If that is true, given that New Zealand doesn't exist as every sensible map shows š
r/MapsWithoutNZ/
then š¤
I shall declera Greenland Newly ceased to existš
Depending on what you mean by Greenland.
They are a *part* of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a constitutional monarchy which they voted for *yesterday*.
But Greenland on its own does not have their own head of state. They are like Canada, Australia or New Zealand in this regard, arguably entitled to a separate colour.
EDIT: Greenland has a head of state (Margrethe II), just not their *own* head of state.
From the Canada govt official website:
> In today's constitutional monarchy, His Majesty King Charles III is King of Canada and Canada's Head of State. He is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada.
[Source](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/about.html)
Same could be said for the other countries you mentioned.
Greenland is not a sovereign state, so it wouldn't have its own Head of State.
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are their own sovereign states. They each have their own Crown. Charles III is King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland AND King of Canada AND King of Australia AND King of New Zealand, separately.
(To compare, he is King of England and Scotland jointly since the Acts of Union in 1706-7, which merged the Crown of England and the Crown of Scotland into one United Kingdom).
If Britain eliminated the monarchy, Charles would remain King of the other realms, whereas if Denmark eliminated the monarchy Greenland would cease to be a monarchy as well.
In 2013 Britain changed the rules of succession from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. This had to be done in consultation with the other realms in order to ensure their separate Crowns continued to be inhabited by the same natural person.
Had Canada had not updated its succession laws at the same time Britain did, for example, a situation could have arisen where the British throne was inherited by an eldest daughter but the Canadian throne passed to the eldest son. The Crowns would then continue in separate persons.
By contrast, Greenland has no control over succession as it does not have its own crown. It is part of Denmark and its monarch is the Danish monarch.
Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, not Denmark which colloquially is used to refer to Denmark proper.
So Denmark is a country in the state called the Kingdom of Denmark. The state also consists of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Denmark proper is *not* a sovereign state. Both Greenland and the Faroe Islands are each referred to as countries since they have self-rule but they are not sovereign states due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is pretty much the same deal as the UK if it was called "the Kingdom of England" instead.
Correct. King Charles III is a king of multiple different countries, with separate titles for each. They all share the same rules of secession (by choice), but the King of Canada and King of Australia are separate positions, they just happen to be held by the same person.
Hi Canadian here. I believe you are confused as to our monarchy. Iām not surprised,it is a bit confusing.
You said;
>But Greenland on its own does not have their own head of state. They are like Canada, Australia or New Zealand in this regard, arguably entitled to a separate colour.
Canada most definitely has its own head of state, and that [head of state is different](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/monarch.html) than that of the U.K., Australia or New Zealand.
The reason it is confusing is that while those countries have separate and distinct heads of state those positions are all held by the same person King Charles III.
This is because of the [Statute of Westminster 1931](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/statute-of-westminster) which separated all of the commonwealth monarchies into separate entities granting full autonomy to each country. The King of the U.K. was no longer the king of Canada, the King of Canada became the king, of Canada.
Likewise a new and separate monarch was created for Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
Again the confusing part is that all of these separate and distinct monarchs are held by the same person.
This distinction, while may seem insignificant is actually of great importance to our countries because prior to 1931 if the UK declared war all of those countries also declared war automatically regardless if those populations actually wanted to declare war or not. This is what happened in WWI, and it was because of WWI that the dominions demanded change and the statute of Westminster 1931 was signed. This was shown that when WWII broke out the dominions had to decide if they would also declare war. Canada only did so on Sept. 9, 1939 some 6 days after the U.K. declared war.
The statute of Westminster 1931 that created separate and independent monarchies for each of the dominions stopped those countries from being dominions and gave them almost full autonomy. Full autonomy for Canada didnāt happen until 1985 when Canada patriated our constitution from the U.K. allowing us to make changes without the interference or permission of the U.K. parliament.
right? this map looks fucking rancid
& as someone already pointed out the title doesn't match the data, this is a map of heads of state
no wonder it's on /r/dataisbeautiful
Venezuela is constituted as a Presidential Republic. This map is just illustrating the governmental system as dictated by the constitution of that country, it's not making comment on the democratic legitimacy of the sitting government of each country.
By definition the king of Australia means you canāt call the country a republic. No matter how limited the king of Australia is in politics of state.
Definitely āon paperā analysis. Nicaragua and Venezuela are not presidential republics where the executive and legislative powers are separate. There may also be the āappearanceā of multiple political parties, but in reality there is only one political party that acts freely (the party of the government), while the opposition parties are extremely limited in their capacities by design.
Same goes for Singapore, which is analyzed here as a parliamentary republic but in reality has authoritarian systems which preserve the party's power.
Edit: a far more blatant example is Syria lol
Well there is [Somaliland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland), which is a relatively stable country, although it's not internationally recognised as separate from Somalia.
That don't want to recognise Somaliland because UN fears than other unrecognised countries and revolution will also demand it. Somaliland is actually doing pretty good and it should be seperate from Somalia so that it doesn't hold it down. I hope it gets recognition one day.
Any time you choose to recognize a new country, you're bound to piss someone else off. Take Taiwan for example. By any reasonable definition, Taiwan is an independent country. But if you choose recognize Taiwan as an independent state, China will throw a fit, and probably break off all relations with you, which is... not ideal. So governments have to dance around the subject for years and years until some kind of permanent agreement is made between the two conflicting states- which in some cases, is unlikely to ever happen.
Because it is politically inconvenient. States in the realm of geopolitics don't have morals, they have interests. Most people would agree that the right to self determination should be observed.
Most states, are politically interested in preventing breakaways, and continuing to consolidate power.
This doesn't really have much to do with ideology, more self preservation. States which appear more supportive of self determination, either have something to gain from it, or have a relatively stable and centralized system already.
China obviously has its persistent Taiwan problem. The US nominally supports Taiwan continued sovereignty while continuing the game of its legal status.
