Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lists originally cribbed from info on BBC's Country Profiles [[1]]. Secretlondon 19:24, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Our own Iran article states that the Faqih is head of state. Either that's wrong or you're wrong. Just because the post of PM exists doesn't mean it's "head of government." In the DPRK, the Chairman of the National Defense Commission is the "highest administrative authority". --Jiang | Talk 21:37, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article is wrong. Khatami as president fulfills the classical functions of a head of state (he accepts the credentials of ambassadors etc.), although there is additionally the Rahbar (not Faqih), which is why I put both in the head of state field. Likewise in North Korea, the formal head-of-state functions are fulfilled by the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, but at the same time the chairman of the National Defense Commission is said to be "the highest post of the state", therefore they should be jointly listed as heads of state, and the prime minister naturally as head of government, regardless of how much "actual" power he holds. Of course in a number of countries the prime minister is just advisory to the head of state, but that is not something that can be discussed on this page. --Wik 21:54, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

What exactly determines whether someone is head of government? Power to nominate and appoint ministers? It's the function that counts, not the actual title.

Constitutionally, the Premier of the DPRK had the power to name ministers of the cabinet for appointment. But constitutionally in the UK, the PM does not - only the monarch does. So really, it comes to actual power.

What exactly is a Faqih, if that was not the right title? --Jiang | Talk 01:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, there is no good objective definition of what makes a "head of government", so the best you can do is go by the typical titles such as prime minister; the actual powers vary and you could only draw rather arbitrary lines between those prime ministers you recognize as "head of government" and those you don't.

Faqih means "expert in Islamic law" and is sometimes incorrectly used for the Rahbar (which is the correct title used in the constitution); vilayat-e faqih ("government by faqih") was Khomeini's doctrine of how the Islamic state should be governed. --Wik 01:57, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...perhaps this page should have Governors-general listed, as well? Perhaps along with the monarchs in the head of state field? john 05:59, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No more than it should have Vice-presidents listed when the Presidents are out of the country. Morwen 22:26, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But the Presidents are usually in their countries. In the crown commonwealth countries, the Governor-General regularly exercises the duties of the head of state. john 23:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"De facto" means "in practice." Kim Jong Il is North Korea's leader in a de facto capacity. Kim Yong Nam is the "de jure" head of state. This means "in a legal, not necessarily actual" capacity. It would be hard to debate that Kim Yong Nam actually exercises any important authority in the country. --TwinsFan48

"De jure is a Latin expression that means 'by law', as contrasted with de facto, which means 'in fact'." North Korea has no official head of state so no one can possibly the de jure head of state. I commented at User talk:Morwen. --Jiang|(Talk) 21:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A summary of the explanation - 'de facto' in this case means 'he is the guy who accredits ambassadors, whilst not being admitted to be head of state', rather than 'he is the guy in charge'. Morwen 16:53, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

Wik - I don't think I fully understand your question, but the point I was trying to make is that the CIA is only one source, and it generally reflects the opinion of the U.S. Government. The Government of Burma, as demonstrated here, has promoted General Khin Nyunt to the post of prime minister and has given him most of the daily chores involved in running the country. It does not specifically say "head of government," but that information could be dug up somewhere else. Just from looking at this article and the ones that followed it, General Khin Nyunt appears to have much more power than some of the figureheads installed by dictators like Niyazov, Lukashenko and Obiang, for example. If that doesn't answer your question, please e-mail me or put something on my talk page. Again, I don't think I really caught your question. --TwinsFan48

I'll accept listing the PM then. This was the CIA entry before Kin Nyunt became PM:

chief of state: Prime Minister and Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council Gen. THAN SHWE (since 23 April 1992); note - the prime minister is both the chief of state and head of government

head of government: Prime Minister and Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council Gen. THAN SHWE (since 23 April 1992); note - the prime minister is both the chief of state and head of government

cabinet: State Peace and Development Council (SPDC); military junta, so named 15 November 1997, which initially assumed power 18 September 1988 under the name State Law and Order Restoration Council; the SPDC oversees the cabinet

elections: none; the prime minister assumed power upon resignation of the former prime minister

Wik, if you would have provided some other evidence like what TwinsFan48 did, then you would have saved you and me some reverts. Please learn to use talk pages for once. --Jia ng 01:49, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NB Mikhail Fradkov is not Russian prime minister until accepted by the Duma. Secretlondon 18:42, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

===Prime Ministers Who Have Resigned The prime ministers of Guinea and Nepal have resigned recently, but have not been replaced. Why has the prime minister of Guinea been removed when usually prime ministers are not removed until they have been replaced? I know he is in exile, but he is still the formal head of government. Academic Challenger 02:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Aren't we jumping the gun a little on Iraq on this page? Allawi and Al-Yawer don't actually become HoG and HoS until the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June, do they? Jonel 16:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) Although al-Yawer, the vice-presidents and the cabinet take office on June 30, Alawi did take office on June 1, although this was not planned. Academic Challenger 01:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have been trying to update the prime minister of Nepal, but the link to Sher Bahadur Deuba does not seem to be showing up when I am reading the page, though it does show up while I am editing the page. Does anyone know what the problem is and how to fix it? Academic Challenger 01:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

