Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 10, 2018 at 11:56 vote accept user75619
Dec 7, 2018 at 15:56 comment added Peter Taylor Certainly the monarch can't make arbitrary choices, but it's maybe too reductionist to say that it's parliament's choice. In practice, the party with most seats will typically get first shot at forming a coalition, so there's a sense in which the voters have a significant input too. A careful and precise formulation probably needs an essay, not an SE answer or comment! Thanks for the clarification about which system you know best.
Dec 7, 2018 at 14:46 comment added Emil Bode I'm most familiar with the Dutch situation, but I've extended my answer a bit, thanks for noting. And the fact that a PM is formally appointed by a monarch is mostly a left-over from earlier times, when the monarch still had a lot of power. In practice, parliament decides who is acceptable and who is not, the monarch can't just appoint someone. That's just like saying parliament can't fire a PM: formally they can't, but a vote of no confidence effectively means the same.
Dec 7, 2018 at 14:39 history edited Emil Bode CC BY-SA 4.0
Clarified (based on comment)
Dec 7, 2018 at 11:32 comment added Peter Taylor The description of parliamentary democracy doesn't fit either of the two instances which I more-or-less understand. In both the UK and Spain the prime minister is formally chosen by the monarch. In addition, in both systems a vote of no confidence does not (always) trigger elections. In the UK, since 2011, it triggers a two-week period in which the monarch can try to find someone else who can command the confidence of Parliament. In Spain, a motion of no confidence must name the person who will take over as prime minister. The current Spanish PM gained the post by this process six months ago.
Dec 5, 2018 at 10:35 review First posts
Dec 5, 2018 at 10:51
Dec 5, 2018 at 10:32 history answered Emil Bode CC BY-SA 4.0