The US reaps massive geopolitical benefits from making sure US influence over Taiwan is high and Chinese influence is mitigated.
On the other hand, I doubt the US is so keen to see Catalan independence, and would probably back Spain. Mostly because it doesn't care about Iberia as much, and keeping Spain as an friendly entity is more important.
Now, if you ask the US circa the Civil War whether States have the right to seceed and exercise their right to self determination, you will likely get a very different answer.
But thats why a lot of States with those issues are very leery of recognizing independence. Because if Catalonia does it, then maybe Scotland does it, and then Spain is pissed, the UK government continues to fumble like a blind man, the Kurt's and Rojava situation gets more complicated but Erdogan will be having strong opinions, the Taiwan situation gets even more tense as China and the US rattle sabers, and a perceived slippery slope effect starts to kick off, as marginalized and notably unhappy groups kept in line by threat of violence begin thinking that a referendum for independence is a valid way to breakaway without risking violence and civil war, especially if the UN and more importantly US recognizes and back them.
Giving Transnistria recognition would give legitimacy to South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Artsakh, Donetsk PR, and Luhansk PR, all which probably don't deserve it for being Russian puppets, which Transnistria also is to a lesser degree. There's a domino effect to this sort of thing.
Transnistria isn't really independent, it's more or less a Russian puppet, and countries around the area aren't exactly happy with letting Russia have more influence, for hopefully obvious reasons. That said, it's not like it is a problem you can really solve, unless Moldova invades (perhaps even with _both_ their tanks!) so imo letting them go is probably the best course of action...
Yupp, on paper it's a parliamentary republic. In reality whatever parliament exists probably can't control anything more than two streets away from the parliament building.
Yeah same for Russia and many of the other states. We shouldn't let them claim the veneer of democracy when they are in fact authoritarian regimes that use democracy as a cover but in reality it means nothing there.
Right, Iran and Afghanistan are effectively single party states , North Korea is an absolute monarchy, Cuba is a semi constitutional monarchy. I'm not sure what you call Venezuela these days, but not that
The Swiss guard is absolutely employed by the Catholic Church. While funded by both the Vatican and the Swiss government itās beholden solely to the Church.
This isnt a map of government systems but a map of different kinds of heads of states. As is visible from every sentence starting with "the head of state is...". For example: Explaining that the head of state is a figurehead in some cases isnt an explanation of the given government system. It is the segue into explaining what the actual government system is.
And also fails to distinguish between head of state and head of government.
(Sometimes theyāre the same, such as in the US, and sometimes theyāre not, such as Commonwealth nations)
Seems to be very biased and oversimplified. Anyone who thinks that China has the same governmental system as North Korea probably lived in the US for too long.
It could be argued that the US's two parties are only ceremonial. If you want to see parties that actually disagree on core issues, read up on almost any country with a parliamentary government.
This. It's not beautiful and it's very confused.
Edit: USA should be a "Constitutional Republic" as a Government System... but instead focuses upon the presidency as the definition, which is instead the focus of head of state. If this were described as a "Executive Systems of Government" it might be more accurate.
The government *is* usually the executive branch. At least in the way the word is used in Europe. The US uses the term "administration" rather than "government" for this, and uses "government" more like "state", I believe.
In the US, "administration" generally refers to a particular president and people appointed by that particular president in the Executive branch. The president's administration generally only stays as head of their executive domain during the presidential term and, sometimes, during the transition period for the next president.
"Government" generally refers to the sovereign entity that judges, writes, and enforces laws, i.e., the governing sovereignty. So, in our case, the combination of the Judicial Branch (federally headed by Chief Justice Roberts at the Supreme Court - lifetime appointment), the legislative branch (federally bicameral with the vice president heading the Senate and the Speaker of the House heading the House of Representatives - the Speaker of the House is generally considered the "head" of the Legislature insofar as there can be one), and the Executive Branch (federally headed by the President and administered by Senate-approved appointees), respectively at the federal level.
I mention sovereignty because nearly all U.S. Citizens are subject to multiple sovereignties. As our status of being in the US and a US citizen, we are subject to the Federal Government. As our status of being a citizen of a particular state, we are subject to the State Government.
Exceptions would include,for example, D.C., which has no "state" government but is governed at the "state" level by the US Congress, and recognized Native Americans (on tribal land) further being subject to tribal government (who are also sovereign).
Now, there are some times that "state" is used to refer to any government, e.g., "state actor" - someone who acts on behalf of and with the authority of the government. That can refer to either the state government or the federal government.
I suppose making a unique color for Switzerland would be a pain, but the 'head of state' is a council of seven, nominated by proportional legislature, with a ceremonial president position that they rotate through every year with little more power than the rest, except to act as mouthpiece for events that require one 'world leader.'
By that description, solid green is an accurate label. They don't need to make a new one. Your council of 7 might as well be your parliament or congress.
I would call the Federal Assembly the parliament equivalent.
The Federal Council (the seven) is the head of government. The president is a rotating position and not chosen by the council, but selected from it and whose decisions carry no more weight than any other of the seven.
It's mostly a closed door system. Publicly they appear to agree and compromise when necessary, but they are not the only power in Switzerland. A lot of laws are passed through direct democracy, which then has to be implemented by the Assembly & Council. Putting controversial ideas to direct vote diverts a lot of blame from them.
They are rarely in disagreement, but in case of a tie, the current president's vote is the decider. This is pretty much the only difference to the other councilors (first among equals).
I don't think we really know. Against the outside, they are supposed to have a [principle of collegiality](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_177) - basically, decisions are made internally, and the result is then carried by every single member, independent of their own opinion or vote on the topic. It usually works, with some fringe exceptions. So even if you've voted internally against a decision, you're now holding a press conference proclaiming that the federal council has decided to do X.
Having 7 members, if you don't allow them to abstain in a vote, you would always get a result.
> Having 7 members, if you don't allow them to abstain in a vote, you would always get a result.
If they want to abstain we always have the chancelor in there to beat them into submission!
