This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)

Presidential republics with a full presidential system.

Countries with a semi-presidential system.

Parliamentary republics with an executive presidency chosen by the parliament

Parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president, where the prime minister is the executive.

Constitutional monarchies where executive power is vested in a prime minister

Constitutional monarchies which have a separate head of government, but where royalty hold political power

Absolute monarchies

Other systems of government

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchist Capitalist City-state Communist Democracy Federacy Feudalism Mixed economy Dictatorship Directorial Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science Political scientists International relations (theory) Comparative politics
Public administration Bureaucracy Street-level bureaucracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (Legal doctrine) Public interest Foreign policy
Organs of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Electoral branch
Other topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation
Subseries Elections Electoral systems Voting Federalism Form of government Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch is led by a president who serves as both head of state and head of government. In such a system, this branch exists separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible and which it cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss.^[1]

The title president has been carried over from a time when such person actually presided over (sat in front of) the government body, as with the US President of the Continental Congress, before the executive function was split into a separate branch of government. After this split, the President was no longer needed to sit in front of the legislative body, although the executive title remained in legacy.

Although not exclusive to republics, and applied in the case of semi-constitutional monarchies where a monarch exercises power (both as head of state and chief of the executive branch of government) alongside a legislature, the term is often associated with republican systems in the Americas. Presidential systems are numerous and diverse, but the following are generally true of most such governments:

• The executive branch does not propose bills. However, they may have the power to veto acts of the legislature and, in turn, a supermajority of legislators may act to override the veto. This practice is generally derived from the British tradition of royal assent in which an act of parliament cannot come into effect without the assent of the monarch.
• In the case of presidential republics, the president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other such parliamentary procedures. Although in some countries, there is an exception to this rule, which provides for the removal of a president who is found to have broken a law.
• The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the head of state and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches. However, presidential systems frequently require legislative approval of executive nominations to the cabinet as well as various governmental posts such as judges. A presidential leader generally has power to direct members of the cabinet, military or any officer or employee of the executive branch, but generally has no power to dismiss or give orders to judges.
• The power to pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals is often in the hands of the head of state.

Countries that feature a presidential system of government are not the exclusive users of the title of President or the republican form of government. For example, a dictator, who may or may not have been popularly or legitimately elected may be and often is called a president. Likewise, many parliamentary democracies are republics and have presidents, but this position is largely ceremonial; notable examples include Germany, India, Ireland, Israel and Portugal (see Parliamentary republic).

Characteristics of presidents[link]

Some national presidents are "figurehead" heads of state, like constitutional monarchs, and not active executive heads of government (although some figurehead presidents and constitutional monarchs maintain reserve powers). In contrast, in a full-fledged presidential system, a president is chosen by the people to be the head of the executive branch.

Presidential governments make no distinction between the positions of head of state and head of government, both of which are held by the president. Many parliamentary governments have a symbolic head of state in the form of a president or monarch (Again, in some cases these symbolic heads of state maintain active reserve powers). That person is responsible for the formalities of state functions, or in cases where the head of state has reserve powers, the "hands off" ensuing of a functional parliament, while the constitutional prerogatives of head of government are generally exercised by the prime minister. Such figurehead presidents tend to be elected in a much less direct manner than active presidential-system presidents, for example, by a vote of the legislature. A few nations, such as Slovakia, Ireland and Portugal, do have a popularly elected ceremonial president.

A few countries (e.g., South Africa) have powerful presidents who are elected by the legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet are heads of both state and government. These executives are titled "president", but are in practice similar to prime ministers. Other countries with the same system include Botswana, the Marshall Islands, and Nauru.

Presidents in a presidential system are always active participants in the political process, though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein. In some presidential systems such as Weimar Germany and South Korea, there is an office of prime minister or premier but, unlike in semi-presidential or parliamentary systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature.

Subnational governments[link]

Subnational governments, usually municipalities, may be structured as a presidential system. All of the state governments of the United States use the presidential system, however this is not constitutionally required. Another example is Japan where the national government uses the parliamentary system but the prefectural and municipal governments have governors and mayors elected independently from local assemblies and councils.

Advantages of presidential systems[link]

Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:

• Direct elections — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. To some^[who?], this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, this is not a necessary property of a presidential system. Some presidential states have an unelected or indirectly elected head of state.
• Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters^[who?] say that this arrangement allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses.
• Speed and decisiveness — some^[who?] argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down.
• Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.

