File talk:Forms of government 2019.svg

 

Nepal (done)

This needs to be updated, Nepal is now a parliamentary republic. —Nightstallion (?) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the map, thanks for reminding me. Jackaranga 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland/Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera (done)

The president of Switzerland has no real power, so this is neither a presidential nor a semi-presidential system, rather a special form of parliamentary system (with a lot of direct democratic elements).--62.216.218.33 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland should be grey, because its a directory system! (the only one at the moment) --83.79.65.175 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Iran (done)

I'd suggest that Iran is a very special case. Although there is a president, directly elected by the people, head of state and head of government, there is another more powerful figure, the Supreme Leader, see [1]. So it is not really a presidential system. --93.104.114.70 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. СЛУЖБА (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

S. Korea (done)

South Korea is presidential republics, full presidential system, because In S.Korea, there exists the prime minister, but prime minister is NOT responsible for the National Assembly, But for the president. And in the Constitution of S.KOREA, the president has an administrative power(authority) BongGon (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some errors (done)

• The UAE is a presidential republic, despite the fact that the president is always from the same family.
• Yemen is a republic, NOT a monarchy.
• Thailand is not a military dictatorship since the new government has been elected. 76.117.247.55 02:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The error still not corrected, Matthew hk (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The UAE is in no way a republic, since only a Monarch can become President, and much of the power belongs to the council comprised of Monarchs. Also, a federation of monarchies can hardly be called a republic. СЛУЖБА (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

German description (done)

The German descripton writes for the dark green color: Countrys in which constitution or government is suspended, while the other languages write military dictatorship. Sure, the are some overlap, but this description caused some confuion in the germen wikipedia.
My suggestion to solve that issue: We create an additional color (grey, for example) which marks countrys with an unclear political situation, especially for the time after a coup d'etat. Green is for the few country with a long-term military dictatorship, like myanmar. Better suggestions?
By the way, it seems that the map ist not very up-to-date (Zimbabwe really a presidential system, although there is a prime minister?)--Antemister (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan (done)

Pakistan should be in orange now, since april 2010 Pakistan move for a Parliamentary republic where president haven't real power any more (see here). Guillaume70 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

niger (done)

Niger should be military dictatorship.

Kyrgyzstan and Guinea (done)

Some changes who occurred in 2010. Kyrgyzstan is now a Parliamentary republic. Guinea's no longer a Military dictatorships but a Presidential republic.--Aréat (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

South Africa

Why the hell is South Africa colored green? Wikipedia says it is a constitutional parliamentary republic

Good question! --93.131.227.3 08:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Lithuania (done)

Lithuania is semi-presidential republic. --Bearas (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan (done)

Please, add South Sudan. Thanks--Sammy pompon (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Turquoise Blue? (done)

There is no descrition for turquoise blue.--79.241.72.220 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Legend (done)

This type of legend is useless. If your language is too down in the list, you are unable to see anything at all. I think the legend should be something like the legend in English with all added langauges up as links for "change language" (this should be coded somehow) so to change the language of the legend (and there should be one lagend only) whenever you like. Tons of lists of legends down the page is not a very wise thing. Whatever it is coded and written in the background in the foreground should be simple to use. --Aleksd (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Would like to submit a new map (done)

Can't seem to suceed posting it by myself, but I created this map : http://i.imgur.com/I3TKm.png --88.174.253.183 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to replace this map with your map, or do you just want to upload your map under a different name? Either way you'll need to create an account here first. Also, in general we prefer that images like this be created in the SVG vector format rather than as PNG images. How does your map differ from the existing map (other than the blue colour for the ocean, I mean)? - Htonl (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Poland (done)

I think Poland is usually counted as a semi-pesidential republic. Can anyone change that? --SnowIsWhite (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the official designation?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an official designation. But in the polish constitution (cf. §134 (1)) it is said that the president is commander in chief of the polish troops, which usually indicates that the political system is not genuinely a parlamentary republic. --SnowIsWhite (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According you said, Poland is parliamentary republic. That is the case with Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia and other orange countries for example. Additionally, the English and Polish Wikipedia articles state the same thing. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The head of government and head of state are 2 different persons. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is elected by parliament and is also responsible to it; thus Poland is parliamentary. --Bahrmatt (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the Prime Minister of Poland is not elected by the Sejm, but it is named by the President. Also, the President of Poland can dissolve the Sejm under certain conditions, but not at the request of the Prime Minister, and can veto laws, which can only be overridden by a tree-fifths majority. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

ImageMap (done)

Why isn't this File an ImageMap? --79.17.248.216 13:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

UAE (done)

United Arab Emarites (UAE)is an absolute monarchy.

no, it is constitutional. --Bahrmatt (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Finland (done)

Finland is still a semipresidential land, although the new constitution of Finland in 2000 mitigated the might of the president. 212.226.75.64 11:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather say it is parliamentary... but this is not uncontroversial. --Bahrmatt (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's true, that the president has some power, but the office is ceremonial. I think, that should be orange--85.23.98.247 16:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Only one olive-colored country? Is this verified?

This graphic is totally outdated. The only country that is olive-colored, is Fiji. Not even Egypt, Libya, Mali or Guinea-Bissau are in this color. Please correct this. Moreover, a question: Is there somewhere a list of sources that verify the colors of the countries? --111Alleskönner (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Paraguay (done)

The Republic of Paraguay adopts as its system of government a representative, participatory, and pluralistic democracy, which is founded on the recognition of human dignity. Paraguay if a Republics with an executive president dependent on a parliament.

Article 225 About Procedures (1) The president of the Republic, the vice president, cabinet ministers, justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, the attorney general, the public defender, the comptroller and the deputy comptroller general of the Republic, and members of the Superior Electoral Court may be forced to undergo impeachment proceedings for malfeasance in office, for crimes committed in office, or for common crimes. (2) The Chamber of Deputies, by a two-thirds majority, will press the respective charges. The Senate, by a two-thirds absolute majority, will conduct a public trial of those charged by the Chamber of Deputies and, if appropriate, will declare them guilty for the sole purpose of removing them from office. In cases in which it appears that common crimes have been committed, the files on the respective impeachment proceedings will be referred to a competent court.

Besides, the Duties and Powers of Congress are, to an annually approve the national general budget law, and approve or to reject treaties or other international agreements signed by the executive branch, to approve or to reject loan agreements, authorize, for a limited period of time, concessions for the exploitation of national or multinational public services or of assets belonging to the State, as well as for the extraction and processing of solid, liquid, or gaseous minerals, to "receive annually from the president of the Republic, at the start of each regular period of sessions, a report on the general situation of the country, on its administration, and government plans", to approve or reject, either partially or totally, after hearing the respective report by the Comptroller General of the Republic, the report on the details and justification of public financial income and expenses related to the implementation of the budget, and many others. http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/pa00000_.html

Excuse my english, I hope you modify the "Forms of government.svg" Regards.