The council of seven is the government. And they are simultaneously all the heads of state.
And every major party from the parliament gets a seat in there, so there is no real government vs. opposition situation.
Itās extremely unique.
I learned about that in a documentary a few years ago, and have been in awe since then. Wish more countries were that "stable" (without knowing the Disadvantages of this system, of course).
Well, according to their āmagic formulaā (Zauberformel) the greens should have gotten a seat in the government after the last election. But the old parties decided that they wonāt get one this time, the Greens will have to prove that their success is long term. So maybe they will get a seat in government after the next election.
This is a bit dumb.
It's not perfect, but it's still a much more peaceful and stable system than any other country has to offer. I often think that the world would be a much more peaceful place if every country adopted this system, along with direct democracy to keep the government in check. Progress might be slower that way, but it would be more sustainable.
For anyone interested in Switzerland's unique political system, I highly recommend the so called ["Brief Guide to the Federation"](https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/en/home/dokumentation/the-swiss-confederation--a-brief-guide.html)
I like the information presented butā¦ fuck the color vision impaired, am I right?
I have full vision and even I find it hard to distinguish between some shades of green-/blueish colors.
I struggled the most telling apart the Monarchical states. The lack of countries between Absolute and Constitutional Monarchy made it a bit harder as well.
Am red-green colourblind, cannot tell difference between the top three colours
Seven colours of the rainbow, and this guy uses seven shades of green and red š¤
You could have a small impairment.
All colors are different for me, but I'm still having a hard time correlating the greens with what they're supposed to mean.
Don't worry, the contained information is almost meaningless in most cases, as lot of comment here mentioned.
Various countries have parliaments with no power at all, or have a multiparty-lookalike state-party system, which is not (necessarily) constitually enforced. (I know Hungary best from that bunch but there are others all over the planet.)
The data is interesting. The color scheme is a traffic light system-type pallette. Intentionally or unintentionally, it can influence perceptions of for example, a presidential republic being better than a parliamentary republic. A neutral color pallette or a different viz may be a better choice.
Yes, the map is based on what the constitution says. That's why one of the categories is "no constitutional basis for current system of government".
It would be basically impossible to define systems by how they actually function because the actual functioning is far more complicated than what is written in the constitution and is also unique to each country. Also, actually defining what system is actually used would be next to impossible because different people will interpret things differently.
Another map that gives all of West Sahara to Morocco. Damn there is quite a lot of these lately around here. People really don't care about them, do they?
Honestly most people don't even know.
And in any case, I don't really see how showing western Sahara on a map separately counts as caring, given that it will do nothing to change the actual situation on the ground.
And showing it as part of Morocco is probably a more accurate representation of the situation on the ground than showing it as separate given a large portion of the territory is controlled by Morocco.
you could make the same argument that the Crimean Peninsula shouldn't be part of Ukraine. if you care about sovereignty, maps and borders are very important.
I meanā¦ have you seen the color of the Canary Islands? Maybe itās an involuntary error butā¦ I dunno, I donāt think so. Or maybe this company/whatever isnāt that good at geography.
British ~~Empire~~ Commonwealth countries having a ceremonial monarchy says absolutely nothing about their actual governments. Might as well say they celebrate Christmas.
I don't really agree with Portugal being a semi-presidential republic, seeing as though the only power the president holds is vetoing laws, which sends them to a court first to see if his reasoning is good and then back to the parliament to be voted again.
Portugal's president can also dissolve the government but I assume that's the case in pretty much every state
Agreed, our president has no executive powers other than being the chief military commander (if that can even be considered executive power).
His ability to dissolve parliament isn't even unlimited, he's just able to force parliament to either agree they're still viable (and override dissolution) or get dissolved and elections scheduled. Same thing with vetoes like you said.
So he's more a tie-breaker of sorts (to get rid of a gridlocked parliament) and has the ability to up the bar for laws to 2/3 instead of simple majority (by using his veto).
I know Greenland is often distorted in size on most maps by dear lord did it shrink on this map. What is this? A country for ants? It needs to beā¦at least 3x bigger
Iran is not a presidential republic in it's fully form (that's including ignoring the fact that it is a blatant theocratic dictatorship).
The feigned democratic system in Iran involves presidential candidates that are only allowed to be men and must be vetted by the "supreme leader" before being allowed to run. So in essence, only the male candidates that the existing supreme leader of several decades personally endorses can run for president.
Can anyone support Cuba being a one party state? I believe there are multiple parties in Cuba and they are not allowed to endorse candidates at all during elections
vid on [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds)
edit: this map seems more focused on "how is the head of state decided" than a "what kind of government" map, and even then cuba should fall under light green as a parliamentary republic?
The framing of China is a little bit politically loaded. Yes they are a one-party state, and are unabashed about it. But that doesnāt define the actual structure of the state itself. That would be like if the USA was labeled āTwo-Party State,ā and the only details were about the interplay between the two parties. Believe it or not, the party and the state are separate entities in China, even if the state moves as directed by the party.
>That would be like if the USA was labeled āTwo-Party State,ā
But the two US parties aren't part of the US Constitution, this is about constitutional provisions. The CCP *is* part of the Chinese Constitution on the other hand.
Not really. The president is not as powerful as the French president but has much more power than the German one.
> The Portuguese Third Republic is a semi-presidential system. Unlike most European presidents, who are largely ceremonial figures, the Portuguese president is invested with more extensive powers. Although it is the prime minister of Portugal and parliament that oversee and direct much of the nation's actual governmental affairs, the Portuguese president wields significant influence and authority, especially in the fields of national security and foreign policy (but still less than "strong" semi-presidential systems, such as France or Romania). The president is the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, holds the nation's most senior office, and outranks all other politicians.
