it's an informal meeting of heads of state who are not presiding over the council of ministers (pure parliamentary or not). By de jure ceremonial? Certainly not; but if you say by customary procedure, I have serious doubts of what are you claiming. Majority of doctrine law of Portugal agrees with me. The semi-presidential system case of Portugal is even cited in international papers, but since Portugal is a rather small country, people tend to just look at Russia (a bad comparison, strong presidency, almost full presidential) and France. You can read the upper link (now dead) here: [1]. And here, a link of Portuguese constitutionalists: [2] (in Portuguese). --B.Lameira (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Portugal is semi-presidential

I'm not registered on Wikipedia, but there's a great mistake on this map. Portugal is a semi-presidential republic. The President can veto, he nominates the Government, he is the one that declares war, he is the one that sends laws to the Constitutional Court to be checked, etc.

Check the works of Jorge Reis Novais and Duverger on Portugal. Also, countries like Angola are semi-presidential Republics because they inspired their recent constitutions on the Portuguese Constitution of 1976 (Portugal colonised Angola) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.161.142 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)‎

I agree, it has already passed one year and the colour of the picture, delimited by Portugal, has not yet been changed from orange to yellow. 82.154.137.87 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Coalition and Winner take all

A much more significant distinction than between non-practising monarchy and republic is the distinction between a coalition government and a winner take all one party system. to be informative, this file should make that distinction.· Lygophile has spoken 13:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Egypt

The army have taken power, suspended the Constitution, and declared that the President of the Constitutional Council has replaced President Morsi. The colour for Egypt should be changed to olive. 82.154.137.87 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

South Korea

South Korea is semi presidential. 112.198.79.2 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because has the post of Prime Minister? —B.Lameira (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Half of Malaysia is coloured incorrectly

I'm not qualified to edit the image myself, but the Malay peninsula accidentally got coloured in with Thailand in the last update. (Jurryaany (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

North Korea and military dictatorship government colour

186.188.238.66 (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC) I think North Korea should be classified as an absolute, totalitarian, monarchy. Also I believe military dictatorship government colour is to be confused with other light colour (light green) which is attached to the fourth republican government type...

Mali and Sudan

Sudan should be grey as it's currently under a transition government and Mali should be dark green since the army coup on August this year.

--Guriezous (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Coup in Myanmar

I think the color of Myanmar should be changed to olive green due to the recent military coup. Also, I believe that the color for the parliamentary republics with executive president should be changed in order to make it more distinct with countries under military dictatorship. --RyanW1995 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Tunisia

@GlowstoneUnknown I changed the information on the Wikipedia page for the presidential system, and the page lacks updating. Since the adoption of a new constitution on July 25, 2022, the system has become presidential. Thanks. Mohamed Amine Trabelsi ^Talk 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)