Carlos Flores.-

From what you have posted, that does not sound like the President is dependent on Congress. He is not elected by Congress, and Congress cannot remove him except by a special impeachment process with special supermajorities. The fact that he is required to make a 'state of the nation'-type report does not make him "dependent". The characteristic that defines "President dependent on Parliament" republics is that the President is removed if he loses a confidence vote in Parliament, and therefore that the President can only stay in office as long as his party or coalition has a majority in Parliament. This does not seem to be the case in Paraguay; the system there seems to be very similar to that in the USA, which is the standard example of a presidential system. - Htonl (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"The characteristic that defines "President dependent on Parliament" republics is that the President is removed if he loses a confidence vote in Parliament, and therefore that the President can only stay in office as long as his party or coalition has a majority in Parliament". It's how working in Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, elected President of Paraguay in 2008, was impeached and removed from office by the Congress of Paraguay in June 2012. On 21 June the Chamber of Deputies voted 76 to 1 to impeach Lugo, and the Senate removed him from office the following day, by 39 votes to 4, resulting in Vice President Federico Franco, becoming President.

Background- Lugo was aided by the presence of Federico Franco of the traditional opposition party Authentic Radical Liberal Party (PLRA) on the ticket as Vice Presidential candidate. Lugo's electoral coalition, Patriotic Alliance for Change (APC), was able to elect him as President (gaining 42.3% of the vote, against the second-placed Colorado candidate's 31.8%). However the Liberals and Colorados retained a majority of both houses of Congress. The Liberal Party, initially a member of the Alliance, withdrew in 2009, leaving the Alliance with just a handful of Congressional seats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Fernando_Lugo

Excuse my English. Regards. Carlos Flores.-

Iran (done)

L'iran n'est pas une démocratie, les parties politique n'y sont pas représentés s'est pourquoi je demande que sont statut change pour être mit au même titre que le statut de la chine à s'avoir une république dont la constitution n'accorde le droit à gouverner qu'à un parti unique.

Il n'y a pas un parti unique en Iran. СЛУЖБА (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Suriname (done)

Doesn't Suriname have a President elected by the Parliament? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Suriname#Executive_branch

Presidential republic with Prime Ministers? (done)

In the map, some republics, as South Korea, Mozambique, Namibia, etc., are coloured blue, standing that are "presidential republics". However, these republics have a Prime Minister, when the general rule is that in this system the Head of Government is the same as Head of State (so, the respective President). So, this countries truly have the forms of a semipresidencial regime. Should be recoloured this countries to yellow (semi-presidential republics)? Xarucoponce (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

To be semi-presidential, the prime minister must be appointed from the results of the elections for parliament, rather than to be a post chosen by the president like happens in the United States (Secretary of State post), a full presidential republic. 82.154.137.87 13:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is about dependences and who appoints whom... Mozambique, for instance, is definitively presidential. --Bahrmatt (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

Egypt should be green oder green-yellow striped. --Excolis (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Green is appropriate.--Antemister (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, can someone edit this file? I can't save .svg images strangely. --Excolis (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone really should update the map now. --Excolis (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Norway (done)

I believe that Norway should be marked as an executive constitutional monarchy even though this may not reflect the real political circumstances in modern Norway. At least according to the constitution the Norwegian monarch is still holding massive executive power and influence concerning the formation of government. --Bahrmatt (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitutional_monarchy#Norway --Bahrmatt (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Portugal (done)

Portugal is not a parliamentary republic, but a semi-presidential one. The president has executive powers and appoints the government, has power of veto and can dissolve of the parliament, and also may dismiss the government. Please change the colour to yellow. 82.154.137.87 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

correct. --Bahrmatt (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct, the President holds reserve powers as with any parliamentary republic, but he does not have executive powers as with the president of France. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I know that discussion. Of course, the Portugese president is not that powerful than the French one. But nonetheless he has some executive power (e.g. concerning the army) and he is the person who chooses the prime minister. There is, moreover, a double dependence of the cabinet. So I would argue that Portugal can be seen as semi-presidential. --Bahrmatt (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not semi-presidential at all, any powers that the president holds are exercised on the guidance of parliament. That's no different then any other parliamentary republic. Neither is the president being in charge of the military, most countries have the head of state as the formal commander-in-chief of the forces. The president of Portugal does not take any active role in the day-to-day affairs of the country. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Other people might see things differntly; cf. pages of semipresidentialism.com or uta.fi. It is not only about power but it is about dependences and influence. --Bahrmatt (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

People can disagree all they want, the role of the president in Portugal is not an executive one, it is not semi-presidential. End of story.

While we're at it, next time you edit this map, please make sure you know what countries you're editing. In your most recent edit summary, you claimed you were changing Suriname, but you were actually changing French Guiana. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The majority of law doctrine in Portugal considers the system as being semi-presidential. The Constitution is very clear concerning President's powers, referring both the President and the President of the Assembly are responsible for the ministry. This clarifies what type of Republic is Portugal. I also recommend reading this, if you understand Portuguese: Constituição da República Portuguesa - D.R.E. and also Parte III da Constituição da República: Semipresidencialismo "on probation"? 85.246.216.136 01:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, there are numerous studies about semi-presidentialism of Portugal in Portuguese. It is clearly an evidence about the current regime, and this phenomenon also occurs with France. 85.246.216.136 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Read this: Semi-Presidentialism-Duverger's Concept — A New Political System Model. On this document, Duverger considers the Portuguese and French semi-presidential systems as being 'effective', unlike Austria, Iceland and Ireland, in which, these last ones are considered to be 'apparent'.

And if you are about to say about Finland and France, remember, Finland adopted a new constitution in 2000, making the president less powerful than the parliament. And for France, he considers the President as being 'all-powerful', resembling in some way a presidential system. And you, Canadian with an obsolete system of government, in which has a monarch of British Empire, if academics say it is a semi-presidential system it is because they made evidence on that. You do not know deeply Portuguese Politics to make that type of judgement. B.Lameira (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I call, please, change Portugal's colour to gold. B.Lameira (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, FUCK OFF with your racist bullshit. I don't have to be from Portugal to understand Portugal, and if you're incapable of making your argument for what exactly Portugal's system of government is without having to insult another user, then you really don't have much of an argument at all and am simply grasping for straws.

