Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Directorial system.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Directorial system
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
| Part of a series on |
| Politics |
|---|
_(cropped).svg) |
 Politics portal |
Parliamentary systems: Head of government is elected or nominated by and accountable to the legislature.
Constitutional monarchy with a ceremonial monarch
Parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president
Presidential system: Head of government (president) is popularly elected and independent of the legislature.
Presidential republic
Hybrid systems:
Semi-presidential republic: Executive president is independent of the legislature; head of government is appointed by the president and is accountable to the legislature.
Assembly-independent republic: Head of government (president or directory) is elected by the legislature, but is not accountable to it.
Other systems:
Theocratic republic: Supreme Leader is both head of state and faith and holds significant executive and legislative power
Semi-constitutional monarchy: Monarch holds significant executive or legislative power.
Absolute monarchy: Monarch has unlimited power.
One-party state: Power is constitutionally linked to a single political party.
Military junta: Committee of military leaders controls the government; constitutional provisions are suspended.
Governments with no constitutional basis: No constitutionally defined basis to current regime, i.e., provisional governments or Islamic theocracies.
Dependent territories or places without governments
Note: this chart represents the de jure systems of government, not the de facto degree of democracy.
| Part of the Politics series |
| Basic forms of government |
|---|
| List of forms · List of countries |
|
Politics portal |
A directorial system is a political system governed by a college of several people who jointly exercise the powers of a head of state and/or a head of government.
Current directorial systems
[edit]Countries with directorial heads of state sharing ceremonial functions:
Andorra: co-princes
Bosnia and Herzegovina: presidency
Eswatini: Ngwenyama and Ndlovukati
San Marino: Captains Regent
Countries governed by a directorial system:
Supranational and subnational entities governed by a directorial system:
European Union: European Council and European Commission
Northern Ireland: First Minister and deputy First Minister
Switzerland: cantons, municipalities
Directorial republic in Switzerland
[edit]One country now using this form of government is Switzerland,[1] and to a lesser extent San Marino, where directories rule all levels of administration, federal, cantonal and municipal. On the face of it, the Swiss Federal Council might appear to be a typical parliamentary government; technically, however, it is not a meeting of ministers, but a college of heads of state and simultaneously the federal cabinet. The current president of the confederation is in fact only a primus inter pares (first among equals) with representative functions in particular for diplomacy with other States, without any power either of direction or of coordination of the activity of colleagues.[2] The Swiss Federal Council is elected by the Federal Assembly for four years, and is composed of seven members, among whom one is president and one is vice-president on a rotating basis, although these positions are symbolic in normal circumstances. The link between the Swiss managerial system and the presidential system is even more evident for the cantonal governments, where currently all directors are all individually directly elected by the voters.[3]
History
[edit]In political history, the term directory, in French directoire, is applied to high collegial institutions of state composed of members styled director. Early directorial systems were the Ambrosian Republic (1447-1450), the Bohemian Revolt (1618–1620), New England Confederation (1643–1686), partially in First Stadtholderless Period of Dutch Republic (1650–1672), Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 and the Directory of 1795–1799 in France.[4]
The French Directory was inspired by the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, which prominently featured a collegial 12-member Supreme Executive Council with the president in fact only primus inter pares (first among equals). Variants of this form of government, based on the French model, were also established in the European regions conquered by France during the French Revolutionary Wars. Directorial systems have a lower presidentialism metric value compared to presidential systems due to lower concentration of political power in the hands of one individual.[5] Military juntas differ from the directorial system by not being elected. Utilizing sortition to select multiple executives can lead to a directorial system.