With regard to the prime minister of Guinea, www.rulers.org shows that his term has ended. There is no continuation, so for the time being the ailing Lansana Conté is both head of state and government. --Sesel 03:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What to include (Taiwan, Western Sahara, Palestine)

===>Issue: I added Western Sahara/SADR a few edits back, someone else added Palestine. They were deleted on the grounds that they weren't sovereign territory. The SADR has both de jure recognition from over 70 states, is a full member of the African Union, and administers territory east of the Moroccan Wall, thus it is also a de facto state. In the case of Taiwan/ROC, the ROC has recognition from 25 states, and controls only a small portion of the territory it claims (Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and the Pescadores versus all of the above, plus, Mainland China [including Tibet], Mongolia, and Tuva). Since the SADR has recognition from more countries, and controls more of its claimed territory, it is legitimate to have it on this list. We can discuss Palestine, since it is a different beast, but it too has foreign recognition, and the Palestinian Authority actually administers territory (although, one could argue that this is merely devolved power from Israel). I don't really care to debate the finer points of this case, since I'm more ignorant about it than Western Sahara, but from my understanding, there is legimitate cause to consider it a de jure and de facto state. Nevertheless, my main point is: to include Taiwan, and exclude Western Sahara is inconsistent. To exclude Taiwan from the list is patently ridiculous, if you ask me, because it is clearly a functioning state (functioning much better than many on this list!) Justin (koavf) 04:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The extent to which the Republic of China actually claims control of Mainland China is, I think, open to question. But I basically agree with you - the SADR does control territory, and is recognized as a de jure state, and should be included. I'm also not certain about the Palestinian Authority, but I'd be inclined to include it. john k 05:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only sensible approach to this list is for it to include only those states that are widely recognised as being independent. Otherwise we'll get into loads of silliness with Sealand, and secessionist movements in the Basque country, Scotland, Kurdistan, and more micronations. Plus, it's the only way to have an objective NPOV list. Taiwan and Palestine do not even recognise themselves as being independent - so it's a bit of a joke them being here. Western Sahara is not generally recognised (although it is in the AU, rather than Morocco). But largely Western Sahara is seen as being part of Morocco, and almost all of Western Sahara is governed as such too. It's not for us to make political judgments, it's for us to select an objective criterion for inclusion, and stick to it, jguk 21:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the same list as list of sovereign states. We've clearly provided the criteria there and explcitly stated that Micronations are not included. Basque country, Scotland, and Kurdistan obviously do not meet the criteria defined as they do not have governments exercising at least de facto sovereignty. There have been no major reverts war there so I dont see a reason there should be one here. Why create a revert war in order to anticipate for one? And the Republic of China does regard itself as a soveriegn state. You are plain wrong on that. The most commonly floated "number of countries" is 193: 191 UN members, the Vatican, and the Republic of China. --Ji ang 21:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Western Sahara: No state recognizes the Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara, and several dozen states recognize the SADR, so how do you justify the statement "largely Western Sahara is not generally recognised"? Bear in mind that Morocco walked out of the OAU/AU, and the offer is still on the table for it to re-join alongside the SADR, unlike, say, the expulsion of the ROC in favor of the PRC in the UN. Justin (koavf) 22:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's not for us to determine what is or is not a country. As I note above, we do need to go by internationally regognised international states. Anything else is POV. That means no Western Sahara, no Somaliland, no Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, no Taiwan, etc. etc., jguk 10:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But Western Sahara is internationally recognized by many countries, and Moroccan control is not recognized by anybody. The Republic of China exercises all characteristics of a state, and is also recognized by a fair number of countries. These are quite clearly different from Somaliland (recognized by no states) and North Cyprus (recognized by one state). john k 17:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, let´s compromise, then. Keep the main list with only states whose sovereignity is above controversy. And, we start a second list, that can be in this same article or even a new article linked to this, listing states that claim independency, but are not fully recognized (like Western Sahara), that have great degree of autonomy within another state (like Palestine and Taiwan) or any other case that may come up. I think that´s the best way to keep this list as NPOV as possible, and at the same time contemplate the dynamic nature of modern geopolitics. Felipe

DPRK HoS

Kim il sung is not "head of state". The Constitution gives him the title of "eternal president" but does not define him as head of state. The title is purely honorary and has no constitutional role. The dutes of head of states are given collectively to the Supreme People's Presidium, with its president given the duties of accrediting ambassadors. --Ji ang 21:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to delete everyone listed as a "head of state" who is not so described in the state's contribution, we're going to have a lot (and I mean a lot) of deleting to do. As you note, the constitution confers on him the title "Eternal President" and we, like the BBC, should recognise this, jguk 21:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We list people as head of state when they are given the constitutional duties of a head of state. Just because he holds the honorary title of "Eternal President" does not make him the head of state. He has absolutely no constitutional responsibilities. --Ji ang 21:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Definitions: The article on head of state gives the following defintion in the first paragraph:

A head of state or chief of state is the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution.

