In this paper

In this paper, we will analyze the alternative roles of a Monarch and a President. The reason for choosing this topic was that it studies the distinctive nature of the Head of States in different parts of the world. Some countries follow the monarchy system as a form of government while others are governed and administered by the President or Republic. The elected representatives are guardians of the public offices and have supreme power over all the legislative policies, holding certain executive powers as well as monitoring judicial functions. Classic examples of government forms of a Presidency and Monarchy are the United States of America and Saudi Arabia respectively. Although individuals have the capability to distinguish one from the other, only a few can tell precisely as to how and why they are different. For this reason, we are going to consider this matter by analyzing the differences through the spheres of power structures, tenure and legislation. We will try to cover every aspect of this topic and analyze it to the best of our abilities.
A Monarchy and a Presidency are both regarded as forms of government and political systems however, for the most part, the two tend to differ. The first difference one could talk about is the power factor that forms the fundamental framework of a political base and political structure. A monarchy is a form of government whereby a king rules his subjects, claiming to hold absolute power by the Divine Right or in other words, the Will of God. However, in a presidential system the general public elects the government through the process of voting and fair elections. For instance, in countries like, Thailand, the king is regarded as the Head of State, who is inaugurated within a position of reverence, is respected by all whose power and orders cannot be violated or defied. Furthermore, the King cannot be subjected to any sort of accusation or other royalties for that matter. On the other hand, Presidents, the chief executive and the ceremonial Head of State, can be chosen either directly by the people or indirectly by representatives of those elected by the people. In a scenario where a president is elected indirectly, the regime is called a parliamentary republic. An electoral college selects presidents elected indirectly. For example, in Hungary, the members of the House of Parliament and the National Assembly elect the President. However, the President of the United States or any other country for that matter would be likely to be impeached, followed by a trial, and, upon conviction of bribery, treason or committing other higher alleged crimes or misdemeanors, could be removed from the office legally; having to face the consequences and would then be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. (Cole, J.P; Garvey, T.)
The second difference, which lies in both these political systems, is the tenure over which they rule their subjects. In a Monarchy, the crown is hereditary, following the concept of the Divine Rule; the royal and political legitimacy is articulated here focusing on the fact that the crown is passed down from one generation to another. Whereas in a Presidential system, a democratic system is followed under which citizens of the country vote for their representatives through free and fair elections. In addition to that, a Monarchy entails rule for a life time as the crown and the authority that comes with it is passed down within the family from one generation to another. On the contrary, in a Presidential system the government representatives are allowed to serve for a stipulated duration of time (term) for four to five years after which the elections are held again. (Rispa Akello)
Another difference between these two systems is that of the legislation. A Monarch has the power to make, amend and repeal laws or bills. He might have advisors but the ultimate authority lies with the King who can interpret and implement a certain rule of law. However, the same is not true in the Presidential system as the President cannot enforce the laws or propose the bills, but he has the power to veto it and prevent its adoption. This can be explained through the example of Saudi Arabia. Even though the power lays with the Monarch, the king drafts out the law and order based on Islamic Shariah and decides on behalf of the citizen’s but with the President, the Senate or the Parliament has the power to make laws. Over time, there has been a shift from monarchies to republics and, within republics, from parliamentary republics to semi-presidential and presidential regimes (Elie, 2012).
One of the foremost exceptional frameworks found by the people is the organization of the human society. This notion is based upon the Darwinian hypotheses of the origin and evolution of the species that likewise personifies and encapsulates individuals and along these lines the evolution of the society as well (Claeys, Gregory 2000). The mere idea of man as a “social animal” reflects human beings as creatures governed by the idea of animal impulses and desires, simultaneously being intrigued and inclined to create societies and live sociably. Keeping in mind the development of these societies, with all the scholarly conducts as well, it can be said that this evolution merges at a definitive motivation behind fulfilling and satisfying certain desires, albeit at another level.
It is evident from the annals of history that humans were the hunter gathers or scavengers in the primitive times but as soon as they understood and comprehended their surroundings they sought out places to settle down. As time passed by, they understood the complex and multifaceted nature of the world. This explains how the representing framework has come into existence. This gives rise to the question as to which one would be more appropriate for humanity to have in the arrangement of the system being produced? A Monarch or a President?
This leads us to the realization that the development of the society gave rise to factions which are often associated or connected with the Monarchy where a single ruler is the king. He deals with all the undertakings of the nation from religion to social order to education. The positive aspect of this is that not only the decisions are made swiftly but also saves time as it does not have to go through the process of different branches of the administration unlike the presidential system and the power to propose laws lies with the single entity. However, due to the growing gap between the subjects and the rulers and the issue of pride and hereditary rule, people revolted against the monarch and then emerged the concept of the “democratic” form of government where the President ruled over the general population. This had positive repercussions as it gave significance to the concept of “equality”. It opened doors to equal opportunity for work and training, education and other social interactions and cooperation amongst the general population which is valued and appreciated in the society. In contrast, due to the establishment of different branches and the separation of powers in terms of independence, the decision-making process is quite slow therefore the odds of corruption and defilement are high resulting in clashes between various departments arise.
The Monarchy has lately been on the wane, in amidst of it emerged the constitutional monarchy whereby the ruler takes a back seat and a prime minister or head administrator is in charge of the affairs of the nation. The Monarch has to stay neutral in other words they are apolitical. However, it is still a throwback to this era, which implies that it is viewed as an elitist family in a position of privileged achievement and success that they did not work to procure. For this matter, we believe that a presidential form of government would help counter all the problems that arise with the existence of the 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 as well. In addition to that, they also have the power to appoint ambassadors, the cabinet and federal judges. For instance, USA’s President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. Other constitutional powers allow them to command the military, i.e. to commit troops as the Commander in Chief of all American military forces; the naval force, the army, and the air force.
Along with certain formal powers, the US president has multiple informal powers as well; powers which are not often enumerated in the Constitution, which by and large, in general gives him an edge or an advantage when compared with the constitutional monarchy. The President has the ability or rather the advantage of passing and carrying out official executive orders, makes executive agreements or in other words has an executive privilege, plans and devises agendas, sends out troops to protect the national interests without the declaration of war, as a crisis manager, and has an access to media or bully pulpit.
To conclude as to which type of government is better than the other, in my opinion, the presidential system dominates over the monarchical form of government. Different countries vary in their forms of governance which is mostly based on their political values which are additionally in light of certain democratic grounds so as to obtain national security, peace and prosperity within a nation. For instance, USA is an exceptionally 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).

