3 ms·

To play devil's advocate: heads of state are usually ultimately in charge of these departments, and if some corruption were to be exposed by a whistleblower it

To play devil's advocate: heads of state are usually ultimately in charge of these departments, and if some corruption were to be exposed by a whistleblower it might be bad for their re-election bid. They may see it as a potential way to self-incriminate, even if they personally had no involvement. To claim they had no idea is just as bad, it shows voters they are a weak leader who has no accountability in the departments they are ultimately responsible for.

mcv 8y ago
Heads of state are rarely in charge of anything. Heads of government are. Heads of state are quite often figureheads with mostly ceremonial functions. Particularly among western democracies, France and the US are the exception rather than the rule.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nocturnial 8y ago
What voting system are you using? If it's winner takes all then you're right. The head of state is indeed in charge of all departments. If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. When it's not winner takes all, it doesn't matter if a percentage of the population thinks someone is a weak leader. The other percentage will still have a say in the executive branch of the government. It becomes trickier as a leader because you not only have to have support of your own party but also from your coalition partners. (EU multi-party politics in a nut shell) Before anyone responds, I'm not claiming this is better or worse than other systems!
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > What voting system are you using? Good point. I'm in the US, so it's overwhelmingly 'winner takes all.'
- ajdlinux 8y ago
  > If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. I think you're confusing "parliamentary system" with something else.

mcv 8y ago

Heads of state are rarely in charge of anything. Heads of government are. Heads of state are quite often figureheads with mostly ceremonial functions. Particularly among western democracies, France and the US are the exception rather than the rule.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nocturnial 8y ago

What voting system are you using? If it's winner takes all then you're right. The head of state is indeed in charge of all departments. If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. When it's not winner takes all, it doesn't matter if a percentage of the population thinks someone is a weak leader. The other percentage will still have a say in the executive branch of the government. It becomes trickier as a leader because you not only have to have support of your own party but also from your coalition partners. (EU multi-party politics in a nut shell) Before anyone responds, I'm not claiming this is better or worse than other systems!

craftyguy 8y ago
> What voting system are you using? Good point. I'm in the US, so it's overwhelmingly 'winner takes all.'
ajdlinux 8y ago
> If it's more of a parliamentary system then the head of state needs to put x members in charge depending on the outcome of the vote. So if there's x percentage points of the population who voted for the opposing party then x percentage members of the cabinet should be of the other party. I think you're confusing "parliamentary system" with something else.