Search This Blog

Saturday, June 22, 2024

Head of state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state

A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona of a sovereign state. The specific naming of the head of state depends on the country's form of government and separation of powers; the head of state may be a ceremonial figurehead or concurrently the head of government and more.

In a parliamentary system, such as India or the United Kingdom, the head of state usually has mostly ceremonial powers, with a separate head of government. However, in some parliamentary systems, like South Africa, there is an executive president that is both head of state and head of government. Likewise, in some parliamentary systems the head of state is not the head of government, but still has significant powers, for example Morocco. In contrast, a semi-presidential system, such as France, has both heads of state and government as the de facto leaders of the nation (in practice they divide the leadership of the nation between themselves).

Meanwhile, in presidential systems, the head of state is also the head of government. In one-party ruling communist states, the position of president has no tangible powers by itself; however, since such a head of state, as a matter of custom, simultaneously holds the post of General Secretary of the Communist Party, they are the executive leader with their powers deriving from their status of being the party leader, rather than the office of president.

Former French president Charles de Gaulle, while developing the current Constitution of France (1958), said that the head of state should embody l'esprit de la nation ("the spirit of the nation").

Constitutional models

Grassalkovich Palace in Bratislava is the seat of the President of Slovakia.

Some academic writers discuss states and governments in terms of "models".

An independent nation state normally has a head of state, and determines the extent of its head's executive powers of government or formal representational functions. In terms of protocol: the head of a sovereign, independent state is usually identified as the person who, according to that state's constitution, is the reigning monarch, in the case of a monarchy; or the president, in the case of a republic.

Among the state constitutions (fundamental laws) that establish different political systems, four major types of heads of state can be distinguished:

  1. The parliamentary system, with two subset models;
    1. The standard model, in which the head of state, in theory, possesses key executive powers, but such power is exercised on the binding advice of a head of government (e.g. United Kingdom, India, Germany).
    2. The non-executive model, in which the head of state has either none or very limited executive powers, and mainly has a ceremonial and symbolic role (e.g. Sweden, Japan, Israel).
  2. The semi-presidential system, in which the head of state shares key executive powers with a head of government or cabinet (e.g. Russia, France, Sri Lanka); and
  3. The presidential system, in which the head of state is also the head of government and has all executive powers (e.g. United States, Indonesia, South Korea).

In a federal constituent or a dependent territory, the same role is fulfilled by the holder of an office corresponding to that of a head of state. For example, in each Canadian province the role is fulfilled by the lieutenant governor, whereas in most British Overseas Territories the powers and duties are performed by the governor. The same applies to Australian states, Indian states, etc. Hong Kong's constitutional document, the Basic Law, for example, specifies the chief executive as the head of the special administrative region, in addition to their role as the head of government. These non-sovereign-state heads, nevertheless, have limited or no role in diplomatic affairs, depending on the status and the norms and practices of the territories concerned.

Parliamentary system

World's parliamentary states (as of 2024):
  Republics with an executive president elected by a parliament
  Parliamentary republics
  Parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch usually does not personally exercise power
  Presidential republics, one-party states, and other forms of government

Standard model

In parliamentary systems the head of state may be merely the nominal chief executive officer, heading the executive branch of the state, and possessing limited executive power. In reality, however, following a process of constitutional evolution, powers are usually only exercised by direction of a cabinet, presided over by a head of government who is answerable to the legislature. This accountability and legitimacy requires that someone be chosen who has a majority support in the legislature (or, at least, not a majority opposition – a subtle but important difference). It also gives the legislature the right to vote down the head of government and their cabinet, forcing it either to resign or seek a parliamentary dissolution. The executive branch is thus said to be responsible (or answerable) to the legislature, with the head of government and cabinet in turn accepting constitutional responsibility for offering constitutional advice to the head of state.

King Harald V of Norway

In parliamentary constitutional monarchies, the legitimacy of the unelected head of state typically derives from the tacit approval of the people via the elected representatives. Accordingly, at the time of the Glorious Revolution, the English parliament acted of its own authority to name a new king and queen (the joint monarchs Mary II and William III); likewise, Edward VIII's abdication required the approval of each of the six independent realms of which he was monarch. In monarchies with a written constitution, the position of monarch is created under the constitution and could be abolished through a democratic procedure of constitutional amendment. In many cases there are significant procedural hurdles imposed on such a procedure (as in the Constitution of Spain).

In republics with a parliamentary system (such as India, Germany, Austria, Italy and Israel), the head of state is usually titled president and the principal functions of such presidents are mainly ceremonial and symbolic, as opposed to the presidents in a presidential or semi-presidential system.

In reality, numerous variants exist to the position of a head of state within a parliamentary system. The older the constitution, the more constitutional leeway tends to exist for a head of state to exercise greater powers over government, as many older parliamentary system constitutions in fact give heads of state powers and functions akin to presidential or semi-presidential systems, in some cases without containing reference to modern democratic principles of accountability to parliament or even to modern governmental offices. Usually, the king had the power of declaring war without previous consent of the parliament.

For example, under the 1848 constitution of the Kingdom of Sardinia, and then the Kingdom of Italy, the Statuto Albertino—the parliamentary approval to the government appointed by the king—was customary, but not required by law. So, Italy had a de facto parliamentary system, but a de jure "presidential" system.

Examples of heads of state in parliamentary systems using greater powers than usual, either because of ambiguous constitutions or unprecedented national emergencies, include the decision by King Leopold III of the Belgians to surrender on behalf of his state to the invading German army in 1940, against the will of his government. Judging that his responsibility to the nation by virtue of his coronation oath required him to act, he believed that his government's decision to fight rather than surrender was mistaken and would damage Belgium. (Leopold's decision proved highly controversial. After World War II, Belgium voted in a referendum to allow him to resume his monarchical powers and duties, but because of the ongoing controversy he ultimately abdicated.) The Belgian constitutional crisis in 1990, when the head of state refused to sign into law a bill permitting abortion, was resolved by the cabinet assuming the power to promulgate the law while he was treated as "unable to reign" for twenty-four hours.

Non-executive model

Two contemporary heads of state who are constitutional monarchs, but with no political power: King Norodom Sihamoni of Cambodia (left), and King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (right).

These officials are excluded completely from the executive: they do not possess even theoretical executive powers or any role, even formal, within the government. Hence their states' governments are not referred to by the traditional parliamentary model head of state styles of His/Her Majesty's Government or His/Her Excellency's Government. Within this general category, variants in terms of powers and functions may exist.

The Constitution of Japan (日本国憲法, Nihonkoku-Kenpō) was drawn up under the Allied occupation that followed World War II and was intended to replace the previous militaristic and quasi-absolute monarchy system with a form of liberal democracy parliamentary system. The constitution explicitly vests all executive power in the Cabinet, who is chaired by the prime minister (articles 65 and 66) and responsible to the Diet (articles 67 and 69). The emperor is defined in the constitution as "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people" (article 1), and is generally recognised throughout the world as the Japanese head of state. Although the emperor formally appoints the prime minister to office, article 6 of the constitution requires him to appoint the candidate "as designated by the Diet", without any right to decline appointment. He is a ceremonial figurehead with no independent discretionary powers related to the governance of Japan.

Since the passage in Sweden of the 1974 Instrument of Government, the Swedish monarch no longer has many of the standard parliamentary system head of state functions that had previously belonged to him or her, as was the case in the preceding 1809 Instrument of Government. Today, the speaker of the Riksdag appoints (following a vote in the Riksdag) the prime minister and terminates their commission following a vote of no confidence or voluntary resignation. Cabinet members are appointed and dismissed at the sole discretion of the prime minister. Laws and ordinances are promulgated by two Cabinet members in unison signing "On Behalf of the Government" and the government—not the monarch—is the high contracting party with respect to international treaties. The remaining official functions of the sovereign, by constitutional mandate or by unwritten convention, are to open the annual session of the Riksdag, receive foreign ambassadors and sign the letters of credence for Swedish ambassadors, chair the foreign advisory committee, preside at the special Cabinet council when a new prime minister takes office, and to be kept informed by the prime minister on matters of state.

In contrast, the only contact the president of Ireland has with the Irish government is through a formal briefing session given by the taoiseach (head of government) to the president. However, the president has no access to documentation and all access to ministers goes through the Department of the Taoiseach. The president does, however, hold limited reserve powers, such as referring a bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality, which are used under the president's discretion.

The most extreme non-executive republican head of state is the President of Israel, which holds no reserve powers whatsoever. The least ceremonial powers held by the president are to provide a mandate to attempt to form a government, to approve the dissolution of the Knesset made by the prime minister, and to pardon criminals or to commute their sentence.

Executive model

Some parliamentary republics (like South Africa, Botswana and Kiribati) have fused the roles of the head of state with the head of government (like in a presidential system), while having the sole executive officer, often called a president, being dependent on the Parliament's confidence to rule (like in a parliamentary system). While also being the leading symbol of the nation, the president in this system acts mostly as a prime minister since the incumbent must be a member of the legislature at the time of the election, answer question sessions in Parliament, avoid motions of no confidence, etc.

Semi-presidential systems

Charles de Gaulle, President and head of state of the French Fifth Republic (1959–1969)
Main article: Semi-presidential system

Semi-presidential systems combine features of presidential and parliamentary systems, notably (in the president-parliamentary subtype) a requirement that the government be answerable to both the president and the legislature. The constitution of the Fifth French Republic provides for a prime minister who is chosen by the president, but who nevertheless must be able to gain support in the National Assembly. Should a president be of one side of the political spectrum and the opposition be in control of the legislature, the president is usually obliged to select someone from the opposition to become prime minister, a process known as Cohabitation. President François Mitterrand, a Socialist, for example, was forced to cohabit with the neo-Gaullist (right wing) Jacques Chirac, who became his prime minister from 1986 to 1988. In the French system, in the event of cohabitation, the president is often allowed to set the policy agenda in security and foreign affairs and the prime minister runs the domestic and economic agenda.

Other countries evolve into something akin to a semi-presidential system or indeed a full presidential system. Weimar Germany, for example, in its constitution provided for a popularly elected president with theoretically dominant executive powers that were intended to be exercised only in emergencies, and a cabinet appointed by him from the Reichstag, which was expected, in normal circumstances, to be answerable to the Reichstag. Initially, the president was merely a symbolic figure with the Reichstag dominant; however, persistent political instability, in which governments often lasted only a few months, led to a change in the power structure of the republic, with the president's emergency powers called increasingly into use to prop up governments challenged by critical or even hostile Reichstag votes. By 1932, power had shifted to such an extent that the German president, Paul von Hindenburg, was able to dismiss a chancellor and select his own person for the job, even though the outgoing chancellor possessed the confidence of the Reichstag while the new chancellor did not. Subsequently, President von Hindenburg used his power to appoint Adolf Hitler as Chancellor without consulting the Reichstag.

Presidential system

George Washington, the first president of the United States, set the precedent for an executive head of state in republican systems of government
Main article: Presidential system

Note: The head of state in a "presidential" system may not actually hold the title of "president" - the name of the system refers to any head of state who actually governs and is not directly dependent on the legislature to remain in office.

Some constitutions or fundamental laws provide for a head of state who is not only in theory but in practice chief executive, operating separately from, and independent from, the legislature. This system is known as a "presidential system" and sometimes called the "imperial model", because the executive officials of the government are answerable solely and exclusively to a presiding, acting head of state, and is selected by and on occasion dismissed by the head of state without reference to the legislature. It is notable that some presidential systems, while not providing for collective executive accountability to the legislature, may require legislative approval for individuals prior to their assumption of cabinet office and empower the legislature to remove a president from office (for example, in the United States of America). In this case the debate centers on confirming them into office, not removing them from office, and does not involve the power to reject or approve proposed cabinet members en bloc, so accountability does not operate in the same sense understood as a parliamentary system.

Presidential systems are a notable feature of constitutions in the Americas, including those of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico and Venezuela; this is generally attributed to the strong influence of the United States in the region, and as the United States Constitution served as an inspiration and model for the Latin American wars of independence of the early 19th century. Most presidents in such countries are selected by democratic means (popular direct or indirect election); however, like all other systems, the presidential model also encompasses people who become head of state by other means, notably through military dictatorship or coup d'état, as often seen in Latin American, Middle Eastern and other presidential regimes. Some of the characteristics of a presidential system, such as a strong dominant political figure with an executive answerable to them, not the legislature can also be found among absolute monarchies, parliamentary monarchies and single party (e.g., Communist) regimes, but in most cases of dictatorship, their stated constitutional models are applied in name only and not in political theory or practice.

Single-party states

In certain states under Marxist–Leninist constitutions of the constitutionally socialist state type inspired by the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its constitutive Soviet republics, real political power belonged to the sole legal party. In these states, there was no formal office of head of state, but rather the leader of the legislative branch was considered to be the closest common equivalent of a head of state as a natural person. In the Soviet Union this position carried such titles as Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR; Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet; and in the case of the Soviet Russia Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets (pre-1922), and Chairman of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian SFSR (1956–1966). This position may or may not have been held by the de facto Soviet leader at the moment. For example, Nikita Khrushchev never headed the Supreme Soviet but was First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (party leader) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers (head of government).