Direct elections[link]

In most presidential systems, the president is elected by popular vote, although some such as the United States use an electoral college (which is itself directly elected) or some other method. By this method, the president receives a personal mandate to lead the country, whereas in a parliamentary system a candidate might only receive a personal mandate to represent a constituency. Since prime ministers are not elected directly, it could be argued their mandate to lead is not a personal mandate and therefore less legitimate.

Separation of powers[link]

The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely. A formal condemnation of the executive by the legislature is often regarded to be a vote of no confidence. According to supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered. Writing about Watergate, Woodrow Wyatt, a former MP in the UK, said "don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it." (ibid)

Critics respond that if a presidential system's legislature is controlled by the president's party, the same situation exists. Proponents note that even in such a situation a legislator from the president's party is in a better position to criticize the president or his policies should he deem it necessary, since the immediate security of the president's position is less dependent on legislative support. In parliamentary systems, party discipline is much more strictly enforced. If a parliamentary backbencher publicly criticizes the executive or its policies to any significant extent then he/she faces a much higher prospect of losing his/her party's nomination, or even outright expulsion from the party.

Despite the existence of the no confidence vote, in practice, it is extremely difficult to stop a prime minister or cabinet that has made its decision. In a parliamentary system, if important legislation proposed by the incumbent prime minister and his cabinet is "voted down" by a majority of the members of parliament then it is considered to be a vote of no confidence. The incumbent government must then either resign or call elections to be held, a consequence few backbenchers are willing to endure. Hence, a no confidence vote in some parliamentary countries, like Britain, only occurs a few times in a century. In 1931, David Lloyd George told a select committee: "Parliament has really no control over the executive; it is a pure fiction." (Schlesinger 1982)

By contrast, if a presidential legislative initiative fails to pass a legislature controlled by the president's party (e.g. the Clinton health care plan of 1993), it may damage the president's political standing and that of his party, but generally has no immediate effect on whether or not the president completes his term.

Speed and decisiveness[link]

Some supporters of presidential systems claim that presidential systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained. In Why England Slept, John F. Kennedy said that Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the Commons.

Other supporters of presidential systems sometimes argue in the exact opposite direction, however, saying that presidential systems can slow decision-making to beneficial ends. Divided government, where the presidency and the legislature are controlled by different parties, is said to restrain the excesses of both parties, and guarantee bipartisan input into legislation. In the United States, Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel wrote in 1995:

There are some of us who think gridlock is the best thing since indoor plumbing. Gridlock is the natural gift the Framers of the Constitution gave us so that the country would not be subjected to policy swings resulting from the whimsy of the public. And the competition—whether multi-branch, multi-level, or multi-house—is important to those checks and balances and to our ongoing kind of centrist government. Thank heaven we do not have a government that nationalizes one year and privatizes next year, and so on ad infinitum. (Checks and Balances, 8)

Stability[link]

Although most parliamentary governments go long periods of time without a no confidence vote, Italy, Israel, and the French Fourth Republic have all experienced difficulties maintaining stability. When parliamentary systems have multiple parties and governments are forced to rely on coalitions, as they often do in nations that use a system of proportional representation, extremist parties can theoretically use the threat of leaving a coalition to further their agendas.

Many people consider presidential systems to be more able to survive emergencies. A country under enormous stress may, supporters argue, be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating premierships. France during the Algerian controversy switched to a semi-presidential system as did Sri Lanka during its civil war, while Israel experimented with a directly elected prime minister in 1992. In France and Sri Lanka, the results are widely considered to have been positive. However, in the case of Israel, an unprecedented proliferation of smaller parties occurred, leading to the restoration of the previous system of selecting a prime minister.

The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is considered to be a welcome "check" on the powers of the executive, contrasting parliamentary systems, which often allow the prime minister to call elections whenever he sees fit, or orchestrate his own vote of no confidence to trigger an election when he cannot get a legislative item passed. The presidential model is said to discourage this sort of opportunism, and instead force the executive to operate within the confines of a term he cannot alter to suit his own needs. Theoretically, if a president's positions and actions have had a positive impact on their respective country, then it is likely that their party's candidate (possibly they) will be elected for another term in office.

Proponents of the presidential system also argue that stability extends to the cabinets chosen under the system, compared to a parliamentary system where cabinets must be drawn from within the legislative branch. Under the presidential system, cabinet members can be selected from a much larger pool of potential candidates. This allows presidents the ability to select cabinet members based as much or more on their ability and competency to lead a particular department as on their loyalty to the president, as opposed to parliamentary cabinets which might be filled by legislators chosen for no better reason than their perceived loyalty to the prime minister. Supporters of the presidential system note that parliamentary systems frequenty go through disruptive "cabinet shuffles" where legislators are moved between portfolios, whereas in presidential system cabinets (such as the United States Cabinet), cabinet shuffles are unheard of.