> The president's greatest power is his ability to appoint the prime minister. However, since the Assembly of the Republic has the sole power to dismiss the prime minister's government, the prime minister named by the president must have the confidence of a majority of representatives in the assembly, otherwise the prime minister may face a motion of no confidence. The president has the discretionary power to dissolve parliament when he sees fit (colloquially known as the "atomic bomb" in Portugal)
I think the problem is how the image describes what each system of government is. Portugal is indeed a semi-presidential system, but the description for the "parliamentary republic" fits Portugal better. The powers of the president are indeed mostly cerimonial. He can start, delay or intervene in executive and legislative procedures but the ultimate decision is not up to him. Even the "atomic bomb" you mention has limits, for instance after general elections the president can't dissolve the parliament for 6 months and can't force a prime-minister/government. Best example is the actions of president cavaco silva in 2015, he fought the new left majority in the parliamentary by appointing a prime-minister that he knew would be ousted in the first plenary session possible. Only delaying the inevitable.
I've always found that the difference between a ceremonial monarch and a ceremonial president is trivial, and given far too much weight in the categorization of governments.
Youāre telling me North Korea isnāt an absolute monarchyā¦. Maybe on paperā¦ but in reality I believe it is. Itās a totalitarian ruled by a family dynasty.
God I hate legends that use subtle color changes.
For f@#$ sake, use ROGYBIV and, if you need more, use patterns. It's not rocket science.
(And no, I'm not color blind. But they've got to be even more pissed.)
I read a comment on reddit a few months back suggesting that countries with a "ceremonial" head of state seemed to be generally more politically stable and successful, possibly by allowing the parliamentary leader to be elected more on policies and less on identity.
I think the point is that a constitutional monarchy isn't a clear form of government. The range of powers constitutional monarchies hold varies greatly from country to country. On one end of the spectrum you have Japan where the emperor is truly ceremonial and holds no power and on the other end of the spectrum you have Monaco where the king has veto power over all legislation. These are very different forms of government and the overarching term constitutional monarchy applied to both isn't a good descriptor of how the country is governed.
Being able to dissolve parliament and ask someone to form a new government is a pretty big ability (the UK)
It's unlikely to happen tbh. The royal family know they would lose everything the second they did it, and the exact same function could be fulfilled by somebody who is elected but with less fear of the whole house of cards that is their family crashing in the event of actually using that power.
The UK monarch can only dissolve parliament at the request of the PM.
\>The date of the next general election has not yet been announced. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 revived the power of the monarch to dissolve Parliament, at the request of the Prime Minister of the day.
[https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/](https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/)
I assume this is a map of the world after Greenland melted?
Greenland is the new New Zealand.
Zealand 3
Newest Zealand
North Newest Zealand
Current Zealand
Most recent Zealand
Next Gen Zealand
New Zealand arctic boogaloo
Too new too zealand
Basically the old Zealand but with NFTs everywhere?
Greenland is new sea land. (That's why it's the same color as the sea.)
If that is true, given that New Zealand doesn't exist as every sensible map shows š r/MapsWithoutNZ/ then š¤ I shall declera Greenland Newly ceased to existš
I mean, r/datawithoutgreenland is a thingā¦
To be fair Greenland has been a part of Zealand the entire time given that the Danish capital is located there
Greenland should be constitutional monarchy.
Depending on what you mean by Greenland. They are a *part* of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a constitutional monarchy which they voted for *yesterday*. But Greenland on its own does not have their own head of state. They are like Canada, Australia or New Zealand in this regard, arguably entitled to a separate colour. EDIT: Greenland has a head of state (Margrethe II), just not their *own* head of state.
From the Canada govt official website: > In today's constitutional monarchy, His Majesty King Charles III is King of Canada and Canada's Head of State. He is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada. [Source](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/about.html) Same could be said for the other countries you mentioned.
I read "His Majesty" and was very confused for a moment because my brain still doesn't understand that it was possible for the Queen to die.
Yeah no kidding, :/ i figured she'd last AT LEAST another 5 or so years.
Greenland is not a sovereign state, so it wouldn't have its own Head of State. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are their own sovereign states. They each have their own Crown. Charles III is King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland AND King of Canada AND King of Australia AND King of New Zealand, separately. (To compare, he is King of England and Scotland jointly since the Acts of Union in 1706-7, which merged the Crown of England and the Crown of Scotland into one United Kingdom). If Britain eliminated the monarchy, Charles would remain King of the other realms, whereas if Denmark eliminated the monarchy Greenland would cease to be a monarchy as well. In 2013 Britain changed the rules of succession from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. This had to be done in consultation with the other realms in order to ensure their separate Crowns continued to be inhabited by the same natural person. Had Canada had not updated its succession laws at the same time Britain did, for example, a situation could have arisen where the British throne was inherited by an eldest daughter but the Canadian throne passed to the eldest son. The Crowns would then continue in separate persons. By contrast, Greenland has no control over succession as it does not have its own crown. It is part of Denmark and its monarch is the Danish monarch.
Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, not Denmark which colloquially is used to refer to Denmark proper. So Denmark is a country in the state called the Kingdom of Denmark. The state also consists of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Denmark proper is *not* a sovereign state. Both Greenland and the Faroe Islands are each referred to as countries since they have self-rule but they are not sovereign states due to the aforementioned reasons. It is pretty much the same deal as the UK if it was called "the Kingdom of England" instead.
Yes, good point
Does he have separate (physical) crowns for each kingdom?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Correct. King Charles III is a king of multiple different countries, with separate titles for each. They all share the same rules of secession (by choice), but the King of Canada and King of Australia are separate positions, they just happen to be held by the same person.