Since Kim il Sung cannot exercise political power, as he is dead, he is not a head of state. We cannot include mythical, religious, non-existant, and/or non-corporeal entities as national leaders if we want to maintain any degree of legitimacy. Justin (koavf) 22:02, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

San Marino

Since I can't find a copy of the Sammarinese Constitution and did not receive an e-mail response from a Sammarinese diplomatic post, I honestly don't know if Berardi is considered the official head of government. However, I would compare this situation to Suriname, where the vice president is not the head of government but exercises the functions similar to the post of prime minister. —Sesel wa 18:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Suriname there is no constitutional doubt that the vice president chairs the Council of Ministers. The secretary of state for foreign and political affairs may well hold de facto the leading position in the government of San Marino, but I don't think he is constitutionally given preference over the other secretaries of state. I don't have a copy of the constitution at hand either, but the only place I see an unambiguous claim that he's head of government is on the CIA Factbook, and we all know how reliable a source the CIA is. NoPuzzleStranger

Vatican City

Does anyone know what the deal is? I feel like I've read that the Camerlengo is acting head of state of the Vatican, but I can't find anything specific. Anyone know? john k 21:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See "Vatican City" at http://www.rulers.org. —Sesel wa 21:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But I don't feel as though that's dispositive. john k 21:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Camerlengo is in fact the acting head of state until after conclave. Ridethefire3211 20:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why Koavf sees fit to make personal attacks on me, nor do I see that it should be the person removing disputed information that should be under an obligation to provide a source disproving it. But to move things along, please see this source. This is the official document approved by Pope John Paul II in 1996 that governs what happens when a pope dies. Part One is relevant to this discussion. It is quite clear from reading Part One that the Vatican has no head of state between the period of the death of one pontiff and the installation of a new one, jguk 21:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>On the contrary: This document expressly says that the College of Cardinals is in charge upon a vacancy of the papacy, and furthermore, it says, as follows:

[A]t the death of the Pope all the heads of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia... cease to exercise their office. An exception is made for the Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church and the Major Penitentiary, who continue to exercise their ordinary functions, submitting to the College of Cardinals matters that would have had to be referred to the Supreme Pontiff.

The most relevant passage is in bold face. Also, the BBC has reported at this link that:

The Cardinal Chamberlain of the Roman Catholic Church, Eduardo Martinez Somalo, is now in charge.

So, to put "vacant" or "none" there is simply misleading and not factual. I think a reasonable, and true compromise would be to put something like "Eduardo Martinez Somalo (acting)" or "Eduardo Martinez Somalo (de facto)" (although, he is de jure head of the Holy See according to the above quote). Justin (koavf) 21:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

re the BBC passage - the question is, in charge of what? It's more a case that he has certain duties - such as sealing the papal apartments, smashing the fisherman's ring and summoning the College of Cardinals to meet to elect a new pope.

re the bit you put in bold - that is saying that the College of Cardinals takes the place of the Supreme Pontiff in certain situations. The Chamberlain gets no new powers, and certainly does not get the powers we would associate with a head of state.

No-one has full powers over the Vatican during sede vacante - only acts that need doing, rather than acts that only might be done, are permitted. The acts that need doing are done by the College of Cardinals.

Having read Universi Dominici Gregis, I think it is clear there is no head of state. If you want to make a reference to the (limited) powers held by the College of Cardinals, then that would be the compromise. I can't see any real justification for referring to the Chamberlain, jguk 21:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>BBC passage: The passage directly following the one quoted above states:

He has to seal the papal apartments and summon the cardinals from around the world to elect the Pope's successor.

He isn't performing a purely ceremonial role: he is calling together government to vote on a leader. If this was a parliamentary election, it would be the same matter - a member of government is taking a temporary authoritative position (as requried by the constitution) to administer and direct other members of government. Since this is the case, it is justified to call him the head of government. I can only assume that he would fulfill the obligations of head of state, by speaking on Vatican Radio, and receiving the condolences of foreign powers. Justin (koavf) 21:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Head of government" is, of course, another matter. Also, I don't think receiving condolences is a determinant of whether anyone is a head of state (and I have no idea who does receive all these condolence - probably the papal nuncios in each state). The powers of anyone in a sede vacante are very limited. The extra duties given to the Chamberlain certainly do not constitute a "head of state" designation. Because of Universali Dominici Gregis, I still think "vacant" is the best description - any matters of state that absolutely have to be done during sede vacante are done by the College of Cardinals, jguk 22:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...seems to me that the College of Cardinals itself should likely be listed as acting head of state, and Cardinal Martinez as acting head of government... john k 23:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Further evidence: From the BBC:

The ritual [of breaking JPII's ring] was performed by the chamberlain, or camerlengo, Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo, who is in charge until a new pope is elected.