This may even lead to an institutional variability, as in North Korea, where, after the presidency of party leader Kim Il Sung, the office was vacant for years. The late president was granted the posthumous title (akin to some ancient Far Eastern traditions to give posthumous names and titles to royalty) of "Eternal President". All substantive power, as party leader, itself not formally created for four years, was inherited by his son Kim Jong Il. The post of president was formally replaced on 5 September 1998, for ceremonial purposes, by the office of President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, while the party leader's post as chairman of the National Defense Commission was simultaneously declared "the highest post of the state", not unlike Deng Xiaoping earlier in the People's Republic of China.

In China, under the current country's constitution, the Chinese President is a largely ceremonial office with limited power. However, since 1993, as a matter of convention, the presidency has been held simultaneously by the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, the top leader in the one party system. The presidency is officially regarded as an institution of the state rather than an administrative post; theoretically, the President serves at the pleasure of the National People's Congress, the legislature, and is not legally vested to take executive action on its own prerogative.

Complications with categorisation

George V, Emperor of India, and Empress Mary at the Delhi Durbar, 1911.

While clear categories do exist, it is sometimes difficult to choose which category some individual heads of state belong to. In reality, the category to which each head of state belongs is assessed not by theory but by practice.

Constitutional change in Liechtenstein in 2003 gave its head of state, the Reigning Prince, constitutional powers that included a veto over legislation and power to dismiss the head of government and cabinet. It could be argued that the strengthening of the Prince's powers, vis-a-vis the Landtag (legislature), has moved Liechtenstein into the semi-presidential category. Similarly the original powers given to the Greek President under the 1974 Hellenic Republic constitution moved Greece closer to the French semi-presidential model.

Another complication exists with South Africa, in which the president is in fact elected by the National Assembly (legislature) and is thus similar, in principle, to a head of government in a parliamentary system but is also, in addition, recognised as the head of state. The offices of president of Nauru and president of Botswana are similar in this respect to the South African presidency.

Panama, during the military dictatorships of Omar Torrijos and Manuel Noriega, was nominally a presidential republic. However, the elected civilian presidents were effectively figureheads with real political power being exercised by the chief of the Panamanian Defense Forces.

Historically, at the time of the League of Nations (1920–1946) and the founding of the United Nations (1945), India's head of state was the monarch of the United Kingdom, ruling directly or indirectly as Emperor of India through the Viceroy and Governor-General of India.

Roles

Coronation ceremony: Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh in her coronation portrait on 2 June 1953.

Head of state is the highest-ranking constitutional position in a sovereign state. A head of state has some or all of the roles listed below, often depending on the constitutional category (above), and does not necessarily regularly exercise the most power or influence of governance. There is usually a formal public ceremony when a person becomes head of state, or some time after. This may be the swearing in at the inauguration of a president of a republic, or the coronation of a monarch.

Symbolic role

One of the most important roles of the modern head of state is being a living national symbol of the state; in hereditary monarchies this extends to the monarch being a symbol of the unbroken continuity of the state. For instance, the Canadian monarch is described by the government as being the personification of the Canadian state and is described by the Department of Canadian Heritage as the "personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians".

In many countries, official portraits of the head of state can be found in government offices, courts of law, or other public buildings. The idea, sometimes regulated by law, is to use these portraits to make the public aware of the symbolic connection to the government, a practice that dates back to medieval times. Sometimes this practice is taken to excess, and the head of state becomes the principal symbol of the nation, resulting in the emergence of a personality cult where the image of the head of state is the only visual representation of the country, surpassing other symbols such as the flag.

Other common representations are on coins, postage and other stamps and banknotes, sometimes by no more than a mention or signature; and public places, streets, monuments and institutions such as schools are named for current or previous heads of state. In monarchies (e.g., Belgium) there can even be a practice to attribute the adjective "royal" on demand based on existence for a given number of years. However, such political techniques can also be used by leaders without the formal rank of head of state, even party - and other revolutionary leaders without formal state mandate.

Heads of state often greet important foreign visitors, particularly visiting heads of state. They assume a host role during a state visit, and the programme may feature playing of the national anthems by a military band, inspection of military troops, official exchange of gifts, and attending a state dinner at the official residence of the host.

At home, heads of state are expected to render lustre to various occasions by their presence, such as by attending artistic or sports performances or competitions (often in a theatrical honour box, on a platform, on the front row, at the honours table), expositions, national day celebrations, dedication events, military parades and war remembrances, prominent funerals, visiting different parts of the country and people from different walks of life, and at times performing symbolic acts such as cutting a ribbon, groundbreaking, ship christening, laying the first stone. Some parts of national life receive their regular attention, often on an annual basis, or even in the form of official patronage.

The Olympic Charter (rule 55.3) of the International Olympic Committee states that the Olympic summer and winter games shall be opened by the head of state of the host nation, by uttering a single formulaic phrase as determined by the charter.

As such invitations may be very numerous, such duties are often in part delegated to such persons as a spouse, a head of government or a cabinet minister or in other cases (possibly as a message, for instance, to distance themselves without rendering offence) just a military officer or civil servant.

For non-executive heads of state there is often a degree of censorship by the politically responsible government (such as the head of government). This means that the government discreetly approves agenda and speeches, especially where the constitution (or customary law) assumes all political responsibility by granting the crown inviolability (in fact also imposing political emasculation) as in the Kingdom of Belgium from its very beginning; in a monarchy this may even be extended to some degree to other members of the dynasty, especially the heir to the throne.

Below follows a list of examples from different countries of general provisions in law, which either designate an office as head of state or define its general purpose.

  • Example 1 (parliamentary monarchy): Section 56 (1) of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 states:
    • The King is the Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence. He arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community, and exercises the functions expressly conferred on him by the Constitution and the laws.
  • Example 2 (parliamentary absentee monarchy): Article 2 of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 states:
    • (1) The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.
    • (2) The Governor-General appointed by the Sovereign is the Sovereign's representative in New Zealand.
  • Example 3 (parliamentary non-executive monarchy): Article 1 of the Constitution of Japan states:
    • The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.
  • Example 4 (parliamentary republic): Title II, Article 87 of the Constitution of Italy states:
  • Example 5 (parliamentary republic): Article 67 of the Iraqi constitution of 2005 states:
    • The President of the Republic is the Head of the State and a symbol of the unity of the country and represents the sovereignty of the country. He shall guarantee the commitment to the Constitution and the preservation of Iraq's independence, sovereignty, unity, and the safety of its territories, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
  • Example 6 (semi-presidential republic): Title II, Chapter I, Article 120 of the Constitution of Portugal states:
    • The President of the Republic represents the Portuguese Republic, guarantees national independence, the unity of the state and the proper operation of the democratic institutions, and is ex officio Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
  • Example 7 (presidential republic): Chapter IV, Section 1, Article 66 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states:
    • (1)The President shall be the Head of State and represent the State vis-à-vis foreign states.
    • (2)The President shall have the responsibility and duty to safeguard the independence, territorial integrity and continuity of the State and the Constitution.
  • Example 8 (semi-presidential republic): Chapter VI, Article 77 of the Constitution of Lithuania states:
    • The President of the Republic shall be Head of State.
    • He shall represent the State of Lithuania and shall perform everything with which he is charged by the Constitution and laws.
  • Example 9 (semi-presidential republic): Chapter 4, Article 80, Section 1-2 of the Constitution of Russia states:
    • 1. The President of the Russian Federation shall be the Head of State.
    • 2. The President of the Russian Federation shall be the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and of human and civil rights and freedoms. In accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, he (she) shall adopt measures to protect the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and State integrity, and shall ensure the coordinated functioning and interaction of State government bodies.
  • Example 10 (presidential republic): Section 87 (Second Division, Chapter 1) of the Constitution of Argentina provides that:

Executive role

In the majority of states, whether republics or monarchies, executive authority is vested, at least notionally, in the head of state. In presidential systems the head of state is the actual, de facto chief executive officer. Under parliamentary systems the executive authority is exercised by the head of state, but in practice is done so on the advice of the cabinet of ministers. This produces such terms as "Her Majesty's Government" and "His Excellency's Government." Examples of parliamentary systems in which the head of state is notional chief executive include Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, India, Italy, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom.

The few exceptions where the head of state is not even the nominal chief executive - and where supreme executive authority is according to the constitution explicitly vested in a cabinet - include the Czech Republic, Ireland, Israel, Japan and Sweden.

Appointment of senior officials

The head of state usually appoints most or all the key officials in the government, including the head of government and other cabinet ministers, key judicial figures; and all major office holders in the civil service, foreign service and commissioned officers in the military. In many parliamentary systems, the head of government is appointed with the consent (in practice often decisive) of the legislature, and other figures are appointed on the head of government's advice.

In practice, these decisions are often a formality. The last time the prime minister of the United Kingdom was unilaterally selected by the monarch was in 1963, when Queen Elizabeth II appointed Alec Douglas-Home on the advice of outgoing Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.

In presidential systems, such as that of the United States, appointments are nominated by the president's sole discretion, but this nomination is often subject to confirmation by the legislature; and specifically in the US, the Senate has to approve senior executive branch and judicial appointments by a simple majority vote.

The head of state may also dismiss office-holders. There are many variants on how this can be done. For example, members of the Irish Cabinet are dismissed by the president on the advice of the taoiseach; in other instances, the head of state may be able to dismiss an office holder unilaterally; other heads of state, or their representatives, have the theoretical power to dismiss any office-holder, while it is exceptionally rarely used. In France, while the president cannot force the prime minister to tender the resignation of the government, he can, in practice, request it if the prime minister is from his own majority. In presidential systems, the president often has the power to fire ministers at his sole discretion. In the United States, the unwritten convention calls for the heads of the executive departments to resign on their own initiative when called to do so.

Some countries have alternative provisions for senior appointments: In Sweden, under the Instrument of Government of 1974, the Speaker of the Riksdag has the role of formally appointing the prime minister, following a vote in the Riksdag, and the prime minister in turn appoints and dismisses cabinet ministers at his/her sole discretion.

Diplomatic role

Tekiso Hati, ambassador of the Kingdom of Lesotho, presenting his credentials to Russian president Vladimir Putin
Daniel B. Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel, presents his credentials to Israeli president Shimon Peres on 3 August 2011
A 1992 letter of credence, written in French, for the Czechoslovakian Ambassador to Lithuania, signed by the President of Czechoslovakia and addressed to his Lithuanian counterpart

Although many constitutions, particularly from the 19th century and earlier, make no explicit mention of a head of state in the generic sense of several present day international treaties, the officeholders corresponding to this position are recognised as such by other countries. In a monarchy, the monarch is generally understood to be the head of state. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which codified longstanding custom, operates under the presumption that the head of a diplomatic mission (i.e. ambassador or nuncio) of the sending state is accredited to the head of state of the receiving state. The head of state accredits (i.e. formally validates) their country's ambassadors (or rarer equivalent diplomatic mission chiefs, such as high commissioner or papal nuncio) through sending formal a letter of credence (and a Letter of Recall at the end of a tenure) to other heads of state and, conversely, receives the letters of their foreign counterparts. Without that accreditation, the chief of the diplomatic mission cannot take up their role and receive the highest diplomatic status. The role of a head of state in this regard, is codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from 1961, which (as of 2017) 191 sovereign states has ratified.

However, there are provisions in the Vienna Convention that a diplomatic agent of lesser rank, such as a chargé d'affaires, is accredited to the minister of foreign affairs (or equivalent).

The head of state is often designated the high contracting party in international treaties on behalf of the state; signs them either personally or has them signed in his/her name by ministers (government members or diplomats); subsequent ratification, when necessary, may rest with the legislature. The treaties constituting the European Union and the European Communities are noteworthy contemporary cases of multilateral treaties cast in this traditional format, as are the accession agreements of new member states. However, rather than being invariably concluded between two heads of state, it has become common that bilateral treaties are in present times cast in an intergovernmental format, e.g., between the Government of X and the Government of Y, rather than between His Majesty the King of X and His Excellency the President of Y.

  • Example 1 (parliamentary monarchy): Article 8 of the Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein states:
    • 1) The Reigning Prince shall represent the State in all its relations with foreign countries, without prejudice to the requisite participation of the responsible Government.
    • 2) Treaties by which territory of the State would be ceded, State property alienated, sovereign rights or prerogatives of the State affected, a new burden imposed on the Principality or its citizens, or an obligation assumed that would limit the rights of the citizens of Liechtenstein shall require the assent of Parliament to attain legal force.
  • Example 2 (parliamentary republic): Article 59 (1) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany states:
    • The Federal President shall represent the Federation in its international relations. He shall conclude treaties with foreign states on behalf of the Federation. He shall accredit and receive envoys..
  • Example 3 (semi-presidential republic): Title II, Article 14 of the French Constitution of 1958 states:
    • The President of the Republic shall accredit ambassadors and envoys extraordinary to foreign powers; foreign ambassadors and envoys extraordinary shall be accredited to him.
  • Example 4 (semi-presidential republic): Chapter 4, Article 86, Section 4 of the Constitution of Russia states:
    • The President of the Russian Federation:
      • a) shall direct the foreign policy of the Russian Federation;
      • b) shall hold negotiations and sign international treaties of the Russian Federation;
      • c) shall sign instruments of ratification;
      • d) shall receive letters of credence and letters of recall of diplomatic representatives accredited to his (her) office.
  • Example 5 (single party republic): Section 2, Article 81 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China states:

In Canada, these head of state powers belong to the monarch as part of the royal prerogative, but the Governor General has been permitted to exercise them since 1947 and has done so since the 1970s.