Former directorial systems
[edit]In the past, countries with elected directories included:
- Bohemian Revolt from 1618 to 1620
New England Confederation from 1643 to 1686
Commonwealth of England from 1649 to 1653
Dutch Republic partially in First Stadtholderless Period from 1650 to 1672
Pennsylvania - Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 1777 to 1790
First French Republic - French Directory from 1795 to 1799
Cisalpine Republic from 1795 to 1799
Cispadane Republic from 1796 to 1797
Roman Republic (1798–1799) from 1798 to 1799
Parthenopaean Republic in 1799
Costa Rica - The Town's Legates Junta and High Government Junta from 1821 to 1823
Roman Republic (1849) from 1849 to 1850 (Triumvirate)
Ukrainian People's Republic - Directorate of Ukraine from 1918 to 1920[6]
Republic of China - National Government - from 1928 to 1947
Uruguay - National Council of Administration from 1919 to 1933 and National Council of Government from 1952 to 1967
East Germany - State Council of East Germany from 1960 to 1990
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - All-Union Central Executive Committee from 1922 to 1938; Presidium of the Supreme Soviet from 1938 to 1989
Polish People's Republic - State Council of the Polish People's Republic from 1952 to 1989
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - Presidency of Yugoslavia, de jure from 1971, de facto from 1980 to 1991.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Switzerland | History, Flag, Map, Capital, Population, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica.
- ^ Pierre Cormon (2014). Swiss Politics for Complete Beginners. Ginevra: Slatkine.
- ^ Buchs, Aurélia; Soguel, Nils (2022-04-01). "Fiscal performance and the re-election of finance ministers–evidence from the Swiss cantons" (PDF). Public Choice. 191 (1): 31–49. doi:10.1007/s11127-021-00949-z. ISSN 1573-7101. S2CID 246371550.
- ^ Directory (French history) at the Encyclopædia Britannica
- ^ Sigman, Rachel; Lindberg, Staffan I. (November 1, 2017). "Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa's Political Regimes". doi:10.2139/ssrn.3066654. SSRN 3066654 – via Social Science Research Network.
- ^ Directory (Ukrainian ruling body) at the Encyclopædia Britannica
Directorial system
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
The directorial system is a form of government in which executive power is collectively exercised by a council or directorate comprising multiple individuals, who jointly perform the functions of head of state and head of government without a single dominant leader.[1] This structure contrasts with presidential systems, where a sole executive holds authority, and parliamentary systems, where a prime minister leads but remains accountable to the legislature.[1] The system emphasizes collegiality, aiming to diffuse power and foster consensus to mitigate risks of authoritarianism or factionalism.[2]
Historically, the directorial system gained prominence during the French Revolution with the Directory (Directoire), established by the Constitution of 1795 as a five-member executive council intended to stabilize the republic after the Reign of Terror.[3] However, plagued by economic woes, corruption, and internal divisions, the Directory relied on military interventions to maintain power, culminating in its overthrow by Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'état in November 1799.[3] In contrast, Switzerland's Federal Council exemplifies a enduring implementation, where seven councillors, elected individually by the Federal Assembly for four-year terms from major parties and linguistic regions, govern through consensus and rotate the nominal presidency annually without elevating one member above others.[4] This collegial approach has contributed to Switzerland's political stability since 1848, integrating with elements of direct democracy to balance federal authority.[5]
The directorial system's defining characteristics include shared decision-making, which can enhance representation and reduce personality-driven politics, but may also lead to slower responses in crises due to the need for agreement among members.[4] While rare globally—Switzerland remains the primary modern example—its principles have influenced discussions on executive design in federal or multi-ethnic states seeking to avoid power concentration.[1] Empirical outcomes vary: the French experience highlighted vulnerabilities to instability amid revolutionary upheaval, whereas Switzerland's model underscores success under conditions of cultural consensus and proportional representation.[5][3]