Second of all, our "obsolete system of government" is one of the most stable out there, and you're hardly one to talk considering the 41 years of dictatorship that Portugal went through under the Estado Novo. Oh I can play this game too! If you want to go there with me, I'll go there with you. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Due to your polite answer, I do not have nothing more to talk with you. Goodbye. B.Lameira (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because I'm supposed to be polite to someone who insults my country for no reason other than because you're angry that someone from another country disagrees with you and your arguments can't stand on it's own. There are a lot of different types of governments out there including monarchies, and whether you think that system is out-dated is really irrelevant. What matters is that the system works for the people, and in the case of my country it has worked and been a stable system of government for 146 years, long before your little republic even existed! Now if you want to discuss this issue of whether Portugal is semi-presidential or not, we can discuss that, but you have to keep your anger and irrelevant insults to yourself. You started this game, I ended it. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This document from Ernst Veser, University of Cologne, Semi-Presidentialism-Duverger's Concept — A New Political System Model regarding Maurice Duverger's work clearly proves that Portugal is a semi-presidential republic alongside with France, being classified as 'effective' unlike Austria, Iceland and Ireland, in which, these last ones are considered to be 'apparent'. Duverger was who firstly proposed the term "semi-presidential". The table shown on this book is very elucidative about the powers of the President of Portugal. B.Lameira (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Portuguese First Republic (1910-1926) was parliamentary, unlike nowadays, the Portuguese Third Republic (there are people who claim as being the Second), from 1976 to present day is semi-presidential. The President takes an active role in the daily affairs of Portugal, such as to appeal laws to the constitutional court, appointing and dismissing the government, dissolving the parliament, plus the cabinet has double dependency from the President and from the President of the Assembly. So Portugal is semi-presidential. B.Lameira (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

How about The government in two semi-presidential systems: France and Portugal in a comparative perspective:

France and Portugal have the same form of semi-presidential government.

Or The 2011 Portuguese Presidential Elections: Incumbency Advantage in Semi-presidentialism?:

The 2011 Portuguese presidential election resulted in a comfortable victory for the incumbent president, Cavaco Silva, an outcome consistent with the notion of substantial incumbency advantages. However, as this article demonstrates, the Portuguese case is part of a broader pattern, with semi-presidentialism in post-war Western Europe generating a considerable pro-incumbency bias in presidential elections.

Or Between Constitutional Diffusion and Local Politics: Semi-Presidentialism in Portuguese-Speaking Countries. Or Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Or Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types And Democratic Performance:

The list of countries includes cases that almost everyone would agree to be semi-presidential, including France, Lithuania, Poland, and Portugal.

I could go on. - Htonl (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be solid consensus and accredited sources on the matter. Simply voting for a president does not make you a presidential system of government, just look at Germany. Until there is such consensus, the map will stay the way it is. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Solid consensus? It seems like everyone except you agrees that it's semi-presidential. And I said nothing about "voting for a president"; I linked a number of political science papers and books all describing Portugal as semi-presidential. They're certainly more "accredited" than your uncited assertions. Do you have any sources that describe Portugal as a parliamentary republic? - Htonl (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh you mean just saying "I'm Portuguese, I know what my country's system is!"? I've tried to discuss this and so far all I've received in response is either the above exclamation, the progression of it into insults and a rather xenophobic claim that users from other countries couldn't possibly know better than a Portuguese user, and scholarly papers about the matter. No solid accredited or governmental sources have been provided, and for that reason there really is no actual proof that Portugal is semi-presidential. It certainly doesn't follow the model of semi-presidentialism as currently understood, and while there may be a "lusophone brand of semi-presidentialism", that's not an actual conclusion but rather a theory. I have no problem with Portugal being a semi-presidential country if that's actually what it is, so far there's nothing convincing of that. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well of course I refer to scholarly papers. This type of classification of types of government is something produced by political scientists, and political science is a scholarly discipline. Political science papers are *exactly* where you're going to find classifications of types of government. If you're going to continue reverting to a version that says Portugal is a parliamentary republic, can you show me an example of "solid accredited or governmental sources" that call it a parliamentary republic? I mean, in the reverse of your statement, I also don't mind showing Portugal as a parliamentary republic if it is one, but at the moment all the sources in this discussion call it semi-presidential. - Htonl (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Both the CIA and EUfactsheets considers it strictly parliamentary, whereas countrystudies.us considers it a "dual presidential-parliamentary system" which would mean the country can not actually be classified as either without also being the other. Civitas also calls it a "presidential parliamentary democracy". In these cases of ambiguity, the real test is the powers and authority of the president. Does the president have the powers normally entrusted in an executive position, or do they hold reserve powers a more in common with a strictly parliamentary style of government. True, the president can dissolve parliament, appoint ministers and veto laws, but that's common in parliamentary systems and are almost only ever used at the request of the prime minister. The president does not however take on a role similar to that of France, forming foreign (and to some extent domestic) policy, commanding the armed forces on sole authority rather then in trust of the minister of defence, or take an active day-to-day role in the administration of government. As I said, Portugal does not follow the model of semi-presidentialism as currently understood and for that reason simply debating the matter in scholarly isn't enough. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989 is a troll. He doesn´t understand politics systems. In Portugal the President has the power to dissolve the Parliament. When he does this, the government is dismissed. In parliamentary system, the president is elected by the parliament. In Portugal as in France there are elections for the president. In Portugal the president is elected for 5 years and is the supreme chief of the army. The president of the parliament is elected by the members of parliament and is the most important person after the president of republic. Only the government has executive power.

Between 1911-1926 the I Republic was a parliamentary system. Since 1976, Portugal is a SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL REPUBLIC. Ramalho Eanes was the first president elected by the people. The president has the mission to respect and to make the government respect the Constitution. If some law is not constitutional the president has the power to veto that law.

Fry1989 is not only a troll, but stupid. The articles about semi-presidencial system says this: Portugal has a semi-presidential system.

I am tired to fix the map because of the stupidity of Fry1989 that thinks he knows better than others.

Do you want a solid source? I AM a solid source! I am Portuguese, I studied History, so I know what I'm saying!

Because of the continued edit warring, insults, and lack of true sources ("I'm Portuguese so I know what my country is" doesn't count), I have requested this file be protected. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The one who don't give any true sources is you! So you are very very stupid and a troll! Hey troll, read the article "Politics of Portugal". Can you read Portuguese? Read this: http://www.presidencia.pt/?idc=1 and take your conclusions. No, wait, you can't since you don't understand what is there... Only the I Republic was a really parliamentary republic! What age are you? 24? I am older than you and I know my country better than you! Your attitude is a troll attitude. End of story.