Iraq: Allawi still PM, I think

My understanding of the situation in Iraq as of today (4/25/05) is that while Ibrahim al-Jaafari has been agreed upon as prime minister designate by all the components of what will be the ruling coalition in Iraqi National Assembly, as of yet said coalition has not worked out the distribution of ministries for the new government and thus no new ministers have been sworn in. Thus, Iyad Allawi is still serving as a lame duck PM, along with the rest of his cabinet. Does anyone have any specific evidence to the contrary? --Jfruh 17:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're correct. Allawi is still in office. —Sesel wa 20:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan and Western Sahara

I put Taiwan and Western Sahara in italics, just to distinguish between the de jure and the de facto countries. ~ Zntrip

I dont see why you should do that. Western Sahara is de jure and Taiwan is de facto. The second point is debatable since recognition by 25 countries and de facto relations with many more is much more than none at all. --Ji ang 04:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

How is Western Sahara de jure, because it's in the AU? And diplomatic relations with countries doesn't make Taiwan a de jure country. ~ Zntrip

Western Sahara is de jure because while it is recognized by a handful of states, it does not enjoy de facto sovereignty since it is occupied by Morocco. Western Sahara thus only has de jure sovereignty. The same goes for Palestine (occupied by Israel) and Somalia (overrun by Warlords). These places have external recognition as a sovereign state but are unable to exercise actual sovereignty. Whether Taiwan is de facto or de jure is a hotly debated issue. Most Taiwanese would say that the Republic of China is both de jure and de facto sovereign. Adding italics is unhelpful as it fails to convey to the reader what these italics are means to stand for. --Ji ang 05:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you even been to Western Sahara?--160.39.195.88 23:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No. Why would I want to go there? --Ji ang 00:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

De jure means based on law. Western Sahara is not a de jure country because it does not function as a country would, its government is in exile and it is occupied by Morocco. Taiwan is a de facto counrty because it act like one, but hasn't declared independence. All I'm saying is that their should be some thing on this page that says that Western Sahara and Taiwan are not de jure countries. The article is called “List of National Leaders.” Not: List of Leaders of De Jure Countries and Taiwan and Western Sahara. ~ Zntrip

===>On the contrary: The Saharawi Arab Democratic Repbulic does administer territory east and south of the Berm. Taiwan hasn't declared independence because it is a rival government of China as the Republic of China, and has been independent since January 1, 1912. Put notes if you want, but they are both de jure and de facto states, with formal recognition by a minority of states and who administer a minority of their claimed territory. Justin (koavf) 22:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

What law is there to speak of? International law? Western Sahara recognized as a handful of states and can function as one under international law. The Republic of China does claim to be an independent sovereign state. "Taiwan independence" basically amounts to formalizing the official borders of the ROC and renaming it the Republic of Taiwan.--Ji ang 00:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Man, it feels like the same issues going on at List of national flags is starting to come here too. I do not know what expertese I can give here, but for those who usually come here, how can yall build a consensus here of what is considered a "national leader." Zscout370 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the only way to solve this issue is for Wikipedia to have their own definition of a country -- Zntrip

Extra section is inadequate

Separating certain countries from others cannot be done unless there is clear criteria for the list. The statement "There are also self-declared, unrecognized, occupied, internationally-administered or disputed areas that claim to be or de facto function as sovereign states." is not enough. What counts as "disputed"? Why aren't both Koreas on the list since both claim each others territory? Do we put a state on the list as long as one of the criteria is satisfied? Almost every state is self-declared... I think the format used at list of sovereign states should be used.--Ji ang 00:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have short-term memory loss or you a hypocrite? You weren’t satisfied with me italicizing de facto countries on this list and now you think it’s a good idea? A solution was already found and now, God knows why, you want to be a jerk and complain about it again. -- Zntrip

Titles

Should this page have the titles of people, like king, president, prime minister, etc? Should this page also have peoples full names? Could someone tell me because some of the names have titles in front of them and I removed them. -- Zntrip

Full names are unnecessary. They are found on the first line of each article. Princes who are not the head of state properly have "Prince" in their short title. —Sesel wa 22:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What about the Pope? -- Zntrip

Accents

This is the English version of Wikipedia and, therefore, it should be in English. The following accented letters: İ, Ə, ầ, Đ, ứ, ư, ơ, ă, and ả are not used in the English language. Letters like: é, í, č, š, and ã are used in English in to write foreign names. -- Zntrip

Featured list candidature

I appreciate that I didn't canvass opinion here before nominating this page as a featured list, but I thought it might be useful to contributors to this page to see the comments as they are happening with a view to correcting the article, jguk 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