The Batavian Republic was proclaimed on January 19, 1795, after French revolutionary forces invaded the Dutch Republic and supported local Patriots in overthrowing the stadtholderate regime.[42] This marked the establishment of the first sister republic under French influence, with governance initially handled by provisional committees and a National Representative Assembly tasked with drafting a constitution.[43] The assembly's work was disrupted by factional strife between unitary and federalist advocates, leading to French intervention in 1798 that purged federalist members and imposed a centralized unitary structure.[42] The 1798 constitution introduced a directorial executive consisting of five directors, elected by the bicameral legislature (National Assembly divided into two chambers), who supervised ministries and wielded collective executive authority patterned directly after the French Directory.[43] [42] These directors managed foreign affairs, finance, and internal administration, with decisions requiring majority consensus to prevent autocracy, though real power was constrained by legislative oversight and French diplomatic pressure.[44] The system aimed to balance power amid ongoing economic distress from war debts and naval defeats, but it struggled with inefficiency and corruption allegations, contributing to political paralysis.[42] In September 1801, amid a constitutional crisis and further French demands for reforms, the five-member directory was dissolved and replaced by the Staatsbewind (State Regency), a larger collegiate executive of twelve members—initially three directors appointing the rest—intended to provide more stable, consensus-based leadership while retaining directorial principles of collective rule.[45] [46] The Staatsbewind centralized authority further, implementing fiscal reforms under figures like Finance Minister Isaac Gogel, but its deliberative process slowed decision-making during the Napoleonic Wars' fiscal strains.[46] This body governed until May 1805, when Napoleon imposed the Batavian Commonwealth with a single hereditary Raadpensionaris (Grand Pensionary), effectively ending the directorial experiment by concentrating power.[42] The Batavian directorial systems thus exemplified early adoption of collegial executives in revolutionary republics, though undermined by external French control and internal divisions, paving the way for monarchical restoration in 1806.[45]
Definition and Core Features
Definition
A directorial system, also termed a directorial republic, constitutes a governmental framework wherein executive authority is vested in a collegial body comprising multiple individuals who collectively discharge the roles of head of state and/or head of government. This structure disperses power among a fixed number of coequal members, typically elected for predetermined terms, obviating a singular hierarchical leader to mitigate risks of autocracy or instability.[6] Unlike unipersonal executives, the directorate operates through consensus, majority voting, or rotational presidencies, ensuring decisions reflect group deliberation rather than individual dominance.[1] The system's core rationale emphasizes balanced representation and continuity, with members often drawn proportionally from legislative majorities or diverse constituencies to embody pluralistic governance.[7] Executive functions, including policy implementation, diplomacy, and administration, are apportioned among the council without subordination, fostering accountability via internal checks and periodic reelection.[6] This model has been implemented in contexts prioritizing federalism and consensus, as seen in arrangements where the collective holds supreme executive sway independent of legislative dissolution powers.[1]Key Characteristics
In a directorial system, executive power is vested in a multi-person collegium, or directorate, whose members jointly exercise the functions of both head of state and head of government, distinguishing it from systems reliant on a singular executive figure. This collective structure, often comprising 5 to 7 equals, disperses authority to prevent personalism and promote balanced governance, as evidenced in institutional designs aimed at countering the vulnerabilities of concentrated leadership.[8] [1] Core to the system is decision-making by consensus or qualified majority within the directorate, requiring members to negotiate and compromise, which institutionalizes shared responsibility and reduces the potential for unilateral action.[9] Members are typically selected by the legislature through proportional representation or party balance for fixed terms of 4 years, ensuring alignment with parliamentary composition without direct public election, thereby linking executive stability to legislative confidence.[10] The system features a rotating presidency, where one member assumes a ceremonial chair for a short period—often 1 year—with no substantive veto or superior powers, maintaining parity among colleagues and emphasizing the directorate's unity over individual prominence.[6] This arrangement supports long-term continuity, as the entire body serves concurrently, avoiding disruptions from single-leader transitions, while portfolio assignments allow specialization in policy areas like foreign affairs or finance.[11]Comparison with Other Executive Systems
Versus Presidential Systems