Cole, J.P.; Garvey, T. (October 29, 2015). “Impeachment and Removal” (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Congressional Research Service. pp. 15–16. Retrieved 22 September 2016.
Rispa Akello,

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Elgie, Robert (2012), “The President of Ireland in Comparative Perspective”. Irish Political Studies, 27:4, 502-521.
Claeys, Gregory (2000). “The ‘Survival of the Fittest’ and the Origins of Social Darwinism”. Journal of the History of Ideas. 61 (2): 223–40. doi:10.1353/jhi.2000.0014

In this paper

In this paper, l will firstly look at the geographical distribution of ethnic groups in Zimbabwe, then move forward to origins, language and religion of these ethnic groups. This will help give a background of the built up of ethnicity in the country from a historical backing. After, l will give an analysis on the political parties before independence and how they were affected by ethnicity, then move forward to political parties post colonialism and give the same analysis. The most important of the paper will be the major limitations or constraints that have come from ethnicity towards these political parties as caused by the presence of ethnicity and some of the political antagonist tensions built.
From before and after the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980 there has only been one ruling party, which is the ZANU-PF. It is important to note that ZANU-PF is made up of majority of one ethnic group which is the Shona (Zezuru). Having this in mind, it is clear to depict the ongoing political tensions that have been caused by this ethnic inequality. In this paper, there will be a clear indication of the different ethnic groups in Zimbabwe, including the minority groups such as AmaNdebele that have suffered under the political ramp of ZANU-PF and the emergence of MDC, the main opposition party.
Firstly, it is important to have an in depth look of how Zimbabwe’s ethnic groups are geographically distributed and how these in turn have affected politics of the country. There are ten (10) provinces in the country, where seven (7) out of the ten (10) are made of the Shona and the remaining three (3) are AmaNdebele and other minority groups. Looking at how the Shona occupy most of the country’s land and inevitably country politics of the country. It can be argued that the imbalance of the distribution of land, has without a doubt affected the political distribution as well of Zimbabwe. This is a result of the Shona being large in their number and the minority groups become inclined to be under the major group.
NB: The above map of Zimbabwe shows the ten (10) provinces of Zimbabwe, were only three (3) comprise of the AmaNdebele. These three provinces are 8, 9 and 3. Province 8 being Bulawayo the capital of the AmaNdebele. Whilst the rest of the seven (7) are the different Shona speaking groups (Ndau, Manyika, Zezuru and Karanga).
Ethnicity is a major constraint to the politics of Zimbabwe as a result the recent resistance by the minority groups like the AmaNdebele towards the hegemonic rule of the Shona- Zezuru mainly, that has lasted for 38 years. Going back to the geographical influence of the ethnic groups, the Shona believe that they are the rightful inhabitants of Zimbabwe, hence why they occupy most of the country and control the politics. The AmaNdebele are seen to have come from the Zulu of South Africa thus they are deemed to be illegitimate to control or influence any politics or political parties according to the Shona.
As a result, of the above, the emergence of political parties can be put under the umbrella of the minority fighting what can be viewed as Gramscian hegemony by the Shona. As inequality in ethnicity does not only affect the politics of Zimbabwe but squashes the voice of the minority groups hence led to the emergence other political parties in Zimbabwe.
Language has been a constraint on the different ethnic groups, as the groups speak different languages (Shona and AmaNdebele). The AmaNdebele and other minority groups for years have felt to be inferior and are disregarded in the country’s domestic policies. The ruling party ZANU-PF addresses the country during national events in Shona, disregarding the existence of other groups not being able to speak the dialect. There has even been the idea of Shona being declared the official language of Zimbabwe, despite the aspect that Zimbabwe is not just made up Shona speaking citizens.