List of state leaders

Not a self-nom. Seems like it was just sitting there, waiting to be added to the FL list. Support, jguk 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Object for the moment. I would like to see the article have an explanation similar to the footnote for Switzerland that explains why Elizabeth II is the head of state reppresented by someone else in so many countries. Also the sitation in several countries that have multiple heads of state (Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Liechtenstein) need to be clarified. The same for the Vatican with two heads of government. The situation in Switzerland could be explained better. It would also be nice to the titles of all these people, especially heads of state, since some of these are herditary monarchs and some are elected. Support now. I like the addition of the type of government column. Dsmdgold 02:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comments: I like it, but there needs to be an explanation of why some states don't have a head of government: is the head of state the head of the goverment too, or is there a gap due to a resignation or election or some other reason? It would also be useful to show terms of office (start and expected end dates). Can we think of a relevant image? And there are no reference. Finally, isn't his going to be a pain to keep up to date? (I know, WP:FLRC could deal with that but even so, why create a rod for our own backs?). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Object - it is coming along, but my points above (particularly references) really do need to be addressed. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Object – 1) I don't think a note for Switz. is enough. You'd also have to add notes on other states such as Malaysia and dominions too. 2) The PM equivalent of the Vatican is the governor. The SoS does not have the PM functions. 3) Titles such as Sir and Prince should not be present. 4) Also agree with ALoan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Support and totally disagree with Nichalp about the use of titles such as 'Sir' and 'Prince'. They must be present. David | Talk 20:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Its not necessary. Titles such as Queen, General, Dr., King are not mentioned in any county infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fiji and Nauru

To whoever keeps changing Fiji and Nauru from Republics to Commonwealth Realms: quit it. They're republics. From the articles:

From Fiji: "The Republic of the Fiji Islands, or Fiji, is an island nation in the South Pacific Ocean ... Fiji's Head of State is the President, who is elected by the Great Council of Chiefs for a five-year term. Although his role is largely an honorary one, modelled after that of the British monarchy, the President has certain "reserve powers" that may be used only in the event of a national crisis. He is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The Great Council of Chiefs recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as its Paramount Chief, in respect as a nation within the Commonwealth of Nations."

From History_of_Fiji:The_modern_nation: "[Prime Minister] Bavadra was forcibly removed from power during a military coup led by Lt. Col. Sitiveni Rabuka on May 14, 1987 .... After a period of continued jockeying and negotiation, Rabuka staged a second coup on September 25, 1987. The military government revoked the constitution and declared Fiji a republic on October 10."

From Nauru: "The Republic of Nauru ... formerly known as Pleasant Island, is an island republic in the South Pacific Ocean. It is one of the world's smallest independent countries both in terms of population and land area and the smallest independent republic in both terms." --Jfruh 23:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How about adding a column when person started serving in the/that office?

Adding Column?

How about listing when person started serving as leader/pres/pm, etc?

I think that's a good idea. But it will be difficult to organize it. – Zntrip 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good idea - I came here trying to find out who was the longest serving head of state... Monkey Tennis 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the Queen of England or another monarch. But about the column, how would one be made for the heads of state and government? – Zntrip 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

(Note: unsigned comment by User:155.232.250.51 originally placed at top of page, moved here for formatting's sake

Zimbabwe is currently more of a dictatorship. Elections are openly rigged and there is no press freedom whatsoever. Should this list still call it a "presidential democracy"?

The list actually calls it a "presidential republic". "Republic" just means that the country is not a monarchy. It makes no claims about its democratic credentials. --Jfruh 16:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico isn't a colonies and have self administration - consequently should be in this list.On this list are available a little not the independent countries.Puerto Rico is a member of US commonwealth similar to U.K Commonwealth Realm (Canada,Australia...). --Tt1 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tt1, you are totaly wrong Puerto Rico is not a commonwealth as Canada is. So please stop adding it to this list. – Zntrip 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Then Western Sahara and Palestine should not be too in this list, they are not independent.They are not members of United Nations-Member States (independent) of the United Nations.That fact that Western Sahara and Palestine are recognized by many countries does not do their independent. --Tt1 06:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but they are included on this list because they have sovereignty over parts of there territory. Also they are recognized by multiple nations. A country doesn’t have to be recognized by all other countries to be sovereignty, for example, some Middle Eastern countries to not recognize Israel as a country. – Zntrip 06:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

either de jure of de facto independence is sufficient for inclusion based on the criteria at list of sovereign states. PR is neither. It is not de facto independent because it is not responsible for its foreign and defense affairs, and a good number of laws and policies of the federal government are applied in PR. Note that Niue, Hong Kong, and others arent listed here. Being autonomous does not mean being independent. --Jiang 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara and Palestine are not responsible for its foreign and defense affairs. They have no defense forces. They have no officially recognized Embassies in the world,they have only those or other representations at different levels. Also they have sovereignty over parts of there territory, but have no full independence behind their limit (the foreign affairs). Greenland is also recognized by many countries and have internal self-administration over parts of there territory too.Not the recognition or a recognition is the factor of independence, and a reality and a recognition of the United Nations. Western Sahara,Palestine,Taiwan still are officially are not recognized by the United Nations as the independent (sovereign) states. Timor-Leste recognized and is a member in the United Nations (27 Sep. 2002) and should be in this list in difference from Western Sahara,Palestine,Taiwan. --Tt1 08:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

