Downsides of a Republic

By its very nature a republic provides a politicised head of state. This is because of the inherent fact of how a republic operates: with a head of state who is elected. Elections are, per definition, a political and partisan affair. As such, a head of state who is elected will make the position politicised, due to the fact that the head of state will need the electoral backing of certain parties or coalitions to reach office. A politicised head of state will never be able to effectively exercise the role and duty that a head of state is supposed to; be a unifying symbol above the political fray. It reduces the ultimate representation of the state to just another pawn in a game of party-politics, rather than something which truly represents the nation.

In a republic, heads of state come and go, with fixed terms of only a few years. This creates a revolving door of heads of state who enter and then leave office. This is a facet of instability, with the state having no set and stable focal point around which to revolve, but instead a constantly changing set of presidents. By comparison, Queen Elizabeth II reigned as Queen for 70 years, being a rock of stability. Among our Governors-General, Sir Paul Scoon served for 14 years, Sir Daniel Williams for 12, and Dame Cécile La Grenade has so far served for 11. Compare this to Dominica, where on average since independence they have had a new president every 5 years.

In a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president, the president is usually elected by parliament. This not only causes the office to be politicised, as explored previously, but also makes the presidential office little more than a simple appointment of the Prime Minister. This is because of the fact that the Prime Minister’s party will have a parliamentary majority, and thus able to “elect” whomever the Prime Minister wishes to become president. This is exactly what happened in 2023 in both Trinidad and Dominica, where the Prime Minister elevated high ranking members of their own party to the presidency due to their control of parliament, despite vehement opposition protest. This state of affairs makes the head of state, who is supposed to be an independent check, balance and final guardian against government overreach, little more than a puppet of the Prime Minister. The head of state is forced to serve the prime minister and government of the day, who they owe their office to, in order to remain in said office.

The office of president in parliamentary republics with a ceremonial president is often reduced to little more than a retirement plan for top politicians. High ranking politicians, after finishing their active political careers, are often installed as president as an effective retirement plan. For instance in Trinidad and Tobago, Prime Minister A.N.R Robinson, after his time as Prime Minister and retirement from full time politics, was made President of Trinidad and Tobago at the age of 71.

A common criticism of the parliamentary system is that, since the government is decided dependent on who has a majority in parliament, the government is too powerful. In a parliamentary system therefore, the head of state as a separate office who can restrain the elected government is important. In a parliamentary republic with an executive president, there is no such office, because the President is simultaneously head of state and head of government. Granting the powers of the head of state to the head of government in a parliamentary system creates an incredibly powerful and dominant office with very few restraints.

Because of the concentration of powers and duties in the hands of the president in this system, there are few real checks and balances. As head of state, head of government, and head of the majority party, the president is vested with the constitutional powers and duties of the head of state, the executive powers and duties of the head of government, and the party-political powers and duties of party leader. As such, few can check the president or keep them to account. Whereas in our current system, for instance, the Crown can dismiss a Prime Minister who prevents parliament from sitting if they have lost majority support, no such external authority exists in parliamentary republics with an executive president. Nor is there an external authority to vet and oversee appointments to various bodies. The lack of checks and balances and concentration of power creates a serious risk of democratic backsliding and authoritarianism.

Like with an executive presidency in a parliamentary republic, a common criticism and issue with presidential republics is that too much power and authority is concentrated in the office of president. Once more, the lack of a separate authority which stands above the active executive creates a situation where there are often few limitations on the president. The threshold to remove a president from office, for instance, is usually very high, meaning that if a president has a loyal party there is virtually no way for them to be removed from office. The president in such systems is often effectively able to utilise their constitutional powers as head of state, in conjunction with their political powers as head of government, to strengthen their own position and whittle away at constitutional constraints. In the most extreme cases, this can lead to outright dictatorship.

A secondary issue with presidential republics is the fact it can often lead to government gridlock and inefficient governance. As the president is elected separately from the legislature, it will often result in two different parties controlling the executive and the legislative branch. In such instances, gridlock between the two can arise. We have seen this in the United Stats multiple times, where the presidency and congress have been controlled by different parties, an the result has been the government shutting down due to a lack of budget. Another example would be the long-running refusal of congress to approve various government and ambassadorial appointments by the president.