Military role

Main article: Commander in Chief
Albert II, King of the Belgians inspecting troops on Belgium's national day in 2011
Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and General Jean-Louis Georgelin, Chief of the Defence Staff, reviewing troops during the 2008 Bastille Day military parade on the Champs-Élysées in Paris

A head of state is often, by virtue of holding the highest executive powers, explicitly designated as the commander-in-chief of that nation's armed forces, holding the highest office in all military chains of command.

In a constitutional monarchy or non-executive presidency, the head of state may de jure hold ultimate authority over the armed forces but will only normally, as per either written law or unwritten convention, exercise their authority on the advice of their responsible ministers: meaning that the de facto ultimate decision making on military manoeuvres is made elsewhere. The head of state will, regardless of actual authority, perform ceremonial duties related to the country's armed forces, and will sometimes appear in military uniform for these purposes; particularly in monarchies where also the monarch's consort and other members of a royal family may also appear in military garb. This is generally the only time a head of state of a stable, democratic country will appear dressed in such a manner, as statesmen and public are eager to assert the primacy of (civilian, elected) politics over the armed forces.

In military dictatorships, or governments which have arisen from coups d'état, the position of commander-in-chief is obvious, as all authority in such a government derives from the application of military force; occasionally a power vacuum created by war is filled by a head of state stepping beyond the normal constitutional role, as King Albert I of Belgium did during World War I. In these and in revolutionary regimes, the head of state, and often executive ministers whose offices are legally civilian, will frequently appear in military uniform.

Some countries with a parliamentary system designate officials other than the head of state with command-in-chief powers.

The armed forces of the Communist states are under the absolute control of the Communist party.

Legislative roles

It is usual that the head of state, particularly in parliamentary systems as part of the symbolic role, is the one who opens the annual sessions of the legislature, e.g. the annual State Opening of Parliament with the Speech from the Throne in Britain. Even in presidential systems the head of state often formally reports to the legislature on the present national status, e.g. the State of the Union address in the United States of America, or the State of the Nation Address in South Africa.

Most countries require that all bills passed by the house or houses of the legislature be signed into law by the head of state. In some states, such as the United Kingdom, Belgium and Ireland, the head of state is, in fact, formally considered a tier of the legislature. However, in most parliamentary systems, the head of state cannot refuse to sign a bill, and, in granting a bill their assent, indicate that it was passed in accordance with the correct procedures. The signing of a bill into law is formally known as promulgation. Some monarchical states call this procedure royal assent.

  • Example 1 (non-executive parliamentary monarchy): Chapter 1, Article 4 of the Swedish Riksdag Act provides that:
    • The formal opening of a Riksdag session takes place at a special meeting of the Chamber held no later than the third day of the session. At this meeting, the Head of State declares the session open at the invitation of the Speaker. If the Head of State is unable to attend, the Speaker declares the session open.
  • Example 2 (parliamentary monarchy): Article 9 of the Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein provides that:
    • Every law shall require the sanction of the Reigning Prince to attain legal force.
  • Example 3 (parliamentary republic): Section 11.a.1. of the Basic Laws of Israel states:
  • Example 4 (semi-presidential republic): According to Chapter 4, Article 84 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:
    • The President of the Russian Federation:
      • a) shall announce elections to the State Duma in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law;
      • c) shall announce referendums in accordance with the procedure established by federal constitutional law;
      • d) shall submit draft laws to the State Duma;
      • e) shall sign and promulgate federal laws;
      • f) shall address the Federal Assembly with annual messages on the situation in the country and on the basic objectives of the internal and foreign policy of the State.
  • Example 5 (presidential republic): Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution states:
  • Example 6 (presidential republic): Article 84 of the Brazilian Constitution provides that:
    • The President of the Republic shall have the exclusive power to:
      • III – start the legislative procedure, in the manner and in the cases set forth in this Constitution;
      • IV - sanction, promulgate and order the publication of laws, as well as to issue decrees and regulations for the true enforcement thereof;
      • V - veto bills, wholly or in part;
      • XI - upon the opening of the legislative session, send a government message and plan to the National Congress, describing the state of the nation and requesting the actions he deems necessary;
      • XXIII - submit to the National Congress the pluriannual plan, the bill of budgetary directives and the budget proposals set forth in this Constitution;
      • XXIV - render, each year, accounts to the National Congress concerning the previous fiscal year, within sixty days of the opening of the legislative session.
  • Example 7 (ruling monarchy): Article 106 of the Constitution of Qatar states:
    • 1. Any draft law passed by the Council shall be referred to the Emir for ratification.
    • 2. If the Emir, declines to approve the draft law, he shall return it a long with the reasons for such declination to the Council within a period of three months from the date of referral.
    • 3. In the event that a draft law is returned to the Council within the period specified in the preceding paragraph and the Council passes the same once more with a two-thirds majority of all its Members, the Emir shall ratify and promulgate it. The Emir may in compelling circumstances order the suspension of this law for the period that he deems necessary to serve the higher interests of the country. If, however, the draft law is not passed by a two-thirds majority, it shall not be reconsidered within the same term of session.

In some parliamentary systems, the head of state retains certain discretionary powers in relation to bills to be exercised. They may have authority to veto a bill until the houses of the legislature have reconsidered it, and approved it a second time; reserve a bill to be signed later, or suspend it indefinitely (generally in states with royal prerogative; this power is rarely used); refer a bill to the courts to test its constitutionality; refer a bill to the people in a referendum.

If the head of state also serves as the chief executive, the head of state can politically control the necessary executive measures without which a proclaimed law can remain dead letter, sometimes for years or even forever.

Summoning and dissolving the legislature

A head of state is often empowered to summon and dissolve the country's legislature. In most parliamentary systems, this is often done on the advice of the head of government. In some parliamentary systems, and in some presidential systems, however, the head of state may do so on their own initiative. Some states have fixed term legislatures, with no option of bringing forward elections (e.g., Article II, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution). In other systems there are usually fixed terms, but the head of state retains authority to dissolve the legislature in certain circumstances. Where a head of government has lost support in the legislature, some heads of state may refuse a dissolution, where one is requested, thereby forcing the head of government's resignation.

Other prerogatives

Granting titles and honours

  • Example 1 (parliamentary monarchy): Article 113 of the Constitution of Belgium states:
  • Example 2 (parliamentary monarchy): Article 23 of the Constitution of Norway states:
    • The King may bestow orders upon whomever he pleases as a reward for distinguished services, and such orders must be publicly announced, but no rank or title other than that attached to any office. The order exempts no one from the common duties and burdens of citizens, nor does it carry with it any preferential admission to senior official posts in the State. Senior officials honourably discharged from office retain the title and rank of their office. This does not apply, however, to Members of the Council of State or the State Secretaries.
      No personal, or mixed, hereditary privileges may henceforth be granted to anyone.
  • Example 3 (parliamentary republic): Title II, Article 87, 8th section of the Constitution of Italy states:

Immunity

See also: Sovereign immunity and Immunity from prosecution (international law)
  • Example 1 (parliamentary non-executive monarchy): Chapter 5, Article 8 of the Swedish Instrument of Government of 1974 states:
    • The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State.
  • Example 2 (parliamentary monarchy): Article 5 of the Constitution of Norway states:
    • The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council.
  • Example 3 (parliamentary republic): Chapter 3, Article 65 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic states:
    • (1) President of the Republic may not be detained, subjected to criminal prosecution or prosecuted for offence or other administrative delict.
    • (2) President of the Republic may be prosecuted for high treason at the Constitutional Court based on the Senate's suit. The punishment may be the loss of his presidential office and of his eligibility to regain it.
    • (3) Criminal prosecution for criminal offences committed by the President of the Republic while executing his office shall be ruled out forever.
  • Example 4 (semi-presidential republic): Title II, Chapter I, Article 130 of the Constitution of Portugal states:
    • 1. The President of the Republic answers before the Supreme Court of Justice for crimes committed in the exercise of his functions.
    • 2. Proceedings may only be initiated by the Assembly of the Republic, upon a motion subscribed by one fifth and a decision passed by a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Assembly of the Republic in full exercise of their office.
    • 3. Conviction implies removal from office and disqualification from re-election.
    • 4. For crimes that are not committed in the exercise of his functions, the President of the Republic answers before the common courts, once his term of office has ended.
  • Example 5 (executive monarchy): Article 64 of the Constitution of Qatar:
    • The Emir is the head of State. His person shall be inviolable and he must be respected by all.

Reserve powers

See also: reserve power
  • Example 1 (semi-presidential republic): Title II, Article 16 of the French Constitution of 1958 states:
    • Where the institutions of the Republic, the independence of the Nation, the integrity of its territory or the fulfilment of its international commitments are under serious and immediate threat, and where the proper functioning of the constitutional public authorities is interrupted, the President of the Republic shall take measures required by these circumstances, after formally consulting the Prime Minister, the Presidents of the Houses of Parliament and the Constitutional Council.
      He shall address the Nation and inform it of such measures.
      The measures shall be designed to provide the constitutional public authorities as swiftly as possible, with the means to carry out their duties. The Constitutional Council shall be consulted with regard to such measures.
      Parliament shall sit as of right.
      The National Assembly shall not be dissolved during the exercise of such emergency powers.
      After thirty days of the exercise of such emergency powers, the matter may be referred to the Constitutional Council by the President of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, sixty Members of the National Assembly or sixty Senators, so as to decide if the conditions laid down in paragraph one still apply. The Council shall make its decision publicly as soon as possible. It shall, as of right, carry out such an examination and shall make its decision in the same manner after sixty days of the exercise of emergency powers or at any moment thereafter.
  • Example 2 (executive monarchy): Articles 69 & 70 of the Constitution of Qatar:
    • Article 69
      • The Emir may, be a decree, declare Martial Laws in the country in the event of exceptional cases specified by the law; and in such cases, he may take all urgent necessary measures to counter any threat that undermine the safety of the State, the integrity of its territories or the security of its people and interests or obstruct the organs of the State from performing their duties. However, the decree must specify the nature of such exceptional cases for which the martial laws have been declared and clarify the measures taken to address this situation. Al-Shoura Council shall be notified of this decree within the fifteen days following its issue; and in the event that the Council is not in session for any reason whatsoever, the Council shall be notified of the decree at its first convening. Martial laws shall be declared for a limited period and the same shall not be extended unless approved by Al-Shoura Council.
    • Article 70
      • The Emir may, in the event of exceptional cases that require measures of utmost urgency which necessitate the issue of special laws and in case that Al-Shoura Council is not in session, issue pertinent decrees that have the power of law. Such decree-laws shall be submitted to Al-Shoura Council at its first meeting; and the Council may within a maximum period of forty days from the date of submission and with a two-thirds majority of its Members reject any of these decree-laws or request amendment thereof to be effected within a specified period of time; such decree-laws shall cease to have the power of law from the date of their rejection by the Council or where the period for effecting the amendments have expired.

Right of pardon

See also: Pardon
  • Example 1 (parliamentary monarchy): Section 24 of the Constitution of Denmark states:
    • The King can grant pardons and amnesties. He may only pardon Ministers convicted by the Court of Impeachment with the consent of Parliament.
  • Example 2 (parliamentary republic): According to Chapter V, Article 60(2) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany:
    • He [The President] shall exercise the power to pardon individual offenders on behalf of the Federation.
  • Example 3 (semi-presidential republic): Title II, Article 17 of the French Constitution of 1958 states:
  • Example 4 (presidential republic): Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides that:
    • ...and he [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
  • Example 5 (presidential parliamentary republic): Part XI, Article 80 of the Constitution of Nauru:
    • The President may-
      • (a) grant a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions, to a person convicted of an offence;
      • (b) grant to a person a respite, either indefinite or for a specified period, of the execution of a punishment imposed on that person for an offence;
      • (c) substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed on a person for an offence; or
      • (d) remit the whole or a part of a punishment imposed on a person for an offence or of a penalty or forfeiture on account of an offence.

Official title

In a republic, the head of state nowadays usually bears the title of President, but some have or have had other titles. Titles commonly used by monarchs are King/Queen or Emperor/Empress, but also many other; e.g., Grand Duke, Prince, Emir and Sultan.