according to Foreign relations of Western Sahara, "44 recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, 13 are home to Sahrawi embassies, 12 have "frozen" relations (incl. Peru but not Guatemala), and 23 have cancelled relations (incl. Guatemala but not Peru)." The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and the State of Palestine can be said to have de jure independence but not de facto independence. The same could be said of Somalia since its Transitional National Government controls only part of the capital and its officials/parliament meet in exile. East Timor is both de jure and de facto independent. --Jiang 08:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Somaliland is also recognized by many countries and a little countries are have embassies. In the world we have many countries or with de jure or with de facto independence and it does not mean that all of them should be included in this list.Still time I repeat, that only the United Nations officially recognize independence of this or that country. And otherwise in this clause it is necessary to include all the countries of the world (they are dependent or not). --Tt1 08:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

we have a list of sovereign states that has been relatively stable for the past three years. There are a clearly defined criteria for inclusion there that have averted any chronic edit wars. I don't see why we have a need to deviate from that list here. If there is an issue over neutrality, then footnotes can be added here like how they exist there. --Jiang 08:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Puerto Rico-this is a very common and accepted international status given to all dependent territories, also called dependent "states" by the UN. This is highlighted by the fact, for example, that Puerto Rico is an independent country in the sports world, even having their own Olympic teams. In the jargon of international law, an inhabited territory that is not a first-order administrative division, but rather forms an external, non-sovereign territory governed by a sovereign one, is both a "state" and a "country". --Tt1 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "dependent state." PR is obviously not a sovereign state. According to the Montevideo Convention, which is recognized as being part of customary international law, a state must have (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Puerto Rico fails on the last count as it has no foreign ministry, does not aspire to establish a foreign ministry and enter into official relations with sovereign states, and never will have a foreign ministry unless it elects, through referendum, to declare independence. Statehood is not a criteria for IOC membership. Note (for example) that the U.S. Virgin Islands, Bermuda, and Hong Kong are also IOC members with teams competing in the Olympics seperate from the US, UK, and China teams, respectively. This is a "list of state leaders", not a "list of country leaders" or a "list of national leaders" (if we want to go into semantics). --Jiang 08:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, each of the Commonwealth realms each have their own seperate and functional foreign affairs departments and are recognized by the United Kingdom as having equal status as a separate kingdom and fully sovereign state. For example, Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada while she is only Queen in Bermuda. In contrast, George W. Bush is "the President" in PR, not the "President of Puerto Rico". --Jiang 09:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True,This is a "list of state leaders",but Western Sahara and Palestine they are no independent states -they are de facto independent countries. Abkhazia,Somaliland,South Ossetia,Kosovo and other many de facto independent countries have (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Even Sealand and Greenland have them. All of these items are available in these countries then why these countries are not present in the list. --Tt1 09:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a "list of fully sovereign state leaders". this is simply a "list of state leaders". I think Abkhazia, Somaliland, and South Ossetia all belong with proper footnoting. Kosovo and Greenland do not claim independence and do not satisfy criteria (d). Sealand should not be listed because it is a microstate (see Talk:List of sovereign states on why weve excluded microstates from the list).--Jiang 09:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Kosovo do claim independence! According to the Montevideo Convention no criteria-claim independence.And still I have not absolutely understood you concerning Abkhazia,Somaliland,South Ossetia and other like them countries-I was right or not?--Tt1 10:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The current government of Kosovo does not claim indepenendence, even though there is a significant political force there aspiring to declare independence. At the present moment in Kosovo, the UN is in control and there is no foreign ministry. Yes, I think Abkhazia, Somaliland, and South Ossetia all belong on this list with proper footnotes explaining these states have no international recognition but exercise de facto sovereignty.--Jiang 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I think your beating a dead horse, Tt1 not listening to logic. – Zntrip 17:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think,that it Zntrip not listening to logic and imposes his personal opinion.--Tt1 18:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, you are making edits that don’t make any sense. Having Palestine and Western Sahara on this page is not my personal opinion, it is Wikipedia policy. Before you start editing this page again, do some research. – Zntrip 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My additions correspond Wikipedias policy and do make sense.Disputable themes in wikipedia are solved by discussion.Look the previous discussions, according to them I, Jiang and some other users have expressed the opinion about Somaliland and other many de facto independent countries, that they should be included in this list.This decision is accepted by discussion and it conforms to principles of Wikipedia-it is the free encyclopedia. Therefore you should not correct these additions. --Tt1 22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If your read what everyone has said on this page you will discover that no one agrees with you.

Stop adding “Zaire” next to Republic of the Congo, reasons:
- No country is currently called “Zaire.”
- “Zaire” was the former name of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Stop removing “presidential republic” next to Palestine, reason:
- Palestine has a presidential republic.
Stop adding Somaliland, reason:
- It is not a country recognized by any nation of the world.
Stop adding “presidential republic” next to Western Sahara, reason:
- It is not a presidential republic. – Zntrip 22:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1.You probably badly see that have written by Jiang: Yes, I think Abkhazia, Somaliland, and South Ossetia all belong on this list with proper footnotes explaining these states have no international recognition but exercise de facto sovereignty.--Jiang 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC). Somaliland de facto independent country. According to the Montevideo Convention, which is recognized as being part of customary international law, a state must have (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other state and do claim independence! All of these items are available here.