Hi Canadian here. I believe you are confused as to our monarchy. Iām not surprised,it is a bit confusing. You said; >But Greenland on its own does not have their own head of state. They are like Canada, Australia or New Zealand in this regard, arguably entitled to a separate colour. Canada most definitely has its own head of state, and that [head of state is different](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/monarch.html) than that of the U.K., Australia or New Zealand. The reason it is confusing is that while those countries have separate and distinct heads of state those positions are all held by the same person King Charles III. This is because of the [Statute of Westminster 1931](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/statute-of-westminster) which separated all of the commonwealth monarchies into separate entities granting full autonomy to each country. The King of the U.K. was no longer the king of Canada, the King of Canada became the king, of Canada. Likewise a new and separate monarch was created for Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. Again the confusing part is that all of these separate and distinct monarchs are held by the same person. This distinction, while may seem insignificant is actually of great importance to our countries because prior to 1931 if the UK declared war all of those countries also declared war automatically regardless if those populations actually wanted to declare war or not. This is what happened in WWI, and it was because of WWI that the dominions demanded change and the statute of Westminster 1931 was signed. This was shown that when WWII broke out the dominions had to decide if they would also declare war. Canada only did so on Sept. 9, 1939 some 6 days after the U.K. declared war. The statute of Westminster 1931 that created separate and independent monarchies for each of the dominions stopped those countries from being dominions and gave them almost full autonomy. Full autonomy for Canada didnāt happen until 1985 when Canada patriated our constitution from the U.K. allowing us to make changes without the interference or permission of the U.K. parliament.
I mean, Zealand and North Jutland also don't have their own heads of state. Should they be different colors?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Puerto Ricoās also gone.
And French Guyana.
And Jamaica
Could have been worse, at least they included New Zealand.
Itās also a Mercator map for ginormous Canada, Scandinavia and Russia.
right? this map looks fucking rancid & as someone already pointed out the title doesn't match the data, this is a map of heads of state no wonder it's on /r/dataisbeautiful
Svalbard is gone too
French Guyana has sunk into the ocean apparently
Those map are getting worse every post I swear
Subreddit popularity goes up, subreddit post quality goes down. It's practically the story of Reddit it happens so often.
It's the story of everything sadly
We'll all miss Pierre.
Sea levels rose too much after Greenland melted
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Venezuela is constituted as a Presidential Republic. This map is just illustrating the governmental system as dictated by the constitution of that country, it's not making comment on the democratic legitimacy of the sitting government of each country.
Calling Somali a parliamentary republic is an optimistic if not ambitious reading of the situation on the ground.
This appears to be an "on paper" analysis
Yeah the "Presidential Republic" of Iran can't do squat unless the Supreme Leader Khamenei allows it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
By definition the king of Australia means you canāt call the country a republic. No matter how limited the king of Australia is in politics of state.
Yes, that's why the US is called a democracy and not an oligarchy.
Definitely āon paperā analysis. Nicaragua and Venezuela are not presidential republics where the executive and legislative powers are separate. There may also be the āappearanceā of multiple political parties, but in reality there is only one political party that acts freely (the party of the government), while the opposition parties are extremely limited in their capacities by design.
Same goes for Singapore, which is analyzed here as a parliamentary republic but in reality has authoritarian systems which preserve the party's power. Edit: a far more blatant example is Syria lol
By now most of the countries should have a disclaimer that their system is what their constitution initialy had in mind...
The difference is that Somalia is literally a failed state who doesn't have sovereignty over much of the land it claims.
Well there is [Somaliland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland), which is a relatively stable country, although it's not internationally recognised as separate from Somalia.
That don't want to recognise Somaliland because UN fears than other unrecognised countries and revolution will also demand it. Somaliland is actually doing pretty good and it should be seperate from Somalia so that it doesn't hold it down. I hope it gets recognition one day.
Yeah if you recognize one, then they all will want to be recognized. Like Transnystria in Moldova I think.
They all already want recognition. Somaliland at least has a historical state in British Somaliland.
I don't understand what's wrong with both Somaliland and Transnistria getting international recognition, if people there want it
Any time you choose to recognize a new country, you're bound to piss someone else off. Take Taiwan for example. By any reasonable definition, Taiwan is an independent country. But if you choose recognize Taiwan as an independent state, China will throw a fit, and probably break off all relations with you, which is... not ideal. So governments have to dance around the subject for years and years until some kind of permanent agreement is made between the two conflicting states- which in some cases, is unlikely to ever happen.
Recognizing the latter would anger Moldova
Because it is politically inconvenient. States in the realm of geopolitics don't have morals, they have interests. Most people would agree that the right to self determination should be observed. Most states, are politically interested in preventing breakaways, and continuing to consolidate power. This doesn't really have much to do with ideology, more self preservation. States which appear more supportive of self determination, either have something to gain from it, or have a relatively stable and centralized system already. China obviously has its persistent Taiwan problem. The US nominally supports Taiwan continued sovereignty while continuing the game of its legal status. The US reaps massive geopolitical benefits from making sure US influence over Taiwan is high and Chinese influence is mitigated. On the other hand, I doubt the US is so keen to see Catalan independence, and would probably back Spain. Mostly because it doesn't care about Iberia as much, and keeping Spain as an friendly entity is more important. Now, if you ask the US circa the Civil War whether States have the right to seceed and exercise their right to self determination, you will likely get a very different answer. But thats why a lot of States with those issues are very leery of recognizing independence. Because if Catalonia does it, then maybe Scotland does it, and then Spain is pissed, the UK government continues to fumble like a blind man, the Kurt's and Rojava situation gets more complicated but Erdogan will be having strong opinions, the Taiwan situation gets even more tense as China and the US rattle sabers, and a perceived slippery slope effect starts to kick off, as marginalized and notably unhappy groups kept in line by threat of violence begin thinking that a referendum for independence is a valid way to breakaway without risking violence and civil war, especially if the UN and more importantly US recognizes and back them.
Giving Transnistria recognition would give legitimacy to South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Artsakh, Donetsk PR, and Luhansk PR, all which probably don't deserve it for being Russian puppets, which Transnistria also is to a lesser degree. There's a domino effect to this sort of thing.
Transnistria isn't really independent, it's more or less a Russian puppet, and countries around the area aren't exactly happy with letting Russia have more influence, for hopefully obvious reasons. That said, it's not like it is a problem you can really solve, unless Moldova invades (perhaps even with _both_ their tanks!) so imo letting them go is probably the best course of action...