Though president and various monarchical titles are most commonly used for heads of state, in some nationalistic regimes, the leader adopts, formally or de facto, a unique style simply meaning leader in the national language, e.g., Germany's single national socialist party chief and combined head of state and government, Adolf Hitler, as the Führer between 1934 and 1945.

In 1959, when former British crown colony Singapore gained self-government, it adopted the Malay style Yang di-Pertuan Negara ("head of state" in Malay) for its governor (the actual head of state remained the British monarch). The second and last incumbent of the office, Yusof bin Ishak, kept the style at 31 August 1963 unilateral declaration of independence and after 16 September 1963 accession to Malaysia as a state (so now as a constituent part of the federation, a non-sovereign level). After its expulsion from Malaysia on 9 August 1965, Singapore became a sovereign Commonwealth republic and installed Yusof bin Ishak as its first president.

In 1959 after the resignation of Vice President Mohammad Hatta, President Sukarno abolished the position and title of vice-president, assuming the positions of Prime Minister and Head of Cabinet. He also proclaimed himself president for life (Indonesian: Presiden Seumur Hidup Panglima Tertinggi; "panglima" meaning "commander or martial figurehead", "tertinggi" meaning "highest"; roughly translated to English as "Supreme Commander of the Revolution"). He was praised as "Paduka Yang Mulia", a Malay honorific originally given to kings; Sukarno awarded himself titles in that fashion due to his noble ancestry.

There are also a few nations in which the exact title and definition of the office of head of state have been vague. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, following the downfall of Chinese President Liu Shaoqi, no successor was named, so the duties of the head of state were transferred collectively to the Vice Presidents Soong Ching-ling and Dong Biwu, then to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, but Chairman Mao Zedong was still the paramount leader. This situation was later changed: the President of the People's Republic of China is now the head of state. Although the presidency is a largely ceremonial office with limited power, the symbolic role of a head of state is now generally performed by Xi Jinping, who is also General Secretary of the Communist Party (Communist Party leader) and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (Supreme Military Command), making him the most powerful person in China.

In North Korea, the late Kim Il Sung was named "Eternal President" four years after his death and the presidency was abolished. As a result, some of the duties previously held by the president were constitutionally delegated to the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly, who performs some of the roles of a head of state, such as accrediting foreign ambassadors and undertaking overseas visits. However, the de jure role of head of state lies within the President of the State Affairs Commission, currently Kim Jong Un, who as the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of North Korea, is the most powerful person in North Korea.

There is debate as to whether Samoa was an elective monarchy or an aristocratic republic, given the comparative ambiguity of the title O le Ao o le Malo and the nature of the head of state's office.

In some states the office of head of state is not expressed in a specific title reflecting that role, but constitutionally awarded to a post of another formal nature. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi initially ruled as combined head of state and briefly head of government of the Libyan Arab Republic, styled as Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. In 1977, the Libyan Jamahiriya ("state of the masses") replaced the previous republic, and in March 1979 the role of head of state was transferred to the Secretary-General of the General People's Congress (comparable to a Speaker); in practice however Gaddafi remained the de facto leader as "Guide of the Revolution" until his overthrow in 2011.

Sometimes a head of state assumes office as a state becomes legal and political reality, before a formal title for the highest office is determined; thus in the since 1 January 1960 independent republic Cameroon (Cameroun, a former French colony), the first president, Ahmadou Babatoura Ahidjo, was at first not styled président but 'merely' known as chef d'état (French for "head of state") until 5 May 1960. In Uganda, Idi Amin the military leader after the coup of 25 January 1971 was formally styled military head of state till 21 February 1971, only from then on as regular (but unconstitutional, unelected) president.

In certain cases a special style is needed to accommodate imperfect statehood, e.g., the title Sadr-i-Riyasat was used in Kashmir after its accession to India, and the Palestine Liberation Organization leader, Yasser Arafat, was styled the first "President of the Palestinian National Authority" in 1994. In 2008, the same office was restyled as "President of the State of Palestine".

Historical European perspectives

  • The polis in Greek Antiquity and the equivalent city states in the feudal era and later, (many in Italy, the Holy Roman Empire, the Moorish taifa in Iberia, essentially tribal-type but urbanised regions throughout the world in the Maya civilisation, etc.) offer a wide spectrum of styles, either monarchic (mostly identical to homonyms in larger states) or republican, see Chief magistrate.
  • Doges were elected by their Italian aristocratic republics from a patrician nobility, but "reigned" as sovereign dukes.
  • The paradoxical term crowned republic refers to various state arrangements that combine "republican" and "monarchic" characteristics.
  • The Netherlands historically had officials called stadholders and stadholders-general, titles meaning "lieutenant" or "governor", originally for the Habsburg monarchs.

In medieval Catholic Europe, it was universally accepted that the Pope ranked first among all rulers and was followed by the Holy Roman Emperor. The Pope also had the sole right to determine the precedence of all others. This principle was first challenged by a Protestant ruler, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and was later maintained by his country at the Congress of Westphalia. Great Britain would later claim a break of the old principle for the Quadruple Alliance in 1718. However, it was not until the 1815 Congress of Vienna, when it was decided (due to the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and the weak position of France and other catholic states to assert themselves) and remains so to this day, that all sovereign states are treated as equals, whether monarchies or republics. On occasions when multiple heads of state or their representatives meet, precedence is by the host usually determined in alphabetical order (in whatever language the host determines, although French has for much of the 19th and 20th centuries been the lingua franca of diplomacy) or by date of accession. Contemporary international law on precedence, built upon the universally admitted principles since 1815, derives from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (in particular, articles 13, 16.1 and Appendix iii).

  • European writers of 16th and 17th centuries
  • Title page of 1550 Italian edition of Machiavelli's The Prince
    Title page of 1550 Italian edition of Machiavelli's The Prince
     
  • Bodin named on title page of Discorsi politici (1602) by Fabio Albergati who compared Bodin's political theories unfavourably with those of Aristotle
    Bodin named on title page of Discorsi politici (1602) by Fabio Albergati who compared Bodin's political theories unfavourably with those of Aristotle
     
  • Frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651)
    Frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651)

Niccolò Machiavelli used Prince (Italian: Principe) as a generic term for the ruler, similar to contemporary usage of head of state, in his classical treatise The Prince, originally published in 1532: in fact that particular literary genre it belongs to is known as Mirrors for princes. Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651) used the term Sovereign. In Europe the role of a monarchs has gradually transitioned from that of a sovereign ruler—in the sense of Divine Right of Kings as articulated by Jean Bodin, Absolutism and the "L'etat c'est moi"—to that of a constitutional monarch; parallel with the conceptual evolution of sovereignty from merely the personal rule of a single person, to Westphalian sovereignty (Peace of Westphalia ending both the Thirty Years' War & Eighty Years' War) and popular sovereignty as in consent of the governed; as shown in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England & Scotland, the French Revolution in 1789, and the German Revolution of 1918–1919. The monarchies who survived through this era were the ones who were willing to subject themselves to constitutional limitations.

Interim and exceptional cases

Whenever a head of state is not available for any reason, constitutional provisions may allow the role to fall temporarily to an assigned person or collective body. In a republic, this is - depending on provisions outlined by the constitution or improvised - a vice-president, the chief of government, the legislature or its presiding officer. In a monarchy, this is usually a regent or collegial regency (council). For example, in the United States the vice-president acts when the president is incapacitated, and in the United Kingdom the monarch's powers may be delegated to counselors of state when they are abroad or unavailable. Neither of the two co-princes of Andorra is resident in Andorra; each is represented in Andorra by a delegate, though these persons hold no formal title.

There are also several methods of head of state succession in the event of the removal, disability or death of an incumbent head of state.

In exceptional situations, such as war, occupation, revolution or a coup d'état, constitutional institutions, including the symbolically crucial head of state, may be reduced to a figurehead or be suspended in favour of an emergency office (such as the original Roman dictator) or eliminated by a new "provisionary" regime, such as a collective of the junta type, or removed by an occupying force, such as a military governor (an early example being the Spartan Harmost).

Shared head of multiple states

In early modern Europe, a single person was often monarch simultaneously of separate states. A composite monarchy is a retrospective label for those cases where the states were governed entirely separately. Of contemporary terms, a personal union had less government co-ordination than a real union. One of the two co-princes of Andorra is the president of France.

Such arrangements are not to be confused with supranational entities which are not states and are not defined by a common monarchy but may (or not) have a symbolic, essentially protocollary, titled highest office, e.g., Head of the Commonwealth (held by the British monarch, but not legally reserved for it) or 'Head of the Arab Union' (14 February - 14 July 1958, held by the King of Iraq, during its short-lived Hashemite federation with Jordan).

Commonwealth realms

Main article: Governor-general § Modern Commonwealth
 

The Lord Tweedsmuir (left) was Governor General of Canada from 1935 to 1940;
Sir Paulias Matane (right) was Governor-General of Papua New Guinea from 2004 to 2010

The Commonwealth realms share a monarch, currently Charles III. In the realms other than the United Kingdom, a governor-general (governor general in Canada) is appointed by the sovereign, usually on the advice of the relevant prime minister (although sometimes it is based on the result of a vote in the relevant parliament, which is the case for Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands), as a representative and to exercise almost all the royal prerogative according to established constitutional authority. In Australia the present king is generally assumed to be head of state, since the governor-general and the state governors are defined as his "representatives". However, since the governor-general performs almost all national regal functions, the governor-general has occasionally been referred to as head of state in political and media discussion. To a lesser extent, uncertainty has been expressed in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch, the governor general, or both—can be considered the head of state. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and Tuvalu explicitly name the monarch as their head of state (though Tuvalu's constitution states that "references in any law to the Head of State shall be read as including a reference to the governor-general"). Governors-general are frequently treated as heads of state on state and official visits; at the United Nations, they are accorded the status of head of state in addition to the sovereign.

An example of a governor-general departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926, when Canada's governor general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the monarch after the event, the Governor General said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision."

Another example occurred when, in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, the governor-general unexpectedly dismissed the prime minister in order to break a stalemate between the House of Representatives and Senate over money bills. The governor-general issued a public statement saying he felt it was the only solution consistent with the constitution, his oath of office, and his responsibilities, authority, and duty as governor-general. A letter from the queen's private secretary at the time, Martin Charteris, confirmed that the only person competent to commission an Australian prime minister was the governor-general and it would not be proper for the monarch to personally intervene in matters that the Constitution Act so clearly places within the governor-general's jurisdiction.

Other Commonwealth realms that are now constituted with a governor-general as the viceregal representative of Charles III are: Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

Religious heads of state

Francis, from March 2013 the sovereign of the Vatican City State, an ex officio role of the Pope

Since antiquity, various dynasties or individual rulers have claimed the right to rule by divine authority, such as the Mandate of Heaven and the divine right of kings. Some monarchs even claimed divine ancestry, such as Egyptian pharaohs and Sapa Incas, who claimed descent from their respective sun gods and often sought to maintain this bloodline by practising incestuous marriage. In Ancient Rome, during the Principate, the title divus ('divine') was conferred (notably posthumously) on the emperor, a symbolic, legitimating element in establishing a de facto dynasty.

Christianity

In Roman Catholicism, the pope was once sovereign pontiff and head of state, first, of the politically important Papal States. After Italian unification, the pope remains head of state of Vatican City. Furthermore, the bishop of Urgell is ex officio one of the two co-princes of Andorra. In the Church of England, the reigning monarch holds the title Defender of the Faith and acts as supreme governor of the Church of England, although this is purely a symbolic role.

Islam

Abdulmecid II is the 150th and last Caliph of Islam from Ottoman dynasty

During the early period of Islam, caliphs were spiritual and temporal absolute successors of Muhammad. Various political Muslim leaders since have styled themselves Caliph and served as dynastic heads of state, sometimes in addition to another title, such as the Ottoman Sultan. Historically, some theocratic Islamic states known as imamates have been led by imams as head of state, such as in what is now Oman, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Supreme Leader, at present Ali Khamenei serves as head of state. The Aga Khans, a unique dynasty of temporal/religious leadership, leading the Nizari offshoot of Shia Islam in Central and South Asia, once ranking among British India's princely states, continue to the present day.

Hinduism

In Hinduism, certain dynasties adopted a title expressing their positions as "servant" of a patron deity of the state, but in the sense of a viceroy under an absentee god-king, ruling "in the name of" the patron god(ess), such as Patmanabha Dasa (servant of Vishnu) in the case of the Maharaja of Travancore.

Buddhism

From the time of the 5th Dalai Lama until the political retirement of the 14th Dalai Lama in 2011, Dalai Lamas were both political and spiritual leaders ("god-king") of Tibet.

Outer Mongolia, the former homeland of the imperial dynasty of Genghis Khan, was another lamaist theocracy from 1585, using various styles, such as tulku. The establishment of the Communist Mongolian People's Republic replaced this regime in 1924.