2 Greenland-a country recognized by a little nation of the world, but do not satisfy criteria (d). capacity to enter into relations with the other state.

3.True,::**“Zaire” was the former name of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Then why near to Myanmar it is written Burma (This was the former name of the Myanmar too).

4.Palestine with the presidential form republic.--Tt1 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Then why near to Myanmar it is written Burma (This was the former name of the Myanmar too)."

I have no idea what that means; "Palestine with the presidential form republic" or that. Also I don't care what Jiang said, Abkhazia, Somaliland, and South Ossetia were all on this page until he removed them see here [2] and here [3]. – Zntrip 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I more like your list with self-declared, unrecognized, occupied, internationally-administered countries or disputed areas that claim to be or " de facto " function as sovereign states which have been corrected 00:45, 16 May 2005 I consider it is necessary to be restore.

Uh… okay. – Zntrip 00:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a separate list of leaders of non-sovereign territories? Or a separate table within this article, or in the same table with italicised names? — Insta ntnood 12:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There used to be one, but Sesel removed it. I don't think it belongs on this page, but a new article can be made. – Zntrip 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer one table with italicised names (the title of this page would have to be changed accordingly to reflect that). It's not convenient to readers if they've to first figure out the status of the certain countries they're looking for. — Insta ntnood 16:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Prime ministers"

As I have said several times before, the Constitutions of certain countries explicitly provide that the President is both head of state and head of government, regardless of the existence of a so-called prime minister. Most prime ministers are heads of their respective governments, but others (most notably Tanzania, Sri Lanka, and Mozambique, Namibia, and Uganda) are not. It is obvious some have not bothered to Google for the Constitutions of these countries. —Sesel 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Uganda. 98.1. There shall be a President of Uganda who shall be the Head of State, Head of Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces and the Fountain of Honour. [4]

Tanzania. 2.1.33.2 The President shall be the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. [5]

Suriname. 12.1.90.1 The President is Head of State of the Republic of Suriname, Head of Government, Chairman of the Council of State and of the Security Council. [6]

Sri Lanka. 7.30.1 There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, who is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. [7]

Namibia. 5.27.1 The President shall be the Head of State and of the Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force. [8]

Mozambique. 2.117.3 The President of the Republic shall be the head of the Government. [9]

Congo-B: "In a cabinet reshuffle, Isidore Mvouba is named to the new honorific post of prime minister (which does not exist in the constitution)." [10]

—Sesel 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The prime ministers under these systems are not heads of government, and are only deputy to the presidents who're also heads of government, am I right? What about the French president and prime minister? Who's the head of government? — Insta ntnood 11:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Above, the presidents are the heads of state and government. Its like the United States. But in France, the President is the head of state, and the prime minister is the head of government. It depends on what the constitution says. – Zntrip 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Then what's the prime minsiters or premiers in these countries if they're not heads of government? Are they deputy fo the presidents, senior among other ministers? — Insta ntnood 16:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

terms used in the "Government" column

What would people think of replacing "Communist-party led republic" in the govt. column with "single-party state" or something similar? While I think it's a good idea to distinguish China, N. Korea, etc. from other republics, I'm not convinced that single-party dictatorships like, say, Syria should be lumped in with other Presidential republics just because Syria's leading party happens to be called "Ba'ath" and not "Communist."

Also, I'm wondering what the fine points of distinction are between the Vatican's descriptor ("sacerdotal") and Iran's ("clerical"). --Jfruh 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dates of Inauguration

I think this list would be more professional if someone with a lot more knowledge (and time) than I included each world leader's date of inauguration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MosheA (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It so happens that I have been creating a 2nd list, with all leaders, ordered by date of inaguration, see List of state leaders by date. That should help. --Rye1967 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential categories under "government"

I've tried to get some discussion going on this point but to little avail. Still, the recent change of Bosnia's entry in the "government" column to the overblown "federal parliamentary representative democratic republic" has gotten me thinking about how to keep the government types to a minimum. Here would be my suggestions for potential categories, along with a description of what each would mean:

Presidential republic: A republic where the head of state is the effective head of government, and is elected either by the people or by some body other than the national legislature, or is elected by the legislature but not responsible to the legislature.
Parliamentary republic: A republic where the effective head of government is elected by the national legislature. This includes states like Nauru, where the legislature elects an executive President who is also head of state and who is responsible to the legislature.
Semi-presidential republic: A republic where the head of state and head of the legislature share power
Absolute monarchy: A monarchy where the monarch operates without legal or constitutional restrictions.
Semi-constitutional monarchy: A monarchy where the monarch takes an active role in governing the state, but where other bodies, such as a national legislature, have real power as well.
Constitutional monarchy: A monarchy where the monarch does not participate in day-to-day governance, and real power is weilded by elected constituional bodies.
Single-party republic: A state where a single political party is explicitly guaranteed a monopoly on power or preponderance of power by the state's constitution.
Military dictatorship: A state where power is weilded by military officers without constitutional restrictions.