Ó tontinho, e se te acalmasses — não fazias bem? E, já agora, assina as postas (assim: "~~~~"), que o anonimato não ajuda à discussão. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is in English, so use the same language. Be polite. Ovigilante (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Wikimedia Commons is multilingual. Everybody is free to use whatever language. Jcb (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Because Ovigilante knows so much about being polite, calling people stupid and arrogant and trolls. And Jcb, I thought you said you were uninvolved! You seem involved enough to meddle around here, and to arbitrarily close my AN for those personal attacks twice! Fry1989 ^eh? 20:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Hi, Czech Republic isn't parliamentary republic, but semi-presidental republic. [2] Please correct it, thanks :) --Human. (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because the President is directly elected by universal suffrage? It is a bit unreasonable. Then we would had to consider countries like Austria, Finland, Iceland and Ireland as being also semi-presidential. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Zimbabwe is outdated (done)

The Constitution was amended to abolish the post of Prime Minister, a change taking effect in September 2013. So Zimbabwe is a presidential republic, and should be blue on the map. Dralwik (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine

I know this topic will be debatable; wouldn´t green be a feasible colour for Ukraine? Please also update Egypt if you have opened the file already. --Friedrichson1717 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Green meaning "Republics with an executive president dependent on a parliament"? No. The system denoted there (the one seen in Botswana and South Africa) is one in which the President is elected by an ordinary majority of the legislature and can similarly be removed by a motion of no confidence voted by an ordinary majority of the legislature. (That is, he depends on the "confidence of Parliament" to maintain his position.) The President of Ukraine can only be removed by impeachment proceedings, which require ultimately a three-quarters vote of the legislature to remove him. - Htonl (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lithuania is semi-presidental republic (done)

Lithuania is shown as parliamentary republic, but it's semi-presidental republic. --78.141.96.194 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the change made in Lithuania and I agree, and even more after reading the source indicated "Parliamentary republic" in the country's infobox, which content had a different information from the stated in the article. So, I encourage you to go even further and change that also in the related articles. -- B.Lameira (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia

The lower part of the Malay Peninsula is a part of the Kingdom of Malaysia. It is not part of Thailand. Please change its color to match East Malaysia (North Borneo). 75.80.145.53 20:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Malaysia is not under military rule. --Excolis (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed --Paul_012 (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Slovenia and Croatia

Slovenia and Croatia are a semi-presidential republics. Please change they (from orange to yellow). --95.244.131.59 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Liks

• Croatia
• Slovenia

You can look that they are semi-presidentials. --95.244.131.59 11:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Portugal is a Parliamentary republic (not done)

The President has mostly ceremonial powers. He has NO VETO power over legislation. He can only delay it; if the Parliament confirms its previous voting, he is forced to sign it. He can only dismiss the government after meeting with the State Council. The Constitution implies that he shall form a government out of the most voted party.

Sources: Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.241.191 (talk • contribs)

And you know that the State Council has no real power? And if he is so powerless, why he can dismiss the government and parliament without real restrictions? "Shall form a government out from the most voted party": you know that he is not forced, right? He can actually arrange a government that reassures him it's more stable, of course he cannot make it without consenting from the parties. No veto power? You know that if it's an organic law, it can only be approved by 2/3 of parliament, in case of veto. --B.Lameira (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Besides, Portugal's article states "semi-presidential" with sources. See earlier topic, done and solved. --B.Lameira (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Tonga

Tonga is currently coloured pink (constitutional monarchy in which Parliament has limited powers). I would argue it should be coloured red (parliamentary monarchy). The reforms introduced in 2010 brought in a principle of responsible government. The King now acts on the advice of a Prime Minister chosen by Parliament and dependent on a parliamentary majority. Aridd (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Tunisia and Ukraine (done)

Hello,

I think Tunisia should be in orange now.

And may be Ukraine too ? It's not clear for it: in the Wikipedia in English it's written "Unitary semi-presidential constitutional republic" but we can read later "mixed semi-parliamentary semi-presidential system", in the Wikipedia in French it's "République parlementaire", in Ukrainian it's "Parlamentary-Presidential Republic", ...

What do you think about that?

Sémhur (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

By constitutional reforms, Tunisia and Ukraine have moved from semi-presidential system to a parliamentary system. It should therefore change colors. Thank you. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Done for Tunisia. For Ukraine, as it is still a semi-presidential republic (and also semi-parlamentary, but no color exists for that), I keep yellow. Sémhur (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing president-parliamentary system with semi-presidential system (it is only a subtype of the latter) and premier-presidential system with parliamentary system, because the president still has considerable powers, and is independent from legislature. And in Ukraine, the president still has the right to choose some ministers, of his own choice. And it was added on w:Parliamentary republic article that in Tunisia the president is elected by parliament, which is not the case. There were held presidential elections in Tunisia on 2014, so, from I have read from political scientists, it seems both countries have moved from a president-parliamentary system to a premier-presidential system (both semi-presidential). ---B.Lameira (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Iran

Hello, in my opinion the colour of Iran should be changed as Iran is not a presidential system as we know it, for instance, from the US. The colour should better be grey, I suppose: The Iran has an unique system which does not fit in any of the other categories very properly. Certainly, there is a directly elected person called "president", and this person is also head of the cabinet/government. But the Iranian president is not simultaneously the head of state since this is the Supreme leader of Iran. In addition, the Iranian president has a rather high dependence on the latter in practice. Nonetheless Iran is not having a semi-presidential or even parliamentary system neither: The Supreme leader is not elected by the citizens (directly). There is no formal dependence of the cabinet on the parliament. And the president is not chosen by the Supreme leader (although there is kind of a theocratic pre-selection). Instead, he has a direct, democratic legitimation. I would highly appreciate if you agree with this train of thoughts and if someone changes the file accordingly. Thank you very much in advance! (PS: This discussion was (re-)initated at de:Diskussion:Militärdiktatur.) With kindest regards, --Bahrmatt (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Switzerland

Why not add a category for Switzerland. The form is a directorial system. Anybody can add a color for this (or change the definition of grey)? --Uzu2009 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the change of colour to grey has been done. It could be wise to create a specific colour for the directorial system, but I am not sure of which colour should be used. --B.Lameira (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed colour change

Somebody came here and has decided to change colours used on this image, without discussing or even giving a valid reason to do it. That user has also decided to revert my edits simply to upload his liked colours, while being inaccurate about some countries. This is on the fringe of vandalism. --B.Lameira (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Plus, using blue in the mixed presidential-parliamentary systems gives the impression that the presidency is independent from legislature, which is not the case. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Österreich / Austria

Österreich hat seit 1929 ein semipräsidentielles Regierungssystem und muss demnach gelb sein. / Austria has got a semi presidential system (like France) since 1929 and must be yellow. --Universal-Interessierter (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

While this may be true by constitutional powers, actual practice is of a head of state who only exercises their powers on the advice of the Federal Chancellor and acts like if was the president of a standard parliamentary republic. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@B.Lameira Wikipedia is based on sources. Robert Elgie (academic) presents Austria as a semi-presidential system. I would therefore argue in favour of adapting the map for the following countries: http://www.semipresidentialism.com/?p=1053