Multiple or collective heads of state

See also: Directorial system and Category:Collective heads of state

Sometimes multiple individuals are co-equal heads of state, or a corporate person embodies the functions of head of state. In some cases precedence rotates among the members of the collective as the term of office progresses. Of multiple royal systems, a diarchy, in which two rulers is the constitutional norm, may be distinguished from a coregency, in which a monarchy experiences an exceptional period of multiple rulers. Examples of collective republican systems include nominal triumvirates; the French Directory of the 1790s; the seven-member Swiss Federal Council, where each member acts in turn as President for one year; the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina with members from three nations; the two Captains Regent of San Marino, which maintains the tradition of Italian medieval republics that had always had an even number of consuls.

In the Roman Republic there were two heads of state, styled consul, both of whom alternated months of authority during their year in office, similarly there was an even number of supreme magistrates in the Italic republics of Ancient Age. In the Athenian Republic there were nine supreme magistrates, styled archons. In Carthage there were two supreme magistrates, styled kings or suffetes (judges). In ancient Sparta there were two hereditary kings, belonging to two dynasties.

In the Soviet Union, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (between 1938 and 1989) served as the collective head of state. After World War II the Soviet model was subsequently adopted by almost all countries belonged to its sphere of influence. Czechoslovakia remained the only country among them that retained an office of president as a form of a single head of state throughout this period; Poland and Hungary, which initially had western-style constitutions (and therefore, western-style presidencies), switched to the presidium model with the adoption of new Soviet-influenced constitutions; Romania, which was a monarchy before the Soviet takeover, was the only country to move to a unitary presidency from a collective head of state, a move done by dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1974.

A modern example of a collective head of state is the Sovereignty Council of Sudan, the interim ruling council of Sudan. The Sovereignty Council comprises 11 ministers, who together have exercised all governmental functions for Sudan since the fall of President Omar Al-Bashir. Decisions are made either by consensus or by a super majority vote (8 members).

The National Government of the Republic of China, established in 1928, had a panel of about 40 people as collective head of state. Though beginning that year, a provisional constitution made the Kuomintang the sole government party and the National Government bound to the instructions of the Central Executive Committee of that party.

Legitimacy

The position of head of state can be established in different ways, and with different sources of legitimacy.

By fiction or fiat

Power can come from force, but formal legitimacy is often established, even if only by fictitious claims of continuity (e.g., a forged claim of descent from a previous dynasty). There have been cases of sovereignty granted by deliberate act, even when accompanied by orders of succession (as may be the case in a dynastic split). Such grants of sovereignty are usually forced, as is common with self-determination granted after nationalist revolts. This occurred with the last Attalid king of Hellenistic Pergamon, who by testament left his realm to Rome to avoid a disastrous conquest.

By divine appointment

Under a theocracy, perceived divine status translated into earthly authority under divine law. This can take the form of supreme divine authority above the state's, granting a tool for political influence to a priesthood. In this way, the Amun priesthood reversed the reforms of Pharaoh Akhenaten after his death. The division of theocratic power can be disputed, as happened between the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor in the investiture conflict when the temporal power sought to control key clergy nominations in order to guarantee popular support, and thereby his own legitimacy, by incorporating the formal ceremony of unction during coronation.

By social contract

The notion of a social contract holds that the nation—either the whole people or the electorate—gives a mandate, through acclamation or election.

By constitution

Individual heads of state may acquire their position by virtue of a constitution. An example is the Seychelles, as the 1976 Independence Constitution of the Seychelles, Article 31, stated that James Mancham would be the first President of the Republic by name, rather than by the fact he was the Prime Minister of colonial Seychelles immediately before independence.

By hereditary succession

Absolute cognatic primogeniture diagram. Legend:
  • Grey: incumbent
  • Square: male
  • Circle: female
  • Black: deceased
  • Diagonal: cannot be displaced

The position of a monarch is usually hereditary, but in constitutional monarchies, there are usually restrictions on the incumbent's exercise of powers and prohibitions on the possibility of choosing a successor by other means than by birth. In a hereditary monarchy, the position of monarch is inherited according to a statutory or customary order of succession, usually within one royal family tracing its origin through a historical dynasty or bloodline. This usually means that the heir to the throne is known well in advance of becoming monarch to ensure a smooth succession. However, many cases of uncertain succession in European history have often led to wars of succession.

Primogeniture, in which the eldest child of the monarch is first in line to become monarch, is the most common system in hereditary monarchy. The order of succession is usually affected by rules on gender. Historically "agnatic primogeniture" or "patrilineal primogeniture" was favoured, that is inheritance according to seniority of birth among the sons of a monarch or head of family, with sons and their male issue inheriting before brothers and their male issue, to the total exclusion of females and descendants through females from succession. This complete exclusion of females from dynastic succession is commonly referred to as application of the Salic law. Another variation on agnatic primogeniture was the so-called semi-Salic law, or "agnatic-cognatic primogeniture", which allowed women to succeed only at the extinction of all the male descendants in the male line of the particular legislator.

Before primogeniture was enshrined in European law and tradition, kings would often secure the succession by having their successor (usually their eldest son) crowned during their own lifetime, so for a time there would be two kings in coregency – a senior king and a junior king. Examples include Henry the Young King of England and the early Direct Capetians in France.

Sometimes, however, primogeniture can operate through the female line. In some systems a female may rule as monarch only when the male line dating back to a common ancestor is exhausted. In 1980, Sweden, by rewriting its 1810 Act of Succession, became the first monarchy to declare equal (full cognatic) primogeniture, meaning that the eldest child of the monarch, whether female or male, ascends to the throne. Other European monarchies (such as the Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990 and Belgium in 1991) have since followed suit. Similar reforms were proposed in 2011 for the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, which came into effect in 2015 after having been approved by all of the affected nations. Sometimes religion is affected; under the Act of Settlement 1701 all Roman Catholics and all persons who have married Roman Catholics are ineligible to be the British monarch and are skipped in the order of succession.

In some monarchies there may be liberty for the incumbent, or some body convening after the death of the monarch, to choose from eligible members of the ruling house, often limited to legitimate descendants of the dynasty's founder. Rules of succession may be further limited by state religion, residency, equal marriage or even permission from the legislature.

Other hereditary systems of succession included tanistry, which is semi-elective and gives weight to merit and Agnatic seniority. In some monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, succession to the throne usually first passes to the monarch's next eldest brother, and only after that to the monarch's children (agnatic seniority).

By election

Countries where the electoral system directly elects their head of state, by type
  Two-round system (majority voting)
  First-past-the-post (plurality voting)
  Instant-runoff voting (ranked-choice majority voting)

Election usually is the constitutional way to choose the head of state of a republic, and some monarchies, either directly through popular election, indirectly by members of the legislature or of a special college of electors (such as the Electoral College in the United States), or as an exclusive prerogative. Exclusive prerogative allows the heads of states of constituent monarchies of a federation to choose the head of state for the federation among themselves, as in the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia. The Pope, head of state of Vatican City, is chosen by previously appointed cardinals under 80 years of age from among themselves in a papal conclave.

By appointment

A head of state can be empowered to designate his successor, such as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth Oliver Cromwell, who was succeeded by his son Richard.

By force or revolution

A head of state may seize power by force or revolution. This is not the same as the use of force to maintain power, as is practised by authoritarian or totalitarian rulers. Dictators often use democratic titles, though some proclaim themselves monarchs. Examples of the latter include Emperor Napoleon I of France and King Zog of Albania. In Spain, general Francisco Franco adopted the formal title Jefe del Estado, or Chief of State, and established himself as regent for a vacant monarchy. Uganda's Idi Amin was one of several who named themselves President for Life.

By foreign imposition

A foreign power can establishing a branch of their own dynasty, or one friendly to their interests. This was often the outcome of the wars fought between the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire over control of Armenia, a vital buffer state between the two realms. The Roman–Parthian War of 58–63 ended with a compromise: a Parthian prince of the Arsacid line would henceforth sit on the Armenian throne, but his nomination had to be approved by the Roman emperor.

Loss

Apart from violent overthrow, a head of state's position can be lost in several ways, including death, another by expiration of the constitutional term of office, abdication, or resignation. In some cases, an abdication cannot occur unilaterally, but comes into effect only when approved by an act of parliament, as in the case of British King Edward VIII. The post can also be abolished by constitutional change; in such cases, an incumbent may be allowed to finish their term. Of course, a head of state position will cease to exist if the state itself does.

Heads of state generally enjoy widest inviolability, although some states allow impeachment, or a similar constitutional procedure by which the highest legislative or judicial authorities are empowered to revoke the head of state's mandate on exceptional grounds. This may be a common crime, a political sin, or an act by which the head of state violates such provisions as an established religion mandatory for the monarch. By similar procedure, an original mandate may be declared invalid.

Former heads of state

The National Monument to Emperor Wilhelm I in Berlin, Germany, dedicated 1897, nearly 10 years after his death. The monument was destroyed by the communist government in 1950.

Effigies, memorials and monuments of former heads of state can be designed to represent the history or aspirations of a state or its people, such as the equestrian bronze sculpture of Kaiser Wilhelm I, first Emperor of a unified Germany erected in Berlin at the end of the nineteenth century; or the Victoria Memorial erected in front of Buckingham Palace London, commemorating Queen Victoria and her reign (1837–1901), and unveiled in 1911 by her grandson, King George V; or the monument, placed in front of the Victoria Memorial Hall, Kolkata (Calcutta) (1921), commemorating Queen Victoria's reign as Empress of India from 1876. Another, twentieth century, example is the Mount Rushmore National Memorial, a group sculpture constructed (1927–1941) on a conspicuous skyline in the Black Hills of South Dakota (40th state of the Union, 1889), in the midwestern United States, representing the territorial expansion of the United States in the first 130 years from its founding, which is promoted as the "Shrine of Democracy".

Personal influence or privileges

Former presidents of the United States, while holding no political powers per se, sometimes continue to exert influence in national and world affairs.

A monarch may retain his style and certain prerogatives after abdication, as did King Leopold III of Belgium, who left the throne to his son after winning a referendum which allowed him to retain a full royal household deprived him of a constitutional or representative role. Napoleon transformed the Italian principality of Elba, where he was imprisoned, into a miniature version of his First Empire, with most trappings of a sovereign monarchy, until his Cent Jours escape and reseizure of power in France convinced his opponents, reconvening the Vienna Congress in 1815, to revoke his gratuitous privileges and send him to die in exile on barren Saint Helena.

By tradition, deposed monarchs who have not freely abdicated continue to use their monarchical titles as a courtesy for the rest of their lives. Hence, even after Constantine II ceased to be King of the Hellenes, it is still common to refer to the deposed king and his family as if Constantine II were still on the throne, as many European royal courts and households do in guest lists at royal weddings, as in Sweden in 2010, Britain in 2011 and Luxembourg in 2012. The current Hellenic Republic opposes the right of their deposed monarch and former royal family members to be referred to by their former titles or bearing a surname indicating royal status, and has enacted legislation which hinders acquisition of Greek citizenship unless those terms are met. The former king brought this issue, along with property ownership issues, before the European Court of Human Rights for alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, but lost with respect to the name issue.

However, some other states have no problem with deposed monarchs being referred to by their former title, and even allow them to travel internationally on the state's diplomatic passport.

The Italian constitution provides that a former president of the Republic takes the title President Emeritus of the Italian Republic and he or she is also a senator for life, and enjoys immunity, flight status and official residences certain privileges.

at

Friday, June 21, 2024

Untouchability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchability

Untouchability is a form of social institution that legitimises and enforces practices that are discriminatory, humiliating, exclusionary and exploitative against people belonging to certain social groups. Although comparable forms of discrimination are found all over the world, untouchability involving the caste system is largely unique to South Asia.

The term is most commonly associated with treatment of the Dalit communities in the Indian subcontinent who were considered "polluting". The term has also been used to refer to other groups, including the Burakumin of Japan, the Baekjeong of Korea, and the Ragyabpa of Tibet, as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe, and the Al-Akhdam in Yemen. Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually "polluting" activities, such as pursuing a career based on killing (e.g. fishermen) or engaging in common contact with others' feces or sweat (e.g. manual scavengers, sweepers and washermen).

According to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).

Due to many caste-based discriminations in Nepal, the government of Nepal legally abolished the caste-system and criminalized any caste-based discrimination, including "untouchability" in 1963.

Untouchability has been outlawed in India, Nepal and Pakistan. However, "untouchability" has not been legally defined. The origin of untouchability and its historicity are still debated. A 2020 study of a sample of households in India concludes that "Notwithstanding the likelihood of under-reporting of the practice of untouchability, 70 percent of the population reported not indulging in this practice. This is an encouraging sign."

Origin

B. R. Ambedkar with the leaders and activists of the All India Untouchable Women Conference held at Nagpur in 1942

B. R. Ambedkar, an Indian social reformer and politician who came from a social group that was considered untouchable, theorized that untouchability originated because of the deliberate policy of the Brahmins. According to him, the Brahmanas despised the people who gave up the Brahmanism in favour of Buddhism. Later scholars such as Vivekanand Jha have refuted this theory.