In presidential systems, executive authority is concentrated in a single individual, the president, who is typically elected directly by the populace for a fixed term independent of the legislature, embodying strict separation of powers and potential for unilateral decision-making.[12] By contrast, directorial systems distribute executive power among a collegial body of equals, such as a council, where decisions are reached collectively, often by majority vote, with no dominant leader and shared accountability.[8] This structure, exemplified by Switzerland's seven-member Federal Council elected by parliament for fixed four-year terms since 1848, emphasizes consensus and rotates ceremonial presidency annually to prevent personalization of power.[13] Directorial systems address key vulnerabilities of presidentialism identified in comparative analyses, including risks of dual democratic legitimacy—where both executive and legislature claim popular mandates—leading to intractable conflicts and institutional deadlock.[14] Juan Linz argued that presidential systems' winner-take-all dynamics and fixed terms exacerbate outsider presidencies, policy rigidity, and coups, as seen historically in Latin American presidential democracies where breakdowns outnumbered stable cases post-1930.[15] Collegial executives mitigate these by diffusing authority, fostering negotiation akin to consensus models, and avoiding single-leader cults; empirical tests across 100+ democracies from 1946–2018 show no association between collegial systems and higher democratic breakdown rates, contrasting with presidentialism's elevated instability in multiparty contexts.[8][16] Switzerland's directorial model underscores these benefits through sustained stability: uninterrupted democracy since 1848 amid linguistic and cultural divisions, topping global rankings like the 2023 Democracy Index (score 9.38/10) and Corruption Perceptions Index (rank 3/180), versus the United States' score of 7.85 and rank 24, amid polarization, government shutdowns (e.g., 2018–2019 lasting 35 days), and two impeachments since 1998.[17][18] This resilience stems from collegial compromise, enabling policy continuity across coalition-like councils representing major parties, unlike presidential systems' frequent executive-legislative impasses.[11] Critics note potential drawbacks in directorial setups, such as diluted leadership yielding slower crisis responses or accountability diffusion, where collective blame obscures individual responsibility—issues less pronounced in presidential systems' decisive action, as during U.S. responses to events like the 2008 financial crisis.[19] Yet, evidence from Switzerland refutes systemic inferiority, with its council navigating challenges like World War II neutrality and 2008 recession without collapse, suggesting directorial power-sharing enhances durability in diverse societies over presidential concentration.[8]Versus Parliamentary Systems
Directorial systems feature a collegial executive body where power is shared among multiple equal members, typically elected for fixed terms by the legislature but operating independently without routine confidence votes.[1] In contrast, parliamentary systems concentrate executive authority in a prime minister and cabinet drawn from the legislature, subject to ongoing accountability through motions of no confidence that can precipitate government collapse.[20] This structural divergence leads to distinct dynamics in executive stability and decision-making. The fixed-term nature of directorial executives, exemplified by Switzerland's Federal Council since its establishment in 1848, insulates the government from parliamentary whims, fostering continuity even amid legislative shifts.[17] Switzerland has maintained broad coalition representation in its seven-member council via the "magic formula" proportionality since 1959, contributing to uninterrupted governance despite electoral changes.[21] Parliamentary systems, however, often experience higher turnover in fragmented multiparty settings; for instance, empirical analyses indicate that increased parliamentary fragmentation correlates with shorter government durations due to coalition breakdowns.[22] Collegial structures in directorial systems mitigate personalistic leadership risks, promoting consensus-driven policies that reduce policy volatility compared to the potentially abrupt shifts under single-headed parliamentary executives.[8] Switzerland's model yields high public trust and effective governance, with the country ranking in the top quartile globally for democratic stability and low corruption, outcomes linked to diffused executive power.[23] While parliamentary systems enable rapid executive replacement for accountability, they can incentivize short-term opportunism; studies of presidential versus parliamentary regimes suggest the former's separation of powers—mirrored in directorial independence—associates with lower economic volatility, a pattern potentially extensible to collegial variants.[24] Directorial systems suit consociational democracies with deep divisions, as collective deliberation enforces compromise, evidenced by Switzerland's sustained neutrality and economic resilience amid European upheavals.[25] Parliamentary fusion of powers accelerates responsiveness but heightens instability risks in diverse electorates, where no-confidence mechanisms amplify partisan gridlock.[26] Nonetheless, directorial deliberation may delay crisis responses lacking a singular decisive authority, though Switzerland's empirical record—minimal government interruptions over 175 years—demonstrates viability for stable, deliberative rule.[27]Current Directorial Systems
Switzerland's Federal Council