--Kiepski1 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

green color too similar in Parliamentary republics and Single-party state

green color too similar in Parliamentary republics and Single-party state. 69.58.42.90 22:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Western Sahara

The Western Sahara is shown as a one-party state here. However the en:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (in which Polisario is the constitutional ruling party 'until the completion of national sovereignity', after which it would transfer into a multiparty democracy) controls a small part of the Western Sahara. So I think this colour is a little misleading. Perhaps grey is a better choice. Bever (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Turkey

Isn't Turkey semi-presidential now? John K (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Now with the vote this Sunday, it's going to be full presidential. The map needs to be updated.--Beneficii (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposed law has passed, the next government will be a presidental one, so till the elections, the current government is a parliamentary republic.--❣Paseyn ^msg 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In 2019, the position of Prime Minister will be abolished. But before that, the enlarged powers of the president who can now lead a party and become a member of it have entered into force. As well as the right to appoint judges, university rectors, etc. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't make it Presidential system. Yes the president can now be a party leader, this doesn't change the fact that the form of government is Parliamentary republic.--❣Paseyn ^msg 21:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

In no country in the world, a ceremonial president heads the ruling party. On the other hand, we can put in a semi-presidential election until 2019. But it should be noted that the map reflects the de facto aspect and not de jure. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The map is trying to inform people about the current form of government, just that. So please stop vandalisng it.-❣Paseyn ^msg 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You have no lesson to give and what you propose is wrong and it is pov pushing I have been here since 2013. You need to know the definition of parliamentary system and it is not. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@John K: --Panam2014 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beneficii: --Panam2014 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Finland

Finland should be orange, as it is no more semi-presidential. Since 2000, it has been a parliamentary republic.--194.30.48.183 09:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Venezuela

@Jackaranga: Hello, on the one hand president Maduro is elected democratically. But on the other hand Venezuela is an one-party state in the meanwhile because of the disempowerment of the Venezuelan parliament and the unconstitutional summoning of a constituent assembly in which only socialists are allowed to take part and which outranks Maduro. Moreover polls show that the majority of the Venezuelans are against him, and de iure the parliament has already degraded him (in line with art. 233 of the constitution). Isn't it more apposite to mark Venezuela as an dictatorial one-party state (brown) than an republican presidential system (blue)? --Frīheidasliova (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as a (new) constitution does not define Venezuela a single-party state, she isn't one in the sense of that image. However, it would be appropriate to change the color to grey, describing an unclear political situation that has emerged from the elections of the constituent assembly bypassing the regular parliament.--Antemister (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That is the least, I think. --Frīheidasliova (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's expect for what the new drafted constitution will define; by the time it enters into force we will see what sort of constitutional arrangement this country will have. --B.Lameira (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No. 12 countries in Latin America, the United States, Canada and the EU consider that the "Constitutional Assembly" is illegitimate, yet it holds absolute power in the country de facto. It was also formed outside of the constitution. The situation is as Antemister and Frīheidasliova say - at least unclear, but definitely not blue. I am reverting to the version with the olive green, as the constitutional provisions for government have effectively been suspended as the constitutional assembly has powers that supedit those of the constitution. If you want to change it back, provide a better reason than what you have so far. --aangulo1985 (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, this chart does not aim to represent the de facto degree of democracy, but countries de jure constitutional form. There is nothing in the Constituent Assembly that suspends the Constitution of 1999 in force. The appropriate colour would even be grey rather than olive. You don't have consensus, in order to produce that change, it is an unilateral change made by you. --B.Lameira (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Poland

According to the Constitution Poland is parliamentary state but not semi-presidential. --5.172.232.243 20:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A question: parliamentary rather than semi-presidential on which grounds? The term semi-presidential is 'coined' by political scientists. Constitutions are primary source, first of all. You will not find any constitution stating this term. And the Polish president is certainly more relevant in daily politics than the Presidents of Germany and Italy. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Poland is and always must be parliamentary republic as on Polish Wikipedia according, political science is lying. --37.248.157.200 10:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Perú

Con respecto al sistema de gobierno peruano hay un error, ya que el país es presidencialista y no semipresidencialista como se lo señala la imagen; en el país no existe el cargo de primer ministro, lo que existe es el cargo de presidente del consejo de ministros, cuyas funciones son muy distintas a las que desempeña un primer ministro. Atte.John PC (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No hay ningún error, Perú es semipresidencialista porqué el gabinete puede recibir votos de censura, qué en caso de suceso destituyen el ejecutivo (gabinete). Hay otros países en que lo jefe de estado es también el jefe de gobierno, como el Sri Lanka. Shugart y Elgie clasifican Perú cómo semipresidencial, qué es la excepción en América Latina, dónde el régimen presidencialista es predominante. La cita de Shugart puede ser consultada aquí: Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive And Mixed Authority Patterns --B.Lameira (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Para que sea considerado así, de acuerdo a la misma definición del artículo sobre Semipresidencialismo; debe existir el cargo de Primer Ministro, y como tal en el Perú no existe dicho cargo.John PC (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Turkey (Presidential system)

Turkey is now a presidential republic, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_presidential_election,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprus (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Iran (Presidential system?)

Iran is a totalitarian theocracy, led by the Supreme Leader, the President of Iran Rouhani is not the supreme leader who really led the nation.Marxistfounder (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The colors seem randomly assigned

Currently, the colors seem randomly assigned. Similar systems should have similar colors. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.104.252 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Iran

you should make a new category Theocratic Islamic Republic everyone calls it a unique questionable system 5.75.18.166 09:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Better grey, as you say it is a unique system.--Antemister (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela

As there are currently two internationally recognised presidents (Madure and Guaidó) and the current legal status of its parliament and the "constitutional assembly" installed by Maduro is not clear, the colour of that country should changed to grey. --217.239.10.53 15:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not really. Both Maduro and Guaidó claim to act within the same instititional frame. Guaidó didn’t claim new powers, hesees himself as the acting President within the current law; Maduro rejects this claim but not the legislation that supports it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Suriname: parliamentary or presidential republic?

Hi, I see Suriname has been discussed before, but if you go to the English Wikipedia article the infobox refers to it as a presidential republic. So I'm confused, is it a parliamentary republic, with an executive president, or a presidential republic? Brenton (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Extra categories of republic

I've been editing this file, making some changes mostly for my own personal use (e.g. adding the legend into the file so I do not have to keep referring back to the legend as it appears on Wikipedia/Commons), but I realized that it might be helpful to others for the following changes to be made to the file stored on Commons:

1. Directorial republics (San Marino, Switzerland) given their own colour, instead of sharing the green colour of parliamentary systems with an executive president.