Nripendra Kumar Dutt, a professor of history, theorized that the concept of untouchability originated from the "pariah"-like treatment accorded to the indigenous people of India by the early Dravidians, and that the concept was borrowed by the Indo-Aryans from the Dravidians. Scholars such as R. S. Sharma have rejected this theory, arguing that there is no evidence that Dravidians practised untouchability before coming into contact with the Indo-Aryans.

Austrian ethnologist Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf theorized that untouchability originated as class stratification in urban areas of the Indus Valley civilisation. According to this theory, the poorer workers involved in 'unclean' occupations such as sweeping or leather work were historically segregated and banished outside the city limits. Over time, personal cleanliness came to be identified with "purity", and the concept of untouchability eventually spread to rural areas as well. After the decline of the Indus Valley towns, these untouchables probably spread to other parts of India. Scholars such as Suvira Jaiswal reject this theory, arguing that it lacks evidence, and does not explain why the concept of untouchability is more pronounced in rural areas.

American scholar George L. Hart, based on his interpretation of Old Tamil texts such as Purananuru, traced the origin of untouchability to ancient Tamil society. According to him, in this society, certain occupational groups were thought to be involved in controlling the malevolent supernatural forces; as an example, Hart mentions the Paraiyars, who played the drums during battles and solemn events such as births and deaths. People from these occupational groups came to be avoided by others, who believed that they were "dangerous and had the power to pollute the others". Jaiswal dismisses the evidence produced by Hart as "extremely weak" and contradictory. Jaiswal points out that the authors of the ancient Tamil texts included several Brahmanas (a fact accepted by Hart); thus, the society described in these texts was already under Brahmanical influence, and could have borrowed the concept of untouchability from them.

British anthropologist John Henry Hutton traced the origin of untouchability to the taboo on accepting food cooked by a person from a different caste. This taboo presumably originated because of cleanliness concerns, and ultimately, led to other prejudices such as the taboo on marrying outside one's caste. Jaiswal argues that this theory cannot explain how various social groups were isolated as untouchable or accorded a social rank. Jaiswal also notes that several passages from the ancient Vedic texts indicate that there was no taboo against accepting food from people belonging to a different varna or tribe. For example, some Shrauta Sutras mandate that a performer of the Vishvajit sacrifice must live with the Nishadas (a tribe regarded as untouchable in later period) for three days, in their village, and eat their food.

Scholars such as Suvira Jaiswal, R. S. Sharma, and Vivekanand Jha characterize untouchability as a relatively later development after the establishment of the varna and caste system. Jha notes that the earliest Vedic text Rigveda makes no mention of untouchability, and even the later Vedic texts, which revile certain groups such as the Chandalas, do not suggest that untouchability existed in the contemporary society. According to Jha, in the later period, several groups began to be characterized as untouchable, a development which reached its peak during 600–1200 AD. Sharma theorizes that institution of untouchability arose when the aboriginal tribes with "low material culture" and "uncertain means of livelihood" came to be regarded as impure by the privileged classes who despised manual labour, and regarded associated impurity with "certain material objects". According to Jaiswal, when the members of aboriginal groups were assimilated into the Brahmanical society, the privileged among them may have tried to assert their higher status by disassociating themselves from their lower-status counterparts, who were gradually branded as untouchables.

According to the Dharmashastras which are ancient legal codes from various kingdoms in ancient India, certain peoples grouped either by ethnicity or profession were not considered a part of the varna based society. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).

Characteristics

People regarded as "untouchables" in Malabar, Kerala (1906 A.D.)

According to Sarah Pinto, an anthropologist, modern untouchability in India applies to people whose work relates to "meat, and bodily fluids". Based on the punishments prescribed in The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 the following practices could be understood to have been associated with Untouchability in India:

  • Prohibition from eating with other members
  • Provision of separate cups in village tea stalls
  • Separate seating arrangements and utensils in restaurants
  • Segregation in seating and food arrangements at village functions and festivals
  • Prohibition from entering places of public worship
  • Prohibition from wearing sandals or holding umbrellas in front of higher caste members
  • Prohibition from entering other caste homes
  • Prohibition from using common village paths
  • Separate burial/cremation grounds
  • Prohibition from accessing common/public properties and resources (wells, ponds, temples, etc.)
  • Segregation (separate seating area) of children in schools
  • Bonded labour
  • Social boycotts by other castes for refusing to perform their "duties"

Government action in India

India is home to over 200 million Dalits. At the time of Indian independence, Dalit activists began calling for separate electorates for untouchables in India to allow fair representation. Officially labeled the Minorities Act, it would guarantee representation for Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and Untouchables in the newly formed Indian government. The Act was supported by British representatives such as Ramsay MacDonald. According to the textbook Religions in the Modern World, B. R. Ambedkar, who was also a supporter of the Act, was considered to be the "untouchable leader" who made great efforts to eliminate caste system privileges that included participation in public festivals, access to temples, and wedding rituals. In 1932, Ambedkar proposed that the untouchables create a separate electorate that ultimately led Gandhi to fast until it was rejected.

A separation within Hindu society was opposed by national leaders at the time such as Gandhi, although he took no exception to the demands of the other minorities. He began a hunger strike, citing that such a separation would create an unhealthy divide within the religion. At the Round Table Conferences, he provided this explanation for his reasoning:

I don't mind untouchables if they so desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity. I should tolerate that, but I cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for Hinduism if there are two divisions set forth in the villages. Those who speak of the political rights of the untouchables don't know their India, don't know how Indian society is today constituted and therefore I want to say with all the emphasis that I can command that if I was the only person to resist this thing that I would resist it with my life.

Gandhi achieved some success through his hunger strike however Dalit activists faced pressure from the Hindu population at large to end his protest at the risk of his ailing health. The two sides eventually came to a compromise where the number of guaranteed seats for Untouchables would be increased at both central and provincial levels, but there would be a common electorate.

The 1950 national constitution of India legally abolished the practice of untouchability and provided measures for affirmative action in both educational institutions and public services for Dalits and other social groups who lie within the caste system. These are supplemented by official bodies such as the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Despite this, instances of prejudice against Dalits still occur in some rural areas, as evidenced by events such as the Kherlanji massacre.

at

Halakha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha

Halakha (/hɑːˈlɔːxə/ hah-LAW-khə; Hebrew: הֲלָכָה, romanized: hălāḵā, Sephardic: [halaˈχa]), also transliterated as halacha, halakhah, and halocho (Ashkenazic: [haˈlɔχɔ]), is the collective body of Jewish religious laws that are derived from the Written and Oral Torah. Halakha is based on biblical commandments (mitzvot), subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic laws, and the customs and traditions which were compiled in the many books such as the Shulchan Aruch. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish law", although a more literal translation of it might be "the way to behave" or "the way of walking". The word is derived from the root which means "to behave" (also "to go" or "to walk"). Halakha not only guides religious practices and beliefs, it also guides numerous aspects of day-to-day life.

Historically, widespread observance of the laws of the Torah is first in evidence beginning in the second century BCE. In the Jewish diaspora, halakha served many Jewish communities as an enforceable avenue of law – both civil and religious, since no differentiation of them exists in classical Judaism. Since the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) and Jewish emancipation, some have come to view the halakha as less binding in day-to-day life, because it relies on rabbinic interpretation, as opposed to the authoritative, canonical text which is recorded in the Hebrew Bible. Under contemporary Israeli law, certain areas of Israeli family and personal status law are under the authority of the rabbinic courts, so they are treated according to halakha. Some minor differences in halakha are found among Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Yemenite, Ethiopian and other Jewish communities which historically lived in isolation.

Etymology and terminology

A full set of the Babylonian Talmud

The word halakha is derived from the Hebrew root halakh – "to walk" or "to go". Taken literally, therefore, halakha translates as "the way to walk", rather than "law". The word halakha refers to the corpus of rabbinic legal texts, or to the overall system of religious law. The term may also be related to Akkadian ilku, a property tax, rendered in Aramaic as halakh, designating one or several obligations. It may be descended from hypothetical reconstructed Proto-Semitic root *halak- meaning "to go", which also has descendants in Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, and Ugaritic.

Halakha is often contrasted with aggadah ("the telling"), the diverse corpus of rabbinic exegetical, narrative, philosophical, mystical, and other "non-legal" texts. At the same time, since writers of halakha may draw upon the aggadic and even mystical literature, a dynamic interchange occurs between the genres. Halakha also does not include the parts of the Torah not related to commandments.

Halakha constitutes the practical application of the 613 mitzvot ("commandments") in the Torah, as developed through discussion and debate in the classical rabbinic literature, especially the Mishnah and the Talmud (the "Oral Torah"), and as codified in the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch. Because halakha is developed and applied by various halakhic authorities rather than one sole "official voice", different individuals and communities may well have different answers to halakhic questions. With few exceptions, controversies are not settled through authoritative structures because during the Jewish diaspora, Jews lacked a single judicial hierarchy or appellate review process for halakha.

According to some scholars, the words halakha and sharia both mean literally "the path to follow". The fiqh literature parallels rabbinical law developed in the Talmud, with fatwas being analogous to rabbinic responsa.

Commandments (mitzvot)

Main articles: Mitzvah § Mitzvot and Jewish law, and 613 commandments

According to the Talmud (Tractate Makot), 613 mitzvot are in the Torah, 248 positive ("thou shalt") mitzvot and 365 negative ("thou shalt not") mitzvot, supplemented by seven mitzvot legislated by the rabbis of antiquity. Currently, many of the 613 commandments cannot be performed until the building of the Temple in Jerusalem and the universal resettlement of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel by the Messiah. According to one count, only 369 can be kept, meaning that 40% of mitzvot are not possible to perform.

Rabbinic Judaism divides laws into categories:

Sefer Torah at Glockengasse Synagogue (museum exhibits), Cologne
  • The Law of Moses which are believed to have been revealed by God to the Israelites at biblical Mount Sinai. These laws are composed of the following:
    • The Written Torah, laws written in the Hebrew Bible.
    • The Oral Torah, laws believed to have been transmitted orally prior to their later compilation in texts such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and rabbinic codes.
  • Laws of human origin, including rabbinic decrees, interpretations, customs, etc.

This division between revealed and rabbinic commandments may influence the importance of a rule, its enforcement and the nature of its ongoing interpretation. Halakhic authorities may disagree on which laws fall into which categories or the circumstances (if any) under which prior rabbinic rulings can be re-examined by contemporary rabbis, but all Halakhic Jews hold that both categories exist and that the first category is immutable, with exceptions only for life-saving and similar emergency circumstances.

A second classical distinction is between the Written Law, laws written in the Hebrew Bible, and the Oral Law, laws which are believed to have been transmitted orally prior to their later compilation in texts such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and rabbinic codes.

Commandments are divided into positive and negative commands, which are treated differently in terms of divine and human punishment. Positive commandments require an action to be performed and are considered to bring the performer closer to God. Negative commandments (traditionally 365 in number) forbid a specific action, and violations create a distance from God.

A further division is made between chukim ("decrees" – laws without obvious explanation, such as shatnez, the law prohibiting wearing clothing made of mixtures of linen and wool), mishpatim ("judgements" – laws with obvious social implications) and eduyot ("testimonies" or "commemorations", such as the Shabbat and holidays). Through the ages, various rabbinical authorities have classified some of the 613 commandments in many ways.

A different approach divides the laws into a different set of categories:

  • Laws in relation to God (bein adam laMakom, lit. "between a person and the Place"), and
  • Laws about relations with other people (bein adam le-chavero, "between a person and his friend").

Sources and process

Eras of Jewish law
  • Chazal (lit. "Our Sages, may their memory be blessed"): all Jewish sages of the Mishna, Tosefta and Talmud eras (c. 250 BCE – c. 625 CE).
    • The Zugot ("pairs"), both the 200-year period (c. 170 BCE – 30 CE, "Era of the Pairs") during the Second Temple period in which the spiritual leadership was in the hands of five successions of "pairs" of religious teachers, and to each of these pairs themselves.
    • The Tannaim ("repeaters") were rabbis living primarily in Eretz Yisrael who codified the Oral Torah in the form of the Mishnah; 0–200 CE.
    • The Amoraim ("sayers") lived in both Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia. Their teachings and discussions were compiled into the two versions of the Gemara; 200–500.
    • The Savoraim ("reasoners") lived primarily in Sassanid Babylonia due to the suppression of Judaism in the Eastern Roman Empire under Theodosius II; 500–650.
  • The Geonim ("greats" or "geniuses") presided over the two major Babylonian Academies of Sura and Pumbedita; 650–1038.
  • The Rishonim ("firsts") are the rabbis of the late medieval period (c. 1038–1563), preceding the Shulchan Aruch.
  • The Acharonim ("lasts") are the rabbis from c. 1500 to the present.
See also: Rabbinic literature

The development of halakha in the period before the Maccabees, which has been described as the formative period in the history of its development, is shrouded in obscurity. Historian Yitzhak Baer argued that there was little pure academic legal activity at this period and that many of the laws originating at this time were produced by a means of neighbourly good conduct rules in a similar way as carried out by Greeks in the age of Solon. For example, the first chapter of Bava Kamma, contains a formulation of the law of torts worded in the first person.