With this in mind, it is seen that language through ethnicity affects the politics of the country by how the Shona see themselves as the hegemonic group and thus have a right to control every aspect of the laws, rights and politics. It is through these unequal grievances seen inn the country that has again led to the political parties of Zimbabwe to be based on what tribe or language you speak to be part of them (Chitiyo.2005). Hence for Zimbabwe political party emergence or existence is not influenced on a coherent ideology but rather on cultural or ethnic backing.
Religion does not necessarily affect the politics of Zimbabwe because firstly Christianity is the major practice in the country. There is also a small percentage of the Africa Traditional Religion (ATR) but this is despite the ethnic group, it is believed that religion is the only aspect that unites the ethnic groups. As it has been seen that they may differ in culture or language, but they believe in the same God, which has recently been used by political leaders to persuade unity.
During the colonial period in Zimbabwe, there was the emergence of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) party in the 1960’s. It was grounded on the task of ending colonialism through the spread of nationalism amongst the different ethnic group present. However it failed in this view, as in the 1970s the Shona speaking group felt inferior under the then leader of ZAPU Joshua Nkomo who was of AmaNdebele descendent. As a result it led to split of the Shona from ZAPU to form their own party Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), political imbalances caused from ethnic tensions have since been assessed.
During this period, it was seen that the leaders of ZANU and ZAPU used ethnicity to their advantage as a way to convey and attract a specific ethnic following through the use of language and culture. The leaders decidedly conveyed ethnicity to prepare the majority. They spoke to ethnic social images, for example it is seen that the panther skins worn by pre-frontier Shona’s and Nguni caps worn by Ndebele indunas, which early patriot pioneers, was worn by the leader of ZANU and ZAPU when addressing the mass.
Notwithstanding, from the mid-1960s onwards, ethnicity turned into a troublesome power in Zimbabwe patriot legislative issues. Ethnic divisions were chiefly caused by initiative situating for the takeover of the state and saw imbalances in political interest by singular patriot pioneers and their supporters. In this tribalism, rather than being an abnormality, turned into a political asset utilized by political on-screen characters at vital circumstances to augment individual power (Thata.2016)
As the ethnic measurements of the crack amongst ZAPU and ZANU extended, ill will and doubt among ZANU and ZAPU pioneers developed, deaths and confinements of political activists from ‘undesirable ethnic or vernacular gatherings’ expanded, and enrollment and battling turned out to be more ethicized and regionalized.
The prevailing freedom developments of ZAPU and ZANU without a doubt attempted to oversee ethnicity inside their associations. Their procedures of overseeing ethnicity included ethnic adjusting in the authority of the gathering. All through the 1970s both ZAPU and ZANU endeavored to manage the issue of ethnicity through ethnic portrayal. ZAPU endeavored to fill its initiative positions with people crosswise over Ndebele, Shona and Kalanga ethnic partitions. In ZANU, specific consideration was paid to accomplishing balance in initiative by having pioneers drawn from the three overwhelming Shona gatherings: Karanga, Manyika and Zezuru (Wafawarova.2015). At the ideological level, patriot associations attempted to manage ethnicity through political talk that disregarded substances of ethnicity for patriot and Marxist radicalism. (Mhlanga.2013).
Regardless of these endeavors, ethnicity kept on showing itself contrarily. Some portion of the issue was the disappointment of these associations to build up a legitimate component to manage the marvel. A portion of the main patriots were additionally not focused on commonsense destruction of ethnicity. They censured ethnicity amid the day yet utilized it by night as a political asset in their own fights for control. Zimbabwe was in this way conceived with an awful birthmark by ethnicity that was to adversely influence any of the efforts towards a national integration.


I'm Owen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out