2. Semi-presidential republics split into two distinct categories (and hence shaded with two distinct colours): premier-presidential (e.g. France, Algeria, DRC, etc.) and presidential-parliamentary (e.g. Russia, Mozambique, Taiwan, etc.).

Are these changes that the rest of you will be happy with? If you would like to see my own copy of this file (which shows this change and the others I've made for my own personal use) here it is — https://gist.github.com/fusion809/34a9d9d5027ef808fd2c7b88b77a6939. Fuse809 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that the distinctions on the map as it is right now are not fine enough. As a Portuguese who follows international current affairs, I know well that my country’s political system and that of France are significantly different, in terms of the roles of the President and of the Prime Minister (and his/her Cabinet) and was disappointed to see these two countries in the same color. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Great, I do have one issue though. I couldn't figure out how to change the colours in the original file in a text editor (the only item I could figure out how to change the colour of was San Marino, the whenever I tried editing the colour of Switzerland I inadvertently changed the colour of Cameroon), I could only figure out how to do so in Inkscape. The editors note said that it should be edited in a text editor. Here's the version of the map I made in Inkscape with the only change being in the colours of the relevant countries — https://gist.github.com/fusion809/48b3aca0e5d278fca8b485290a748816. Fuse809 (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’ll have a look. Separate country polygons (CM and CH or any other pair) should not be linked in that way, but some mistake might have crept in. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Na, mate, I meant I changed the colour of Cameroon's polygon, not Switzerland's, when I meant to change Switzerland's. It wasn't a matter of me changing both when I just meant to change Switzerland's, I only changed Cameroon's, but meant to change Switzerland's. I searched for "Switzerland" in the file in a text editor, under where the only match was found (I think it was in a comment), I saw the fill: (i.e. colour fill) option and changed the colour after it to the colour I wanted to assign the directorial republics (the cyan colour), and all that did was change the colour of Cameroon's polygon, even though I thought, as it was under the only match for Switzerland I found, it was for Switzerland. Thanks for trying to help with this, I do appreciate it. Fuse809 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

For some reason gist isn't properly rendering my copy of this map any more, so to the see the latest version of it (incorporating the latest changes to this file, including the change in Austria's colouring) see https://github.com/fusion809/docs/blob/master/Forms_of_government_(colour_change).svg. Fuse809 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem of such split is from my point of view that the map becomes of course more precise, but also more crowded. Most introductions refer to these three system - UK, US, France -, often stating that the semipresidentiell one is a less clear model, as many different types of mixed systems are subsumed by that expression, and for people without that background, the map becomes increasingly difficult to read. Probably a second map, showing that various types of mixed systems, might be more purposeful.--Antemister (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Must admit, I don't think it's crowded at all, as we use colours, not text on the map to describe the various systems. The legend is separate and it isn't crowded either IMO. But if we get someone to second your motion, and no one else supports my/Tuvalkin's position, then it seems reasonable to implement your suggestion. Fuse809 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

New/old map

Hi User:Tuvalkin, have you gotten round to seeing if you can implement the suggested changes using a text editor? I see you've been active on Commons since your last reply, which was a fortnight ago. If you have not found a way to edit it this way then, I suppose, maybe following User:Antemister's suggestion might be prudent. Namely, creating a separate file with the desired changes made to it. Such a file, I suggest, should not have the requirement that all edits be made using a text editor, because it is simply unworkable and frankly, I don't understand why it is necessary, it doesn't seem to expand the size of the file to any significant extent to use Inkscape, nor does it stuff the file up in any noticeable way. Fuse809 (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Fuse809: SVG files are editable as plain text, period. This might or might no be less simple than other, I don’t know, but, after the envolvement I had one forthnight ago, I did read this talk page and was reminded of the seething mess its contribution history is (including my own apport back a few years ago). This is not how things should be done in Commons — if there’s such big disagreement about the extraneous aspect of a map, then those should be discussed elsewhere (any of of Wikipedias’ talk pages of articles using this map, maybe) and leave for this talk page only discussion about the image itself. So, I’m out. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• In that spirit, I took a look at the SVG code of the current version (as of 2019-04-13 13:12:06), and I found out that:

1. this file have been edited in Inkscape at least once in the past;
2. the CSS section of this file was prepared for easily changing the forms of government of a given territory, and even the color associated with each form of government (which is how SVG files like this one should always be set up); and
3. that the functionality 2 above is not working, probably due to the event 1 above.

I will try to fix that. (But I’m still saying that any map about forms of government that shows Portugal in the same color as France and Russia instead of the same color of, say, Iceland — that’s a useless map, regardless of what others may com up with.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Working on it. This file was kept clean only from 2015.01.24 10:01:42 (@Paul 012: yay!) to 2015.02.02. 21:48:27, when it was edited manually in Inkspape, thereby inserting style declarations for all polygons, overriding the CSS section. I’m undoing that now and will blindly implement what’s on en:List of countries by system of government — everybody’s welcome to discuss there. I’ll request protection for this file so that only admins can edit it, and those should only do so when consensus arised in the talk page of en:List of countries by system of government (admins are expected to know how to edit an SVG file fource as text). Should other Wikipadias arrive to divergent consensus (which is strange, since varying languages doesn’t alter reality, but still), this map should be forked to serve that. Wikimedia Commons file talk page should talk about files, not editorialize on content. And ayone who can open a file in Inkspace but not in a text editor should get their act together. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Great, good to hear you're onto it. I normally would be able to edit it as plain text, but it seems as you said (correct me if I interpreted what you wrote wrong), a previous Inkscape edit has made this less easy. I have edited them before, so I was surprised when it was more difficult to with this file. I was going to edit that article to move San Marino to the directorial section, but I couldn't find a decent source that classifies it as such, even though Wikipedia does (in its infobox), so I opted not to. Fuse809 (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, after the fist time this was edited just once in Inkscape (feb.2015) the CSS classes info (meant to make it easier and safer to edit the maps) were rendered useless because each polygon got its color “frozen” by local style declarations (this is done automaticly and sort of unavoidingly by Inkscape), which overrode the CSS info at the beggening of the document. I removed all those lines now and I’ll be further cleaning it up. I’m matching each individual country to their classification in en:wp, making use of said CSS class declarations, and after I upload the modified map everybody else will be able to — but, as said, this better be discussed in wp and kept locked for admin edits only. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I finished revamping the map using the criteria of the English Wikipedia, gathered from the following:

• en:Presidential system#Republics with a presidential system of government
• en:Presidential system#Presidential systems with a prime minister
• en:Presidential system#Presidential systems with a theocratic supreme leader
• en:Semi-presidential_system#President-parliamentary_systems
• en:Semi-presidential_system#Premier-presidential_systems
• en:Parliamentary_republic#List_of_modern_parliamentary_republics (considering both lists in separate)
• en:Constitutional_monarchy#List_of_current_constitutional_monarchies
• en:Absolute_monarchy#Current_absolute_monarchies
• en:One-party_state#Current_one-party_states