The boundaries of Jewish law are determined through the Halakhic process, a religious-ethical system of legal reasoning. Rabbis generally base their opinions on the primary sources of halakha as well as on precedent set by previous rabbinic opinions. The major sources and genre of halakha consulted include:

  • The foundational Talmudic literature (especially the Mishna and the Babylonian Talmud) with commentaries;
    • Talmudic hermeneutics: the science which defines the rules and methods for the investigation and exact determination of the meaning of the Scriptures; also includes the rules from which the Halakhot are derived and which were established by the written law. These may be seen as the rules from which early Jewish law is derived.
    • Gemara – the Talmudic process of elucidating the halakha
  • The post-Talmudic codificatory literature, such as Maimonides's Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch with its commentaries (see #Codes of Jewish law below);
  • Regulations and other "legislative" enactments promulgated by rabbis and communal bodies:
    • Gezeirah ("declaration"): "preventative legislation" of the rabbis, intended to prevent violations of the commandments
    • Takkanah ("repair" or "regulation"): "positive legislation", practices instituted by the rabbis not based (directly) on the commandments
  • Minhag: Customs, community practices, and customary law, as well as the exemplary deeds of prominent (or local) rabbis;
  • The she'eloth u-teshuvoth (responsa, "questions and answers") literature.
  • Dina d'malchuta dina ("the law of the king is law"): an additional aspect of halakha, being the principle recognizing non-Jewish laws and non-Jewish legal jurisdiction as binding on Jewish citizens, provided that they are not contrary to a law in Judaism. This principle applies primarily in areas of commercial, civil and criminal law.

In antiquity, the Sanhedrin functioned essentially as the Supreme Court and legislature (in the US judicial system) for Judaism, and had the power to administer binding law, including both received law and its own rabbinic decrees, on all Jews—rulings of the Sanhedrin became halakha; see Oral law. That court ceased to function in its full mode in 40 CE. Today, the authoritative application of Jewish law is left to the local rabbi, and the local rabbinical courts, with only local applicability. In branches of Judaism that follow halakha, lay individuals make numerous ad-hoc decisions but are regarded as not having authority to decide certain issues definitively.

Since the days of the Sanhedrin, however, no body or authority has been generally regarded as having the authority to create universally recognized precedents. As a result, halakha has developed in a somewhat different fashion from Anglo-American legal systems with a Supreme Court able to provide universally accepted precedents. Generally, Halakhic arguments are effectively, yet unofficially, peer-reviewed. When a rabbinic posek ("he who makes a statement", "decisor") proposes an additional interpretation of a law, that interpretation may be considered binding for the posek's questioner or immediate community. Depending on the stature of the posek and the quality of the decision, an interpretation may also be gradually accepted by other rabbis and members of other Jewish communities.

Under this system there is a tension between the relevance of earlier and later authorities in constraining Halakhic interpretation and innovation. On the one hand, there is a principle in halakha not to overrule a specific law from an earlier era, after it is accepted by the community as a law or vow, unless supported by another, relevant earlier precedent; see list below. On the other hand, another principle recognizes the responsibility and authority of later authorities, and especially the posek handling a then-current question. In addition, the halakha embodies a wide range of principles that permit judicial discretion and deviation (Ben-Menahem).

Notwithstanding the potential for innovation, rabbis and Jewish communities differ greatly on how they make changes in halakha. Notably, poskim frequently extend the application of a law to new situations, but do not consider such applications as constituting a "change" in halakha. For example, many Orthodox rulings concerning electricity are derived from rulings concerning fire, as closing an electrical circuit may cause a spark. In contrast, Conservative poskim consider that switching on electrical equipment is physically and chemically more like turning on a water tap (which is permissible by halakha) than lighting a fire (which is not permissible), and therefore permitted on Shabbat. The reformative Judaism in some cases explicitly interprets halakha to take into account its view of contemporary society. For instance, most Conservative rabbis extend the application of certain Jewish obligations and permissible activities to women (see below).

Within certain Jewish communities, formal organized bodies do exist. Within Modern Orthodox Judaism, there is no one committee or leader, but Modern US-based Orthodox rabbis generally agree with the views set by consensus by the leaders of the Rabbinical Council of America. Within Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly has an official Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.

Note that takkanot (plural of takkanah) in general do not affect or restrict observance of Torah mitzvot. (Sometimes takkanah refers to either gezeirot or takkanot.) However, the Talmud states that in exceptional cases, the Sages had the authority to "uproot matters from the Torah". In Talmudic and classical Halakhic literature, this authority refers to the authority to prohibit some things that would otherwise be Biblically sanctioned (shev v'al ta'aseh, "thou shall stay seated and not do"). Rabbis may rule that a specific mitzvah from the Torah should not be performed, e. g., blowing the shofar on Shabbat, or taking the lulav and etrog on Shabbat. These examples of takkanot which may be executed out of caution lest some might otherwise carry the mentioned items between home and the synagogue, thus inadvertently violating a Sabbath melakha. Another rare and limited form of takkanah involved overriding Torah prohibitions. In some cases, the Sages allowed the temporary violation of a prohibition in order to maintain the Jewish system as a whole. This was part of the basis for Esther's relationship with Ahasuerus (Xeres). For general usage of takkanaot in Jewish history see the article Takkanah. For examples of this being used in Conservative Judaism, see Conservative halakha.

Historical analysis

The antiquity of the rules can be determined only by the dates of the authorities who quote them; in general, they cannot safely be declared older than the tanna ("repeater") to whom they are first ascribed. It is certain, however, that the seven middot ("measurements", and referring to [good] behavior) of Hillel and the thirteen of Ishmael are earlier than the time of Hillel himself, who was the first to transmit them.

The Talmud gives no information concerning the origin of the middot, although the Geonim ("Sages") regarded them as Sinaitic (Law given to Moses at Sinai).

The middot seem to have been first laid down as abstract rules by the teachers of Hillel, though they were not immediately recognized by all as valid and binding. Different schools interpreted and modified them, restricted or expanded them, in various ways. Rabbi Akiva and rabbi Ishmael and their scholars especially contributed to the development or establishment of these rules. "It must be borne in mind, however, that neither Hillel, Ishmael, nor [a contemporary of theirs named] Eliezer ben Jose sought to give a complete enumeration of the rules of interpretation current in his day, but that they omitted from their collections many rules which were then followed."

Akiva devoted his attention particularly to the grammatical and exegetical rules, while Ishmael developed the logical. The rules laid down by one school were frequently rejected by another because the principles that guided them in their respective formulations were essentially different. According to Akiva, the divine language of the Torah is distinguished from the speech of men by the fact that in the former no word or sound is superfluous.

Some scholars have observed a similarity between these rabbinic rules of interpretation and the hermeneutics of ancient Hellenistic culture. For example, Saul Lieberman argues that the names of rabbi Ishmael's middot (e. g., kal vahomer, a combination of the archaic form of the word for "straw" and the word for "clay" – "straw and clay", referring to the obvious [means of making a mud brick]) are Hebrew translations of Greek terms, although the methods of those middot are not Greek in origin.

Views today

The artistic freedom spirit of Aggadah (left, represented by Solomon) and the legal divine judgment rulings of Halakhah (right, represented by Aaron and his sons) on the Knesset Menorah
 

See also: Talmud § Present day

Orthodox Judaism holds that halakha is the divine law as laid out in the Torah (five books of Moses), rabbinical laws, rabbinical decrees, and customs combined. The rabbis, who made many additions and interpretations of Jewish Law, did so only in accordance with regulations they believe were given for this purpose to Moses on Mount Sinai, see Deuteronomy 17:11. See Orthodox Judaism, Beliefs about Jewish law and tradition.

Conservative Judaism holds that halakha is normative and binding, and is developed as a partnership between people and God based on Sinaitic Torah. While there are a wide variety of Conservative views, a common belief is that halakha is, and has always been, an evolving process subject to interpretation by rabbis in every time period. See Conservative Judaism, Beliefs.

Reconstructionist Judaism holds that halakha is normative and binding, while also believing that it is an evolving concept and that the traditional halakhic system is incapable of producing a code of conduct that is meaningful for, and acceptable to, the vast majority of contemporary Jews. Reconstructionist founder Mordecai Kaplan believed that "Jewish life [is] meaningless without Jewish law.", and one of the planks of the Society for the Jewish Renascence, of which Kaplan was one of the founders, stated: "We accept the halakha, which is rooted in the Talmud, as the norm of Jewish life, availing ourselves, at the same time, of the method implicit therein to interpret and develop the body of Jewish Law in accordance with the actual conditions and spiritual needs of modern life."

Reform Judaism holds that modern views of how the Torah and rabbinic law developed imply that the body of rabbinic Jewish law is no longer normative (seen as binding) on Jews today. Those in the "traditionalist" wing believe that the halakha represents a personal starting-point, holding that each Jew is obligated to interpret the Torah, Talmud and other Jewish works for themselves, and this interpretation will create separate commandments for each person. Those in the liberal and classical wings of Reform believe that in this day and era, most Jewish religious rituals are no longer necessary, and many hold that following most Jewish laws is actually counter-productive. They propose that Judaism has entered a phase of ethical monotheism, and that the laws of Judaism are only remnants of an earlier stage of religious evolution, and need not be followed. This is considered wrong, and even heretical, by Orthodox and Conservative Judaism.

Humanistic Jews value the Torah as a historical, political, and sociological text written by their ancestors. They do not believe "that every word of the Torah is true, or even morally correct, just because the Torah is old". The Torah is both disagreed with and questioned. Humanistic Jews believe that the entire Jewish experience, and not only the Torah, should be studied as a source for Jewish behavior and ethical values.

Some Jews believe that gentiles are bound by a subset of halakha called the Seven Laws of Noah, also referred to as the Noahide Laws. They are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God to the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.

Flexibility

Despite its internal rigidity, halakha has a degree of flexibility in finding solutions to modern problems that are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. From the very beginnings of Rabbinic Judaism, halakhic inquiry allowed for a "sense of continuity between past and present, a self-evident trust that their pattern of life and belief now conformed to the sacred patterns and beliefs presented by scripture and tradition". According to an analysis by Jewish scholar Jeffrey Rubenstein of Michael Berger's book Rabbinic Authority, the authority that rabbis hold "derives not from the institutional or personal authority of the sages but from a communal decision to recognize that authority, much as a community recognizes a certain judicial system to resolve its disputes and interpret its laws." Given this covenantal relationship, rabbis are charged with connecting their contemporary community with the traditions and precedents of the past.

When presented with contemporary issues, rabbis go through a halakhic process to find an answer. The classical approach has permitted new rulings regarding modern technology. For example, some of these rulings guide Jewish observers about the proper use of electricity on the Sabbath and holidays. Often, as to the applicability of the law in any given situation, the proviso is to "consult your local rabbi or posek". This notion lends rabbis a certain degree of local authority; however, for more complex questions the issue is passed on to higher rabbis who will then issue a teshuva, which is a responsa that is binding. Indeed, rabbis will continuously issue different opinions and will constantly review each other's work so as to maintain the truest sense of halakha. Overall, this process allows rabbis to maintain connection of traditional Jewish law to modern life. Of course, the degree of flexibility depends on the sect of Judaism, with Reform being the most flexible, Conservative somewhat in the middle, and Orthodox being much more stringent and rigid. Modern critics, however, have charged that with the rise of movements that challenge the "divine" authority of halakha, traditional Jews have greater reluctance to change, not only the laws themselves but also other customs and habits, than traditional Rabbinical Judaism did prior to the advent of Reform in the 19th century.

Denominational approaches

Orthodox Judaism

See also: Semikhah § Concept, and Yeshiva § Jewish law
Hasidim walk to the synagogue, Rehovot, Israel.

Orthodox Jews believe that halakha is a religious system whose core represents the revealed will of God. Although Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that rabbis have made many decisions and decrees regarding Jewish Law where the written Torah itself is nonspecific, they did so only in accordance with regulations received by Moses on Mount Sinai (see Deuteronomy 5:8–13). These regulations were transmitted orally until shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple. They were then recorded in the Mishnah, and explained in the Talmud and commentaries throughout history up until the present day. Orthodox Judaism believes that subsequent interpretations have been derived with the utmost accuracy and care. The most widely accepted codes of Jewish law are known as Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch.

Orthodox Judaism has a range of opinions on the circumstances and extent to which change is permissible. Haredi Jews generally hold that even minhagim (customs) must be retained, and existing precedents cannot be reconsidered. Modern Orthodox authorities are more inclined to permit limited changes in customs and some reconsideration of precedent.

Despite the Orthodox views that halakha was given at Sinai, Orthodox thought (and especially modern Orthodox thought) encourages debate, allows for disagreement, and encourages rabbis to enact decisions based on contemporary needs. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein says in his introduction to his collection of responsa that a rabbi who studies the texts carefully is required to provide a halakhic decision. That decision is considered to be a true teaching, even if it is not the true teaching in according to the heavens. For instance, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik believes that the job of a halakhic decisor is to apply halakha − which exists in an ideal realm−to people's lived experiences. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, the chief rabbi of Cluj (Klausenberg in German or קלויזנבורג in Yiddish) stated that the Oral Torah was an oral tradition by design, to allow for the creative application of halakha to each time period, and even enabling halakha to evolve. He writes:

Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements.