The Federal Council constitutes the supreme executive authority of the Swiss Confederation, operating as a collegial body of seven equal members known as Federal Councillors, each responsible for heading one of the seven federal departments. Established under the Federal Constitution adopted on September 12, 1848, which transformed Switzerland into a federal state following the Sonderbund War, the Council has maintained this seven-member structure continuously since its first election on November 16, 1848.[28][29] Federal Councillors are elected individually by the Federal Assembly—the bicameral legislature comprising the 200-member National Council and 46-member Council of States—for renewable four-year terms, with elections occurring in December following national parliamentary elections. The election process requires an absolute majority in a joint session of the Assembly, and while there is no formal legal requirement for partisan or linguistic balance, convention has ensured representation from major parties and language regions to foster consensus. Since 1959, the informal "magic formula" has allocated two seats each to the Free Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party, and Christian Democratic People's Party (later adapted to the Swiss People's Party), with the seventh seat to the smallest of these, promoting a grand coalition despite electoral shifts.[30][31][32] Executive decisions are taken collectively during weekly plenary meetings at the Federal Palace in Bern, adhering to principles of collegiality, consensus, and equal authority among members, with thorough preparation by responsible departments and no single councillor exercising veto power or hierarchical dominance. The President of the Swiss Confederation, elected annually by the Federal Assembly from the Councillors in reverse order of seniority, chairs these meetings and represents Switzerland internationally but holds no superior executive powers, underscoring the directorate's diffusion of authority to prevent autocracy. This system, unique in its strict collegiality, supports Switzerland's concordance model, where policy emerges from negotiation among diverse viewpoints, contributing to long-term political stability evidenced by the absence of government collapses since 1848.[33][34][13]Historical Origins
Revolutionary France and the Directory (1795–1799)
The Directory was established following the Thermidorian Reaction, which ended the Reign of Terror on 27 July 1794 (9 Thermidor Year II), prompting the National Convention to draft a new constitution to stabilize the republic after the excesses of Jacobin rule.[35] The Constitution of the Year III, adopted on 22 August 1795 and ratified via plebiscite with approximately 1.2 million votes in favor out of 5.6 million eligible voters under census suffrage restricting participation to tax-paying males aged 25 and over, created a bicameral legislature consisting of the Council of Five Hundred (lower house, 500 members proposing laws) and the Council of Ancients (upper house, 250 members approving or rejecting them).[36] The executive branch comprised a Directory of five directors, selected indirectly: the Council of Five Hundred nominated a list of 50 candidates (ten times the number needed), from which the Council of Ancients chose the five, requiring candidates to be at least 40 years old and have served as legislators or held high civil/military office.[36] The initial directors, installed on 2 November 1795 (11 Brumaire Year IV), were Paul Barras, Lazare Carnot, Louis-Marie de La Révellière-Lépeaux, Jean-François Reubell, and Louis Letourneur, with terms staggered such that one director was replaced annually to ensure continuity while preventing entrenchment.[37] The directors collectively wielded executive authority, including appointing ministers, generals, diplomats, and tax officials, but lacked veto power over legislation and operated under legislative oversight, with decisions requiring majority vote among the five and a rotating monthly presidency for administrative coordination.[36] This collegial structure aimed to diffuse power and avert the dictatorial risks seen in prior single-executive attempts, drawing from classical republican models emphasizing balance to foster moderate governance amid ongoing revolutionary threats from monarchists and radicals.[36] In practice, the system promoted consensus but often resulted in internal divisions, as evidenced by frequent deadlocks on policy, particularly foreign affairs and finance, where the directors relied on military successes—such as campaigns in Italy and Germany—to bolster domestic legitimacy despite limited fiscal tools.[37] Governance under the Directory was marked by chronic instability, exacerbated by war debts exceeding 4 billion livres, hyperinflation of assignats leading to their abandonment in 1796 for the metallic franc, and widespread corruption among officials who speculated on confiscated properties and army contracts.[38] Political factions prompted repeated coups: the 18 Fructidor coup (4 September 1797) saw directors Barras, Reubell, and La Révellière-Lépeaux, backed by General Augereau's troops, purge 177 royalist deputies and two directors (Carnot and Barthélemy), deporting suspects to Guyana.[35] Subsequent interventions included the 22 Floréal purge (11 May 1798) removing Jacobin elements and the 30 Prairial coup (18 June 1799), where legislators ousted directors accused of embezzlement like Philippe Merlin de Douai and Louis-Jérôme Gohier.[38] These extralegal measures underscored the directorial system's vulnerability to factionalism and military dependence, culminating in the 18 Brumaire coup (9 November 1799), when Napoleon Bonaparte, supported by director Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès and troops, dissolved the councils and ended the Directory, transitioning to the Consulate amid public disillusionment with its inefficiencies.[35]Early Swiss Adoption (19th Century)