What do you all think? I would emphasize that in order for a state to be labelled single party, it must, like China or Syria, explicitly give one party dominance in its constitution or law. A state like Singapore, where one party is very strongly dominant but which could still theoretically be overturned in elections, would not qualify. We don't want to get bogged down in POV disputes. --Jfruh (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

The Cuban Council of State and Ministers is subordinate to the National Assembly of Cuba which is the National Parliament. The assembly chooses the Council of State and Head of State. So technically Cuba is a parliamentary republic. Though "socialist republic" is strictly the correct term. "Communist Party led republic" is actually less accurate for Cuba. Though many of the Council of State are members of the Communist Party it is not a prerequiste for inclusion - meaning that many members of the Council are not communists - and a large part of the parliament are not Communist party members. Also, the republic has existed in different forms with different Presidents in modern times. Castro, who himself wasn't a Communist Party member until some time after the revolution was Prime Minister 1959-76 but not President - that was Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado so its more complicated than it appears. --Zleitzen 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to Socialist Republic then because putting Cuba on the same heap as Australia, Lithuania and the like is wrong.--Kalsermar 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

post-2006 coup Fiji?

I notice that nobody has updated the Fiji entry to reflect the situation after this month's coup. I hesitate to do it myself because I'm unsure about the terms to use for the new leaders or form of government. The main article is a bit confusing on who exactly is doing what. On the main Fiji page we have the head of state as "Executive Controller Commodore Josaia Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama" and Jona Senilagakali as prime minister. I think we should update these titles and names if nobody objects. I know this government is not recognized internationally but on this list we usually use de facto leaders, yes? --Jfruh (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Unfortunately the word State is also used for sub-sovereign units such as States of America. Can we rename this article perhaps to List of country leaders? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

State is the correct term, regardless of its other uses. "Country leaders" or "national leaders" have connotations that can be interpreted various ways, and Wikipedia attempts to stay neutral on such issues. —Sesel 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "national leaders" would be the more natural English phrase, and obviously "state leaders" also has multiple potential connotations. We're not supposed to invent neologisms, and I can't recall use of the term "state leaders" outside wikipedia. If I can be disproved on that, I'm happy to stay with the longstanding default, but it does rub me the wrong way. john k 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

List of country leaders, though, is even worse than List of state leaders. john k 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nation" and "state" are not equivalent, "country" even more so. Avoiding the word "state" because of its use in the United States of America demonstrates a USA-centric perspective. —Sesel 03:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that "nation" and "state" are not equivalent. I agree that avoiding the word "state" because of t he states in the US (or Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Australia, and other countries with states as subdivisions) is silly. I do think, though, that "state leaders" is a neologism, that the almost universally used term in English is "national leaders", and that there's no particular confusion about what "national leaders" means, even if "nation" and "state" don't mean precisely the same thing. Can you provide some non-wikipedia sources that use the term "state leaders"? I've never seen that term before. ("World leaders" would be another commonly used term for the same thing, but is perhaps the most ambiguous of all). john k 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The ideal title would be "List of heads of state and government", but that would start a dispute on whether to include "prime ministers" who do not actually serve as their country's head of government. —Sesel 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think there would be much to recommend such a move. john k 04:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Sesel 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. john k 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam

Shouldn't the General Secretary of the Communist Party, as the effective leader of the country, be listed somewhere here? john k 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not in the scope of this article. More, your assertion regarding Vietnam government is unsourced. See the articles(s) regarding political parties in Vietnam. --Juiced lemon 08:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Our article lists Qaddafi as de facto head of state of Libya. Are you suggesting that if this were 1986, we wouldn't be able to list Gorbachev for the Soviet Union? In a communist state like Vietnam, the General Secretary of the Communist Party is the most important political figure. The article Politics of Vietnam more or less confirms this. The fact that the General Secretary is technically neither Head of State nor Head of Government is irrelevant, as his absence makes Vietnam's entry on the list misleading. Also, note that until a day or two ago, this article was List of state leaders. A weird title, but it didn't limit the scope to formal heads of state and government. Given that the communist party general secretary functions in many ways more or less like a head of state, I don't see why he should be neglected. john k 22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Governor-Generals

I'm wondering if they should be included on the list as they are not formally the Head of State of the countries they represent. Therequiembellishere 00:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I was uneasy about changing the title of this list… Of course governors-general should be included; they represent the head of state. —Sesel 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then the title should be List of current state leaders to make it more correct. Therequiembellishere 03:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is unnecessary nitpicking. No title would be completely accurate (see also the "Vietnam" section above) unless it was extremely convoluted and confusing to the majority of people who are not familiar with the intricacies of Commonwealth law. —Sesel 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well, that makes sense. Therequiembellishere 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"state leader" is a term which was made up by wikipedia. We should avoid it if possible. john k 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.