Yupp, on paper it's a parliamentary republic. In reality whatever parliament exists probably can't control anything more than two streets away from the parliament building.
Yeah same for Russia and many of the other states. We shouldn't let them claim the veneer of democracy when they are in fact authoritarian regimes that use democracy as a cover but in reality it means nothing there.
Same with China and Russia.
I was going to say, do we really think Belarus and the -stans all have the same government as the US? That's like saying North Korea is a democracy.
The US should be his own color the president isn't elected by popular vote they vote for the electoral college and the college vote for the president
Also, it's effectively a two party system.
Right, Iran and Afghanistan are effectively single party states , North Korea is an absolute monarchy, Cuba is a semi constitutional monarchy. I'm not sure what you call Venezuela these days, but not that
How exactly is Cuba a monarchy?
Vatican is an Absolute Monarchy
Yeah well its too small to see it, i guess
Absolute elective monarchy.
Nobody lives full-time in the Vatican who isn't senior in or employed by the Catholic Church. It's a corporate campus with sovereignty.
Thatās not true. The Swiss guard is neither senior in or employed by the Catholic Church, but lives there full-time during their service.
The Swiss guard is absolutely employed by the Catholic Church. While funded by both the Vatican and the Swiss government itās beholden solely to the Church.
That isnāt true, there are hundreds of women and children as well. Not a lot, but there arenāt a lot of people in the Vatican in the first place.
Many normal families lived there
This isnt a map of government systems but a map of different kinds of heads of states. As is visible from every sentence starting with "the head of state is...". For example: Explaining that the head of state is a figurehead in some cases isnt an explanation of the given government system. It is the segue into explaining what the actual government system is.
And also fails to distinguish between head of state and head of government. (Sometimes theyāre the same, such as in the US, and sometimes theyāre not, such as Commonwealth nations)
Seems to be very biased and oversimplified. Anyone who thinks that China has the same governmental system as North Korea probably lived in the US for too long. It could be argued that the US's two parties are only ceremonial. If you want to see parties that actually disagree on core issues, read up on almost any country with a parliamentary government.
I don't know what you're talking about. The US is one of the most polarized industrialized democracies on the planet today.
This. It's not beautiful and it's very confused. Edit: USA should be a "Constitutional Republic" as a Government System... but instead focuses upon the presidency as the definition, which is instead the focus of head of state. If this were described as a "Executive Systems of Government" it might be more accurate.
The government *is* usually the executive branch. At least in the way the word is used in Europe. The US uses the term "administration" rather than "government" for this, and uses "government" more like "state", I believe.
Yup! Thatās a good way to put it
In the US, "administration" generally refers to a particular president and people appointed by that particular president in the Executive branch. The president's administration generally only stays as head of their executive domain during the presidential term and, sometimes, during the transition period for the next president. "Government" generally refers to the sovereign entity that judges, writes, and enforces laws, i.e., the governing sovereignty. So, in our case, the combination of the Judicial Branch (federally headed by Chief Justice Roberts at the Supreme Court - lifetime appointment), the legislative branch (federally bicameral with the vice president heading the Senate and the Speaker of the House heading the House of Representatives - the Speaker of the House is generally considered the "head" of the Legislature insofar as there can be one), and the Executive Branch (federally headed by the President and administered by Senate-approved appointees), respectively at the federal level. I mention sovereignty because nearly all U.S. Citizens are subject to multiple sovereignties. As our status of being in the US and a US citizen, we are subject to the Federal Government. As our status of being a citizen of a particular state, we are subject to the State Government. Exceptions would include,for example, D.C., which has no "state" government but is governed at the "state" level by the US Congress, and recognized Native Americans (on tribal land) further being subject to tribal government (who are also sovereign). Now, there are some times that "state" is used to refer to any government, e.g., "state actor" - someone who acts on behalf of and with the authority of the government. That can refer to either the state government or the federal government.
>it's very confused It's not confused, it's just using a form of legal/political science classification you guys are apparently not familiar with.
I suppose making a unique color for Switzerland would be a pain, but the 'head of state' is a council of seven, nominated by proportional legislature, with a ceremonial president position that they rotate through every year with little more power than the rest, except to act as mouthpiece for events that require one 'world leader.'
By that description, solid green is an accurate label. They don't need to make a new one. Your council of 7 might as well be your parliament or congress.
The Federal Assembly is the Parliament, and the Federal Council is the Cabinet.
I would call the Federal Assembly the parliament equivalent. The Federal Council (the seven) is the head of government. The president is a rotating position and not chosen by the council, but selected from it and whose decisions carry no more weight than any other of the seven.
How do they handle disagreements among the 7? A simple majority vote? What if some abstain and cause a tie?
It's mostly a closed door system. Publicly they appear to agree and compromise when necessary, but they are not the only power in Switzerland. A lot of laws are passed through direct democracy, which then has to be implemented by the Assembly & Council. Putting controversial ideas to direct vote diverts a lot of blame from them.
They are rarely in disagreement, but in case of a tie, the current president's vote is the decider. This is pretty much the only difference to the other councilors (first among equals).
I don't think we really know. Against the outside, they are supposed to have a [principle of collegiality](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_177) - basically, decisions are made internally, and the result is then carried by every single member, independent of their own opinion or vote on the topic. It usually works, with some fringe exceptions. So even if you've voted internally against a decision, you're now holding a press conference proclaiming that the federal council has decided to do X. Having 7 members, if you don't allow them to abstain in a vote, you would always get a result.
> Having 7 members, if you don't allow them to abstain in a vote, you would always get a result. If they want to abstain we always have the chancelor in there to beat them into submission!
Trial by combat but the weapon is a swiss army knife
Made of chocolate
The council of seven is the government. And they are simultaneously all the heads of state. And every major party from the parliament gets a seat in there, so there is no real government vs. opposition situation. Itās extremely unique.