The directorial system was formally adopted in Switzerland through the Federal Constitution of September 12, 1848, which transformed the loose Old Swiss Confederacy into a federal state after the Sonderbund War. This 27-day civil war from November 4 to 29, 1847, pitted liberal, Protestant-led cantons against the conservative, Catholic Sonderbund alliance of seven cantons resisting centralizing reforms. The swift liberal victory, with minimal casualties under General Guillaume-Henri Dufour, enabled the Tagsatzung to convene a constitutional committee dominated by radicals, resulting in a document emphasizing federal unity while preserving cantonal autonomy.[39][40] The constitution established the Federal Council as the supreme executive and directorial authority, comprising seven members elected by the bicameral Federal Assembly for an initial three-year term, later extended to four years. This collegial body, with each councillor heading a federal department, operates on collective decision-making principles, where proposals are discussed jointly and approved by majority vote, eschewing a singular head of state. The presidency rotates annually among members, with the president serving ceremonial and coordinating roles without veto power. The structure was designed to accommodate Switzerland's linguistic (German, French, Italian, Romansh) and religious divisions, ensuring proportional representation to promote concordance over confrontation.[41][28] The first Federal Council was elected on November 16, 1848, featuring figures like liberal statesman Josef Munzinger and including early French- and Italian-speaking representatives such as Daniel-Henri Druey and Stefano Franscini to reflect federal diversity. This adoption revived elements of prior directorial experiments, notably the five-member Directory of the Helvetic Republic (1798–1803), which had been imposed under French influence and modeled after the French Directory, though adapted to prioritize consensus in a decentralized context. By diffusing executive power, the system aimed to prevent dominance by any single canton or faction, contributing to long-term stability amid 19th-century European upheavals.[41][2]Former Directorial Systems
Batavian Republic (1795–1806)
The Batavian Republic was proclaimed on January 19, 1795, after French revolutionary forces invaded the Dutch Republic and supported local Patriots in overthrowing the stadtholderate regime.[42] This marked the establishment of the first sister republic under French influence, with governance initially handled by provisional committees and a National Representative Assembly tasked with drafting a constitution.[43] The assembly's work was disrupted by factional strife between unitary and federalist advocates, leading to French intervention in 1798 that purged federalist members and imposed a centralized unitary structure.[42] The 1798 constitution introduced a directorial executive consisting of five directors, elected by the bicameral legislature (National Assembly divided into two chambers), who supervised ministries and wielded collective executive authority patterned directly after the French Directory.[43] [42] These directors managed foreign affairs, finance, and internal administration, with decisions requiring majority consensus to prevent autocracy, though real power was constrained by legislative oversight and French diplomatic pressure.[44] The system aimed to balance power amid ongoing economic distress from war debts and naval defeats, but it struggled with inefficiency and corruption allegations, contributing to political paralysis.[42] In September 1801, amid a constitutional crisis and further French demands for reforms, the five-member directory was dissolved and replaced by the Staatsbewind (State Regency), a larger collegiate executive of twelve members—initially three directors appointing the rest—intended to provide more stable, consensus-based leadership while retaining directorial principles of collective rule.[45] [46] The Staatsbewind centralized authority further, implementing fiscal reforms under figures like Finance Minister Isaac Gogel, but its deliberative process slowed decision-making during the Napoleonic Wars' fiscal strains.[46] This body governed until May 1805, when Napoleon imposed the Batavian Commonwealth with a single hereditary Raadpensionaris (Grand Pensionary), effectively ending the directorial experiment by concentrating power.[42] The Batavian directorial systems thus exemplified early adoption of collegial executives in revolutionary republics, though undermined by external French control and internal divisions, paving the way for monarchical restoration in 1806.[45]