However there seems to be a few inconsistencies, regarding countries that show up more than once in these lists and other which are lacking. Since a map should be both illustrative in itself and agree with the text it’s purported to illustrate, another approach is needed: Therefore I’m recreating the whole thing based on the list at en:List of countries by system of government#List of countries — of course this should agree with the above, but that’s not Commons’ concern. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tuválkin: I thought you were going to change the colour of president-parliamentary systems (like Portugal and Russia) to a distinct colour, to distinguish it from premier-presidential systems and also use a distinct colour for directorial republics, as was discussed. Your latest upload did not do this; so are you planning on doing this in the future? Fuse809 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• After I had almost given up, I was very clear about what I was ready to do and what I think it should be done: We must keep the content discussion in Wikipedia(s) and focus here on the image itself. It had been severely borked in the past and I fixed it two years later, that’s all. I still think Portugal should orange or maybe the whole should be more clear and/or detailed, but I’m not having this discussion in here. Thanks to this kind of reckless editorializing and POV pushing we arrived to a sad state of messiness: We still have on this page a few dozen translations of the legend (translated using two different methods!), with colors fell off synch or even plain wrong, not to mention free spamming in favour of Freedom House. That’s what we need to clean up in Commons, to make sure this map is useful for any reuser and doesn’t confuse the Wikipedia articles it’s used to illustrate. Lets discuss the classification system of government forms and which contries belong under each in Wikipedia instead. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• And with today’s new uploads were’re back at the old ways. @Fuse809: Better revert now and go discuss in Wikipedia, if you wanna do this properly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I might revert if I knew what I did wrong. I implemented the changes this was all about (separating directorial republics from parliamentary systems with an executive presidency and premier-presidential from president-parliamentary republics). I implemented them based on the article you based the rest of the file on. I also used my text editor to implement them (instead of Inkscape), I also fixed an issue I think you inadvertently introduced wherein there was a blue polygon on top of Somalia which did not correspond to any separate country. I also coloured Burundi blue (also based on that article you wikilinked), even though you seem to have forgotten to give it any colour. Oh and finally, I also restored the separate colouring given to military dictatorships (which I don't know why you abolished w.r.t. to Thailand and Sudan, both were mentioned in the wikilinked article as military dictatorships, after all). Fuse809 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, no such modifications on that often-used map without I sound database behind.--Antemister (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, but now you've reverted it to a version wherein Burundi is without colour and that xs path is overlapping Somalia, two things I fixed in my edits. Are you planning on just leaving it that way? As I cannot upload a new version over it now. Fuse809 (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Somaliland is listed in the wp:en — discuss is there if you think is should not be listed/mapped. The Burundi error is queued to be fixed at Commons:Requested updates to protected images. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Iran change?

I don't think Iran should be blue. There's a separate head of state (the Supreme Leader) from the elected president. It's different from e.g. US, Turkey or Afghanistan, which are all true presidential republics. What does everyone think of this?

• Something akin to the VAtican, then? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Austria

Hi User:Mh26, the English Wiki article on Austria describes it as a parliamentary republic and given the page on the president on Austria describes them as practically a mostly symbolic figurehead, even though their constitution theoretically grants them broad powers, it sounds accurate to describe it as a parliamentary republic. It is sort of like Australia and the fact our constitution gives the Governor-General (GG) broad executive authority, even though in reality the GG is more a figurehead as they mostly just follow the advice of elected officials and that is why we're described as a democracy, even though the GG isn't elected and is the Queen's representative. Brenton (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

In Austria, the government is not even elected by the parliament, but solely appointed by the president. But that is not relevant in practice. After election, the head of the largest party seeks to form a coalition government, which is afterwards appointed by the president. After that, the goverment can be dismissed by the president, or resign after a lost vote of confidence. Up to know, no president ever refused to appoint a government backed by parliament nor did he dismiss it. Formally, this is a clearly semipresidential government, but many source, as that article, ignores that, as, unlike to other semipresidenital systems, the president is as ceremonial as parliamentary republics.--Antemister (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, so are you in favour of the change made to the file (colouring Austria as a semi-presidential system) or against it? Personally, I think if it functions as a parliamentary republic day-to-day, it is a parliamentary republic. As if we only look at what the constitution of a country literally says it'd make us perhaps have to reclassify Commonwealth realms as more of a dual system constitutional monarchy (with significant power still vested in the monarch), given the great powers of the monarch/their representatives. Brenton (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Austria's form of government is a representative (or parliamentary) democracy (see the website of the Austrian parliament [3]) with aspects of a semi-presidential system ([4]). That corresponds to the article about Austria in the German language Wikipedia (see 'Regierungssystem' in the Infobox) although the text of the article is not very precise regarding this aspect. --Mh26 (talk)

The World Factbook also classifies Austria as a parliamentary and not a semi-presidential system — https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/299.html#AU. If we classify it as a semi-presidential system, then the specific subtype is presidential-parliamentary, putting it in the same boat as the Weimar Republic, Portugal and Russia, as the president is able to unilaterally dismiss the head of government (Chancellor), as is the parliament (by a vote of no confidence). So if, per the above section wherein we're discussing splitting semi-presidential into two separate categories, it'd be coloured differently to the premier-presidential systems like France. Brenton (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Brenton: Yes, Austria should colored as semipresidential. @Mh26: You should not read "parliamentary democracy" in German texts (or texts translated from German) as "parliamentary system of government", but rather as a synonom to "representative democracy" or even a tautological amplification for "democracy", like "liberal democracy". (I am german, years ago I created a disambiguation page at de:Parlamentarische Demokratie, making such attributions in such superficial texts very doubtful. Anyway, such a maps makes only sence if the countries are grouped strictly according to constitional provision, not according the actual government workflow. How many of the African or Asian countries do really have an elaborated political system, with a responsible government bound to a well-defined constitional framework?--Antemister (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Stil very few, but all of them are classified with the same colors als European nations.--Antemister (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

But looking purely at the constitution would also mean that Commonwealth realms would not longer have a weak monarch, as their constitutions often give the monarch/their representative broad executive power. Like, if you look at the Australian Constitution the Governor-General has pretty much the same powers as the US President, even though they're merely a representative of the monarch, not an elected official and in practice they almost exclusively act on the advice of elected officials. So, solely basing the system on government designations in this map on what is written in the constitution would make Commonwealth realms more akin to a dual system constitutional monarchy. It is therefore difficult to know where to draw the line here. I take your point that in Africa things often work quite differently to what is written in the constitution (i.e. most are not really democracies, not even flawed democracies, most are more like overt authoritarian regimes). Brenton (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

the question of the UK and their Commonwealth Realm might be tricky in theory, as there is no written constitution defining the meaning of the term. "Advice" had actually always been understood as "order", making it clear the the Australian Governor-General cannot act without consent the elected government.--Antemister (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely true, the Governor-General has dismissed the government and dissolved the parliament without the consent of the elected government before, see The Dismissal. It's just commonly understood that they won't, except in exceptional circumstances. Brenton (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mixed Parliamentary Systen