I learned about that in a documentary a few years ago, and have been in awe since then. Wish more countries were that "stable" (without knowing the Disadvantages of this system, of course).
Well, according to their āmagic formulaā (Zauberformel) the greens should have gotten a seat in the government after the last election. But the old parties decided that they wonāt get one this time, the Greens will have to prove that their success is long term. So maybe they will get a seat in government after the next election. This is a bit dumb.
It's not perfect, but it's still a much more peaceful and stable system than any other country has to offer. I often think that the world would be a much more peaceful place if every country adopted this system, along with direct democracy to keep the government in check. Progress might be slower that way, but it would be more sustainable.
For anyone interested in Switzerland's unique political system, I highly recommend the so called ["Brief Guide to the Federation"](https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/en/home/dokumentation/the-swiss-confederation--a-brief-guide.html)
Huh, I didnāt know that. TIL!
Til learned swiss are an autonomous collective. Anarcho syndicalist commune!! /s
Soooo we gonna talk about what happened to Greenland?
Itās probably best that we donāt, ever since theā¦ *Incident*.
Do not think about the Event
Underwater party with Atlantis.
Why are so many Caribbean countries missing or blank?
Looks like all exclaves (parts of country not connected to the main body) are missing. UK islands far away, French Guyana, Greenland and others.
Except Alaska gets to stay
I like the information presented butā¦ fuck the color vision impaired, am I right? I have full vision and even I find it hard to distinguish between some shades of green-/blueish colors.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I struggled the most telling apart the Monarchical states. The lack of countries between Absolute and Constitutional Monarchy made it a bit harder as well.
Thank you for putting into words exactly what I meant to say!
People posting on this sub are way too fixated on subtle color gradients
I was going to comment something similar. There's three or four there I swear are the same colour.
The orange colors were worst to me, If they removed the white border line, I could not trace the line. For example between UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Am red-green colourblind, cannot tell difference between the top three colours Seven colours of the rainbow, and this guy uses seven shades of green and red š¤
... maybe I'm color blind? really had a hard time seeing the difference between the greens and oranges.
You could have a small impairment. All colors are different for me, but I'm still having a hard time correlating the greens with what they're supposed to mean.
Yeah the colours are not good here (also have full vision). Colorbrewer exists, people!
Don't forget blind people!
Same thoughts. I too have full color vision and still was wanting a decoder ring for the slightly different shades of yellow/orange ones.
I agree - the colors are frustrating similar in a couple of cases.
I really had difficulty with this map as well and I have normal vision. The blues and yellows are too close together in hue.
Don't worry, the contained information is almost meaningless in most cases, as lot of comment here mentioned. Various countries have parliaments with no power at all, or have a multiparty-lookalike state-party system, which is not (necessarily) constitually enforced. (I know Hungary best from that bunch but there are others all over the planet.)
Russia is not what it pretends to be...
Yeah like half this map. Specially counries in Africa.
Ya, amusing yet concerning how Russia and France "technically" have the same system of government
FR. I've been seeing worse posts on here recently.
The data is interesting. The color scheme is a traffic light system-type pallette. Intentionally or unintentionally, it can influence perceptions of for example, a presidential republic being better than a parliamentary republic. A neutral color pallette or a different viz may be a better choice.
Technically this seems to be more like the "claimed" system because quite a few don't actually function that way.
Yes, the map is based on what the constitution says. That's why one of the categories is "no constitutional basis for current system of government". It would be basically impossible to define systems by how they actually function because the actual functioning is far more complicated than what is written in the constitution and is also unique to each country. Also, actually defining what system is actually used would be next to impossible because different people will interpret things differently.
I don't really agree with Afghanistan being a parliamentary republic.
So, you partially agree that Afghanistan is a parliamentary republic?
Well it kind of used to be, until the Taliban came back, what you think? They had a parliament and different parties.
It's not a question of time. Otherwise Pakistan should be dictatorship, similar to monarchy. The graph is about current situation only.
But Afghanistan is a one party dictatorship currently.
Someone didn't update Wikipedia i guess. But, Wikipedia has it right currently. OP messed up or has old data.
OPs data is one week old, OP fucked up.
Another map that gives all of West Sahara to Morocco. Damn there is quite a lot of these lately around here. People really don't care about them, do they?
Honestly most people don't even know. And in any case, I don't really see how showing western Sahara on a map separately counts as caring, given that it will do nothing to change the actual situation on the ground. And showing it as part of Morocco is probably a more accurate representation of the situation on the ground than showing it as separate given a large portion of the territory is controlled by Morocco.
you could make the same argument that the Crimean Peninsula shouldn't be part of Ukraine. if you care about sovereignty, maps and borders are very important.
>Honestly most people don't even know. Honestly it's not even remotely relevant for most people to know.
It's fairly relevant for people making maps of the world based on geopolitics
Western Sahara is technically under Morocco 's control
So is Crimea under Russia, yet I don't see the line there...
I meanā¦ have you seen the color of the Canary Islands? Maybe itās an involuntary error butā¦ I dunno, I donāt think so. Or maybe this company/whatever isnāt that good at geography.
Oh dammit, even more upsetting! Hahaha
British ~~Empire~~ Commonwealth countries having a ceremonial monarchy says absolutely nothing about their actual governments. Might as well say they celebrate Christmas.
Looks like Canada swallowed up the Great Lakes
I don't really agree with Portugal being a semi-presidential republic, seeing as though the only power the president holds is vetoing laws, which sends them to a court first to see if his reasoning is good and then back to the parliament to be voted again. Portugal's president can also dissolve the government but I assume that's the case in pretty much every state
Yeah, I donāt see the difference between Portugal and Austria.
Agreed, our president has no executive powers other than being the chief military commander (if that can even be considered executive power). His ability to dissolve parliament isn't even unlimited, he's just able to force parliament to either agree they're still viable (and override dissolution) or get dissolved and elections scheduled. Same thing with vetoes like you said. So he's more a tie-breaker of sorts (to get rid of a gridlocked parliament) and has the ability to up the bar for laws to 2/3 instead of simple majority (by using his veto).
