Head of State.

[CurlewKate]

Can someone please explain to me as if I'm an alien learning about how Earth Countries are governed why we need a Head of Stare?

Someone to represent the country as a whole at state level events.

Someone to be considered "above politics" to sort out crisis issues when direct political solutions cannot be found. For example in many countries when a government cannot be formed or a constitutional crisis occurs the head of state who is generally an experienced and well trusted individual will step in to make a decision, or help broker an outcome.

If by "we" you are referring to the UK, then it is normally the former rather than the latter, because politicians do everything in their power to keep the head of state out of politics, and the supreme court can largely resolve any issues of "constitutional" crises.

In other countries the head of state can often have more wide ranging powers than in the UK, because engaging the head of state in direct decision making is seen as less inflammatory politically.

It's a stable, supposedly neutral figure who can act to represent the country and extend hospitality outside of the political arena.

Or, basically everything GasPanic said.

Sorry-by "we" I do mean the UK (remember I am am an alien). So , by those criteria, we do not need one at all in the UK?

We do have one. It's the King.

Well all countries have them (well most I think) and it certainly doesn’t need to be a royal. In fact most don’t have royal heads of state. They are a powerless, but dignified and important representative of the nation. I think they are important.
BUT, I detest royalty and find them an anachronism now. They need to go.

Need is very much an overused word.

Do we need lots of things ? Probably not.

That doesn't necessarily mean that having them is not desirable though.

I think most countries find it useful to have an appointed representative that is (largely) separate from politics or apolitical. Things can get more tricky for example when a head of state also has significant executive powers because then when you interact with the head of state you are seen as endorsing them politically.

This creates a tiptoe type situation, so for example between the US and the UK the UK has to tread carefully in trying to be in some respects apolitical in how it acts towards the US president in the respect they are the democratic choice of the US public and have a head of state role but political in others because the US president also has executive powers.

But broadly speaking, isn't head of state just the most senior person in charge, whether it's a monarch or a president, or whatever the title they have is?

So, if we didn't have a monarchy, there would still be someone at "the top".

Do any countries not have someone in a head of state role, eg the king for the UK, Canada, Australia and others, Biden (soon to be Trump) for the US, Macron for France etc

But our HofS may be apolitical, but has significant financial links with many countries- surely that's not impartial either?

I've always believed that the need for a Head of State depends on what the system is. You can't just change the Head of State, you have to change the whole system which hangs on the type of Head you have.

So if we remove the monarchy we can no longer be a constitutional monarchy and need to unpick all the ways the system is entwined with a monarch as Head of State and then decide if we want a political or apolitical Head of State in their place. Then we change those parts of the system which need to be changed to accommodate that difference.

I think you'd struggle to find anyone completely impartial.

Generally people who are old come with baggage and anyone who is in the running for a HOS position generally hasn't got there by not having some significant engagement with the world, maybe either financially or politically.

I guess there might be some sort of supreme monk somewhere that might not have any baggage, although looking at some of the issues arising recently with the heads of the CoE maybe even that is an unrealistic expectation.

On a practical level, Heads of State provide continuity at certain points in the democratic process, particularly around elections. And between elections they represent the country and often have an important admin role - generally it's their signature that is required for new laws, etc. The political nature of the role varies. So whilst both France and Germany have a President, the roles of Macron and Steinmeier are very different.

@GasPanic "Generally people who are old come with baggage and anyone who is in the running for a HOS position generally hasn't got there by not having some significant engagement with the world, maybe either financially or politically"

"Significant engagement" is a little different to self interest.

It's interesting that in any conversation about abolishing the monarchy, the fact that we need a Head of State is always a significant argument, but nobody can actually make a convincing argument for why we need one.

Those countries (such as the US) without a Head of State separate from the Executive role (e.g. Prime Minister) tend to have two elected chambers to cover the administrative functions a Head of State provides.

Whenever you've got an indirectly elected chief executive role such as the UK's system of electing Prime Minister, you need a separate Head of State to provide continuity in periods of political change. It could be a monarch, or an elected/appointed President. It just needs to be a fixed point that the system can work around.

The arguments about whether we need a monarch or a head of state are two quite different arguments. It's easier to run a political system with a head of state, but it doesn't have to be a hereditary monarch.

Who guards the guards?

Who has power in a country and who can check that power?
How should power be separated out?

In some countries, the President is apolitical and can act as a check on political power - so should the governing party try to do something unconstitutional, they would have the power to prevent that, involve the courts, (again, who appoints the judges etc)

This is the role of the Irish Head of State

The President | Constitutional Role | President of Ireland

The formal powers and functions of the President are prescribed in the Constitution. Many of the powers of the President can only be exercised on the advice of the Government, but the President has absolute discretion in other areas.
The President's powers include:

• Appointment of the Taoiseach, members of the Government, judges and other officials;
• Summoning and dissolving the Dáil, and convening the Oireachtas;
• Signing legislation into law and/or referring Bills to the Supreme Court;
• Representing the people of Ireland;
• Acting as Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces.

Ours has no political power beyond the ceremonial, but they do serve a diplomatic function. All the international state visits and so on; and domestic diplomacy too - e.g. visiting small towns when a tragedy has happened or a major new business is opening. I think we need a head of state, but an elected one, not a royal one.

We need a Head of State because our system is set up to run with one. The US and pretty much every other country is the same. If we set the system up differently then we wouldn't need a Head of State.

However, human nature being what it is, even if a more egalitarian system was set up I doubt it would last long before someone or a small group of someones ended up with more power than anyone else.

The US combines the role of Head of State with Head of Government. It's a very, very different system.

But still a system that is built around a Head of State.

All countries have a Head of State. Ours just so happens to be the King - by your logic, Macron and Meloni shouldn’t be HOS either. Neither should Aliyev, Biden, Xi.

Your issue is with the Royal Family - not with the idea of a ‘Head of State.’

If you take that approach/definition, it's pretty much impossible not to have one - which doesn't engage with the OP's ill-defined question.

Switzerland is the only country I can think of that doesn't have a Head of State.

It is theoretically possible to avoid having one person at the top of the system. I just don't think it would work practically.

As above, Switzerland is the only example I can think of/find without one.

As they've refined their replies, the OP appears to have been meaning to ask whether the UK needs a monarchy as a HoS. Which is a quite different question.

There's a long range of options with how you apply a HoS to an elected democracy. The US system appears cumbersome and inefficient (and, quite frankly, undemocratic), the UK system works with a hereditary monarchy on the understanding that the HoS will never exercise the absolute powers available to them, France has a very politically involved HoS, whereas in Germany the role is much more administrative (and most people in the UK probably wouldn't be aware that Germany had a president, let alone name him).

We could change/reform the UK system to something without a monarchy, but the questions then becomes what we'd want instead. I don't think Ireland would sell their lovely president in a transfer deal (and as he's keen on dogs he may not be popular on MN).