Regarding the dark green countries, I do have severe doubts for years: Are there textbooks that show such a category? Otherwise, I would regard that as rather original research - several countries that cannot be grouped extactly can be found here.--Antemister (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by mixed parliamentary systems? Do you mean parliamentary systems with an executive presidency? (e.g. South Africa, Botswana, Suriname, etc.). If so, what's wrong with it, it is descriptive as that is precisely the system these countries have. Most parliamentary systems have a non-executive presidency and an executive prime minister/chancellor and cabinet, it seems relevant when the role of president and PM are fused into one position called president, but unlike in a full presidential system the president is dependent on the legislature (elected by it and held accountable to it). This system's colouring is not what I'd describe as dark green, so if what you mean is countries where constitutional provisions for government have been suspended (e.g. military dictatorships like Sudan and Thailand) then I think that's an equally valid category. Brenton (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, what is the actual difference between a parliamentary system with an additional ceremonial president and one without? Of course, the latter variant is rare, but what consequences does it have on the political process? That is the same if a solely presidential system has an additional prime minister that is solely dependent of the president (also such systems exist). I actually mean the color of South Africa, Botswana etc., had your modifications above on the screen when writing that. Anyway, also an addition to the other green, "countries where constitutional provisions for government have been suspended (e.g. military dictatorships)" as from my POV a exagerated technical term, a simple "military dictatorships" is sufficient, as who else could suspend the constitution?--Antemister (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mate, let's keep the replies clearly separated by indentation (say two colons (for indentation) for me, three for you), so that it's easier to see which reply belongs to whom. As for military dictatorship green (or dark lime, not sure the precise term), well I didn't set it up, so I don't know, but it's descriptive of the precise political situation, as it acknowledges that these systems probably have a different system of government usually, but their constitutional provisions for normal government have been suspended (but may be reinstated). Secondly, well a president from what I understand is often not a member of the legislature, regardless of whether they're executive or not, so I'd imagine the president has less ability to initiate change than a PM/Chancellor, but more than a purely ceremonial president. A "solely presidential system" with an additional PM doesn't exist, what you're describing isn't solely presidential, it'd be semi-presidential, e.g. Russia. Although in those systems the PM isn't solely dependent on the president, they are also dependent on the legislature (i.e. they can be voted out with a vote of no confidence). Not sure, but I also think an executive president in parliamentary systems may not have the ability to dissolve the legislature either (can't find any references to such a power in the president of Botswana and South Africa articles, also cannot find it in their parliament and national assembly articles), while a ceremonial president often can.

"I actually mean the color of South Africa, Botswana etc., had your modifications above on the screen when writing that." is a sentence I cannot fully follow, care to elaborate? Brenton (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The question to which degree a president can initiate legislation by ihimself has little to do with the system of government itself, but subject to the single constitution. There as political systems that are presidential and have a prime minister, e. g. Argentina and Rwanda. But these prime ministers might be called prime minister but cannot be regarded as a subject of constitution. They are, like other government ministers appointed by the president, serving only as a primus inter pares while leading cabinet meetings. "I actually mean the color of South Africa, Botswana etc., had your modifications above on the screen when writing that." I thought about that file[5].--Antemister (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The link you linked is dead. I had forgotten about Argentina and those with a most bizarre prime minister, one with relatively minimal power. Thanks for reminding me. Although, regardless in most systems with a ceremonial president or a ceremonial/figurehead monarch/their representative as head of state have a PM that is in the legislature and is able to cast their vote in favour of the legislation and as most of the time the other members of their party vote the same way as the leader of the party, that is, the PM, they're more able to effect changes in legislation. Brenton (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Senegal

Hi

In Senegal, the office of PM have been abolished, so the system is now presidential. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sudan as provisional government/ military

Sudan is now under military junta @User:jdx can an update on Sudan be done? they are now currently in transitional status, not presidential system. WeifengYang (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@WeifengYang: Please prepare updated version and upload it under a temporary name. I will move it into the proper place. --jdx ^Re: 05:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hungary

The Parliament of Hungary has effectively suspended its own powers and given the government nearly unlimited rights to rule by decree, meaning that Hungary can no longer be considered to be a parliamentary republic. The color should be changed to dark green. See [6] -- MX8 ^talk 22:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Guyana

According to List of countries by system of government, Guyana is a presidential system with a prime minister, not a parliamentary republic with an executive presidency elected by the legislature. Unless that article is in error, this map needs to be edited to reflect this. ZFT (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Special Region of Yogyakarta

Hello, maybe we should make an adjustment to Indonesia or more specially the Special Region of Yogyakarta. It is still a monarchy which doesn't make Indonesia a full presidential republic in my opinion. --Emil Engler (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Precedent for the term "semi-constitutional"

Where is there any precedent in a publication for the term "semi-constitutional"? --ByronicPhoenix (talk) 7:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

UAE

UAE is a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one. It's governance system is Federal elective constitutional monarchy

• Stewart, Dona J. (2013) The Middle East Today: Political, Geographical and Cultural Perspectives, London and New York: Routledge, p. 155 ISBN: 978-0415782432.
• Day, Alan John (1996) Political Parties of The World, Stockton, p. 599 ISBN: 1561591440.
• United Arab Emirates Constitution. UAE Ministry of Justice. Retrieved on 10 October 2018.

I think the color magenta would be best suitable for it. Gorebath (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mali

Should be "military dictatorship"--MiguelMadeira (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thailand

Thailand is a monarchy, not a republic. --Historien chipoteur (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

North Korea

North Korea is a military dictatorship Jesper921 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

New map

{{Edit request}}

I've updated the map (here using the latest world map template), including the latest update to Myanmar (military government), would it be possible for an admin to move that version over here? Appreciated.   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 01:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87 probably won't happen since you made it using inkscape and not a text editor, I've started on an updated version. Unbeatable101 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The map was changed after I posted the request; nonetheless I've reformatted it back to text-editable format now (based on the coloring of the previous edit). If there are accuracy disputes, the very first uploaded version (at the branch file) should match the current version of the file here. Having two separate files is really not ideal and would be the cause of much confusion, so best to stick to one and then redirect the other.   ~ Newfitz ^Yo! 08:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)