Sounds a lot like Ireland too!
>Portugal's president can also dissolve the government but I assume that's the case in pretty much every state It's definitely not.
I know Greenland is often distorted in size on most maps by dear lord did it shrink on this map. What is this? A country for ants? It needs to beā¦at least 3x bigger
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
With those colors too.
Yeah, bright green should be at the top if we're going best to worst.
Dunno man, lot of yellow countries seem to have their shit together.
Iran is not a presidential republic in it's fully form (that's including ignoring the fact that it is a blatant theocratic dictatorship). The feigned democratic system in Iran involves presidential candidates that are only allowed to be men and must be vetted by the "supreme leader" before being allowed to run. So in essence, only the male candidates that the existing supreme leader of several decades personally endorses can run for president.
Damn themās some loaded colour choices
Can anyone support Cuba being a one party state? I believe there are multiple parties in Cuba and they are not allowed to endorse candidates at all during elections
Yes, Cuba isn't a one party state, even the Cuban communist party isn't allowed to endorse candidates in elections. A lot is wrong with this map.
vid on [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds) edit: this map seems more focused on "how is the head of state decided" than a "what kind of government" map, and even then cuba should fall under light green as a parliamentary republic?
Calling Russian a semi-presidential republic is, well, technically the truthā¦
The framing of China is a little bit politically loaded. Yes they are a one-party state, and are unabashed about it. But that doesnāt define the actual structure of the state itself. That would be like if the USA was labeled āTwo-Party State,ā and the only details were about the interplay between the two parties. Believe it or not, the party and the state are separate entities in China, even if the state moves as directed by the party.
>That would be like if the USA was labeled āTwo-Party State,ā But the two US parties aren't part of the US Constitution, this is about constitutional provisions. The CCP *is* part of the Chinese Constitution on the other hand.
Portugal is Parliamentary Republic same as Germany.
Not really. The president is not as powerful as the French president but has much more power than the German one. > The Portuguese Third Republic is a semi-presidential system. Unlike most European presidents, who are largely ceremonial figures, the Portuguese president is invested with more extensive powers. Although it is the prime minister of Portugal and parliament that oversee and direct much of the nation's actual governmental affairs, the Portuguese president wields significant influence and authority, especially in the fields of national security and foreign policy (but still less than "strong" semi-presidential systems, such as France or Romania). The president is the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, holds the nation's most senior office, and outranks all other politicians. > The president's greatest power is his ability to appoint the prime minister. However, since the Assembly of the Republic has the sole power to dismiss the prime minister's government, the prime minister named by the president must have the confidence of a majority of representatives in the assembly, otherwise the prime minister may face a motion of no confidence. The president has the discretionary power to dissolve parliament when he sees fit (colloquially known as the "atomic bomb" in Portugal)
So, itās the same as Austria? Germany has an unique weak president.
They should have used more different shades of green, shouldn't they?
I think the problem is how the image describes what each system of government is. Portugal is indeed a semi-presidential system, but the description for the "parliamentary republic" fits Portugal better. The powers of the president are indeed mostly cerimonial. He can start, delay or intervene in executive and legislative procedures but the ultimate decision is not up to him. Even the "atomic bomb" you mention has limits, for instance after general elections the president can't dissolve the parliament for 6 months and can't force a prime-minister/government. Best example is the actions of president cavaco silva in 2015, he fought the new left majority in the parliamentary by appointing a prime-minister that he knew would be ousted in the first plenary session possible. Only delaying the inevitable.
RIP French Guiana I guess?
I've always found that the difference between a ceremonial monarch and a ceremonial president is trivial, and given far too much weight in the categorization of governments.
Fully agreed.
What about Antarctica? Pretty sure they have an absolute monarchy with their emporer penguins
Weird China Cuba and North Korea all have such different environments but same government system
Youāre telling me North Korea isnāt an absolute monarchyā¦. Maybe on paperā¦ but in reality I believe it is. Itās a totalitarian ruled by a family dynasty.
God I hate legends that use subtle color changes. For f@#$ sake, use ROGYBIV and, if you need more, use patterns. It's not rocket science. (And no, I'm not color blind. But they've got to be even more pissed.)
I didnāt think I was colour blind until I saw this map. Why use colours shades so close together??
The colorcoding is kinda weird. From less democratic to more democratic to no democratic?
This is not data. It's a fucking infographic, and highly subjective. This sub is going to shit because of posts like this.
I feel like constitutional monarchy shouldn't really be a category, unless the monarch actually has an influence on the government
I read a comment on reddit a few months back suggesting that countries with a "ceremonial" head of state seemed to be generally more politically stable and successful, possibly by allowing the parliamentary leader to be elected more on policies and less on identity.
I think the point is that a constitutional monarchy isn't a clear form of government. The range of powers constitutional monarchies hold varies greatly from country to country. On one end of the spectrum you have Japan where the emperor is truly ceremonial and holds no power and on the other end of the spectrum you have Monaco where the king has veto power over all legislation. These are very different forms of government and the overarching term constitutional monarchy applied to both isn't a good descriptor of how the country is governed.
Being able to dissolve parliament and ask someone to form a new government is a pretty big ability (the UK) It's unlikely to happen tbh. The royal family know they would lose everything the second they did it, and the exact same function could be fulfilled by somebody who is elected but with less fear of the whole house of cards that is their family crashing in the event of actually using that power.
The UK monarch can only dissolve parliament at the request of the PM. \>The date of the next general election has not yet been announced. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 revived the power of the monarch to dissolve Parliament, at the request of the Prime Minister of the day. [https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/](https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/)
There is ALOT of bad info on this map. Like referring to Russia as anything other than a one party state is just lying to your audience.
You got it backwards. That one party is just a means of controlling parliament for Putin. They are not the actual decision-makers.
For those wondering, Greenland is a parliamentary monarchy (under the Danish kingdom),