Conservative Judaism

Further information: Conservative halakha
A mixed-gender, egalitarian Conservative service at Robinson's Arch, Western Wall

The view held by Conservative Judaism is that the Torah is not the word of God in a literal sense. However, the Torah is still held as mankind's record of its understanding of God's revelation, and thus still has divine authority. Therefore, halakha is still seen as binding. Conservative Jews use modern methods of historical study to learn how Jewish law has changed over time, and are, in some cases, willing to change Jewish law in the present.

A key practical difference between Conservative and Orthodox approaches is that Conservative Judaism holds that its rabbinical body's powers are not limited to reconsidering later precedents based on earlier sources, but the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) is empowered to override Biblical and Taanitic prohibitions by takkanah (decree) when perceived to be inconsistent with modern requirements or views of ethics. The CJLS has used this power on a number of occasions, most famously in the "driving teshuva", which says that if someone is unable to walk to any synagogue on the Sabbath, and their commitment to observance is so loose that not attending synagogue may lead them to drop it altogether, their rabbi may give them a dispensation to drive there and back; and more recently in its decision prohibiting the taking of evidence on mamzer status on the grounds that implementing such a status is immoral. The CJLS has also held that the Talmudic concept of Kavod HaBriyot permits lifting rabbinic decrees (as distinct from carving narrow exceptions) on grounds of human dignity, and used this principle in a December 2006 opinion lifting all rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct (the opinion held that only male-male anal sex was forbidden by the Bible and that this remained prohibited). Conservative Judaism also made a number of changes to the role of women in Judaism including counting women in a minyan, permitting women to chant from the Torah, and ordaining women as rabbis.

The Conservative approach to halakhic interpretation can be seen in the CJLS's acceptance of Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz's responsum decreeing the biblical category of mamzer as "inoperative." The CJLS adopted the responsum's view that the "morality which we learn through the larger, unfolding narrative of our tradition" informs the application of Mosaic law. The responsum cited several examples of how the rabbinic sages declined to enforce punishments explicitly mandated by Torah law. The examples include the trial of the accused adulteress (sotah), the "law of breaking the neck of the heifer," and the application of the death penalty for the "rebellious child." Kaplan Spitz argues that the punishment of the mamzer has been effectively inoperative for nearly two thousand years due to deliberate rabbinic inaction. Further he suggested that the rabbis have long regarded the punishment declared by the Torah as immoral, and came to the conclusion that no court should agree to hear testimony on mamzerut.

Codes of Jewish law

Page of Shulchan Aruch; Even Ha'ezer section, laws of Ketubot
Set of Mishneh Torah
Shulchan Aruch HaRav

The most important codifications of Jewish law include the following; for complementary discussion, see also History of responsa in Judaism.

  • The Mishnah, composed by Judah haNasi, in 200 CE, as a basic outline of the state of the Oral Law in his time. This was the framework upon which the Talmud was based; the Talmud's dialectic analysis of the content of the Mishna (gemara; completed c. 500) became the basis for all later halakhic decisions and subsequent codes.
  • Codifications by the Geonim of the halakhic material in the Talmud.
    • An early work, She'iltot ("Questions") by Ahai of Shabha (c. 752) discusses over 190 mitzvot – exploring and addressing various questions on these. The She'iltot was influential on both of the following, subsequent works.
    • The first legal codex proper, Halakhot Pesukot ("Decided Laws"), by Yehudai ben Nahman (c. 760), rearranges the Talmud passages in a structure manageable to the layman. (It was written in vernacular Aramaic, and subsequently translated into Hebrew as Hilkhot Riu.)
    • Halakhot Gedolot ("Great Law Book"), by Simeon Kayyara, published two generations later (but possibly written c. 743 CE), contains extensive additional material, mainly from Responsa and Monographs of the Geonim, and is presented in a form that is closer to the original Talmud language and structure. (Probably since it was distributed, also, amongst the newly established Ashkenazi communities.)
  • The Hilchot HaRif was written by the Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (1013–1103); it has summations of the legal material found in the Talmud. Alfasi transcribed the Talmud's halakhic conclusions verbatim, without the surrounding deliberation; he also excluded all aggadic (non-legal, and homiletic) matter. The Hilchot soon superseded the geonic codes, as it contained all the decisions and the laws then relevant, and additionally, served as an accessible Talmudic commentary; it has been printed with almost every subsequent edition of the Talmud.
  • The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides (1135–1204). This work encompasses the full range of Talmudic law; it is organized and reformulated in a logical system – in 14 books, 83 sections and 1000 chapters – with each halakha stated clearly. The Mishneh Torah is very influential to this day, and several later works reproduce passages verbatim. It also includes a section on Metaphysics and fundamental beliefs. (Some claim this section draws heavily on Aristotelian science and metaphysics; others suggest that it is within the tradition of Saadia Gaon.) It is the main source of practical halakha for many Yemenite Jews – mainly Baladi and Dor Daim – as well as for a growing community referred to as talmidei haRambam.
  • The work of the Rosh, Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (1250?/1259?–1328), an abstract of the Talmud, concisely stating the final halakhic decision and quoting later authorities, notably Alfasi, Maimonides, and the Tosafists. This work superseded Rabbi Alfasi's and has been printed with almost every subsequent edition of the Talmud.
  • The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (The "SeMaG") of Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy (first half of the 13th century, Coucy, northern France). "SeMaG" is organised around the 365 negative and the 248 positive commandments, separately discussing each of them according to the Talmud (in light of the commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafot) and the other codes existent at the time. Sefer Mitzvot Katan ("SeMaK") by Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil is an abridgement of the SeMaG, including additional practical halakha, as well as aggadic and ethical material.
  • "The Mordechai" – by Mordecai ben Hillel (d. Nuremberg 1298) – serves both as a source of analysis, as well as of decided law. Mordechai considered about 350 halakhic authorities, and was widely influential, particularly amongst the Ashkenazi and Italian communities. Although organised around the Hilchot of the Rif, it is, in fact, an independent work. It has been printed with every edition of the Talmud since 1482.
An illuminated manuscript of Arba'ah Turim from 1435
  • The Arba'ah Turim (lit. "The Four Columns"; the Tur) by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (1270–1343, Toledo, Spain). This work traces the halakha from the Torah text and the Talmud through the Rishonim, with the Hilchot of Alfasi as its starting point. Ben Asher followed Maimonides's precedent in arranging his work in a topical order, however, the Tur covers only those areas of Jewish law that were in force in the author's time. The code is divided into four main sections; almost all codes since this time have followed the Tur's arrangement of material.
  • The Beit Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575). The Beit Yosef is a huge commentary on the Tur in which Rabbi Karo traces the development of each law from the Talmud through later rabbinical literature (examining 32 authorities, beginning with the Talmud and ending with the works of Rabbi Israel Isserlein). The Shulchan Aruch (literally "set table") is, in turn, a condensation of the Beit Yosef – stating each ruling simply; this work follows the chapter divisions of the Tur. The Shulchan Aruch, together with its related commentaries, is considered by many to be the most authoritative compilation of halakha since the Talmud. In writing the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Karo based his rulings on three authorities – Maimonides, Asher ben Jehiel (Rosh), and Isaac Alfasi (Rif); he considered the Mordechai in inconclusive cases. Sephardic Jews, generally, refer to the Shulchan Aruch as the basis for their daily practice.
  • The works of Rabbi Moshe Isserles ("Rema"; Kraków, Poland, 1525 to 1572). Isserles noted that the Shulchan Aruch was based on the Sephardic tradition, and he created a series of glosses to be appended to the text of the Shulkhan Aruch for cases where Sephardi and Ashkenazi customs differed (based on the works of Yaakov Moelin, Israel Isserlein, and Israel Bruna). The glosses are called ha-Mapah ("the Tablecloth"). His comments are now incorporated into the body of all printed editions of the Shulchan Aruch, typeset in a different script; today, "Shulchan Aruch" refers to the combined work of Karo and Isserles. Isserles' Darkhei Moshe is similarly a commentary on the Tur and the Beit Yosef.
  • The Levush Malkhut ("Levush") of Rabbi Mordecai Yoffe (c. 1530–1612). A ten-volume work, five discussing halakha at a level "midway between the two extremes: the lengthy Beit Yosef of Karo on the one hand, and on the other Karo's Shulchan Aruch together with the Mappah of Isserles, which is too brief", that particularly stresses the customs and practices of the Jews of Eastern Europe. The Levush was exceptional among the codes, in that it treated certain Halakhot from a Kabbalistic standpoint.
  • The Shulchan Aruch HaRav of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (c. 1800) was an attempt to re-codify the law as it stood at that time – incorporating commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch, and subsequent responsa – and thus stating the decided halakha, as well as the underlying reasoning. The work was written partly so that laymen would be able to study Jewish law. Unfortunately, most of the work was lost in a fire prior to publication. It is the basis of practice for Chabad-Lubavitch and other Hasidic groups and is quoted as authoritative by many subsequent works, Hasidic and non-Hasidic alike.
  • Works structured directly on the Shulchan Aruch, providing analysis in light of Acharonic material and codes:
    • The Mishnah Berurah of Rabbi Yisroel Meir ha-Kohen, (the "Chofetz Chaim", Poland, 1838–1933) is a commentary on the "Orach Chayim" section of the Shulchan Aruch, discussing the application of each halakha in light of all subsequent Acharonic decisions. It has become the authoritative halakhic guide for much of Orthodox Ashkenazic Jewry in the postwar period.
    • Aruch HaShulchan by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829–1888) is a scholarly analysis of halakha through the perspective of the major Rishonim. The work follows the structure of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch; rules dealing with vows, agriculture, and ritual purity, are discussed in a second work known as Aruch HaShulchan he'Atid.
    • Kaf HaChaim on Orach Chayim and parts of Yoreh De'ah, by the Sephardi sage Yaakov Chaim Sofer (Baghdad and Jerusalem, 1870–1939) is similar in scope, authority and approach to the Mishnah Berurah. This work also surveys the views of many kabbalistic sages (particularly Isaac Luria), when these impact the Halakha.
    • Yalkut Yosef, by Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, is a voluminous, widely cited and contemporary work of halakha, based on the rulings of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013).
  • Layman-oriented works of halakha:
    • Thesouro dos Dinim ("Treasury of religious rules") by Menasseh Ben Israel (1604–1657) is a reconstituted version of the Shulkhan Arukh, written in Portuguese with the explicit purpose of helping conversos from Iberia reintergrate into halakhic Judaism.
    • The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (Hungary 1804–1886), a "digest", covering applicable Halakha from all four sections of Shulchan Aruch, and reflecting the very strict Hungarian customs of the 19th century. It became immensely popular after its publication due to its simplicity, and is still popular in Orthodox Judaism as a framework for study, if not always for practice. This work is not considered binding in the same way as the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch.
    • Chayei Adam and Chochmat Adam by Avraham Danzig (Poland, 1748–1820) are similar Ashkenazi works; the first covers Orach Chaim, the second in large Yoreh De'ah, as well as laws from Even Ha'ezer and Choshen Mishpat pertinent to everyday life.
    • The Ben Ish Chai by Yosef Chaim (Baghdad, 1832–1909) is a collection of the laws on everyday life – parallel in scope to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch – interspersed with mystical insights and customs, addressed to the masses and arranged by the weekly Torah portion. Its wide circulation and coverage has seen it become a standard reference work in Sephardi Halakha.
  • Contemporary "series":
    • Peninei Halakha by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed. 15 volumes thus far, covering a wide range of subjects, from Shabbat to organ donations, and in addition to clearly posing the practical law – reflecting the customs of various communities – also discusses the spiritual foundations of the Halakhot. It is widely studied in the Religious Zionist community.
    • Tzurba M’Rabanan by Rabbi Benzion Algazi. Six volumes covering 300 topics from all areas of the Shulchan Aruch, "from the Talmudic source through modern-day halachic application", similarly studied in the Religious Zionist community (and outside Israel, through Mizrachi in numerous Modern Orthodox communities; 15 bilingual translated volumes).
    • Nitei Gavriel by Rabbi Gavriel Zinner. 30 volumes on the entire spectrum of topics in halachah, known for addressing situations not commonly brought in other works, and for delineating the varying approaches amongst the Hasidic branches; for both reasons they are often reprinted.
  • Temimei Haderech ("A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice") by Rabbi Isaac Klein with contributions from the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly. This scholarly work is based on the previous traditional law codes, but written from a Conservative Jewish point of view, and not accepted among Orthodox Jews.
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Natural aristocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_aristocracy ...

  • Islamic State and the Levant
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام   ( ...
  • Heart Sutra
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...
  • Slum
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...