Criticism[link]

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (January 2012)

Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:

• Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists^[who?] say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable.
• Political gridlock - The separation of powers of a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics^[who?] argue that this frequently creates undesirable and long-term political gridlock and political instability whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties, which is common because the electorate usually expects more rapid results from new policies than are possible. In addition, this reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
• Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed^{[by whom?]} that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.

Tendency towards authoritarianism[link]

Winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize. A prime minister who does not enjoy a majority in the legislature will have to either form a coalition or, if he is able to lead a minority government, govern in a manner acceptable to at least some of the opposition parties. Even if the prime minister leads a majority government, he must still govern within (perhaps unwritten) constraints as determined by the members of his party—a premier in this situation is often at greater risk of losing his party leadership than his party is at risk of losing the next election. On the other hand, once elected a president can not only marginalize the influence of other parties, but can exclude rival factions in his own party as well, or even leave the party whose ticket he was elected under. The president can thus rule without any allies for the duration of one or possibly multiple terms, a worrisome situation for many interest groups. Juan Linz argues that:

The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate... losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.

Constitutions that only require plurality support are said^[who?] to be especially undesirable, as significant power can be vested in a person who does not enjoy support from a majority of the population.

Some^[who?] political scientists say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. Some political scientists^[who?] go further, and argue that presidential systems have difficulty sustaining democratic practices, noting that presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which it has been implemented. According to political scientist Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country it has been attempted. Seymour Martin Lipset pointed out that this has taken place in political cultures not conducive to democracy, and that militaries have tended to play a prominent role in most of these countries. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the presidential system may have played a role in some situations. On the other hand, an often-cited^{[citation needed]} list of the world's 22 older democracies includes only two countries (Costa Rica and the United States) with presidential systems. It is noteworthy that the youngest democracy (established under US influence) Afghanistan, is presidential, and many^[who?] predict its quick failure after American pull-out.

In a presidential system, the legislature and the president have equally valid mandates from the public. There is often no way to reconcile conflict between the branches of government. When president and legislature are in disagreement and government is not working effectively, there is a powerful incentive to employ extra-constitutional maneuvres to break the deadlock.

Ecuador is sometimes presented^[who?] as a case study of democratic failures over the past quarter-century. Presidents have ignored the legislature or bypassed it altogether. One president had the National Assembly teargassed, while another was kidnapped by paratroopers until he agreed to certain congressional demands. From 1979 through 1988, Ecuador staggered through a succession of executive-legislative confrontations that created a near permanent crisis atmosphere in the policy. In 1984, President León Febres Cordero tried to physically bar new Congressionally appointed supreme court appointees from taking their seats. In Brazil, presidents have accomplished their objectives by creating executive agencies over which Congress had no say.

Dana D. Nelson in her 2008 book Bad for Democracy^[2] sees the office of the president of the United States as essentially undemocratic^[3] and characterizes presidentialism as worship of the president by citizens which she believes tends to undermine civic participation.^[3]

Political gridlock[link]

Some political scientists speak of the "failure of presidentialism" because the separation of powers of a presidential system frequently creates undesirable and long-term political gridlock and political instability whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties. This is common because the electorate usually expects more rapid results from new policies than are possible and often prefers candidates from a different party at the next election. These critics, including Juan Linz, argue that this inherent political instability can cause democracies to fail, as seen in such cases as Brazil and Chile.

In addition, presidential systems are said by critics not to offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems. It is easy for either the president or the legislature to escape blame by shifting it to the other. Describing the United States, former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon said "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington".

In Congressional Government, Woodrow Wilson asked,

...how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? ... Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government. ... It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The 'literary theory' of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our constitution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves ... [the Framers] would be the first to admit that the only fruit of dividing power had been to make it irresponsible.

Consider the example of the increase in the federal debt of the United States that occurred during the presidency of Republican Ronald Reagan. Arguably, the deficits were the product of a bargain between President Reagan and the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill - O'Neill agreed not to oppose tax cuts favored by Reagan, and in exchange Reagan agreed to sign budgets that failed to adequately restrain spending. In such a scenario, each side can claim to be displeased with the debt, plausibly blame the other side for the deficit, and still tout its own success.

Impediments to leadership change[link]

Another alleged problem of presidentialism is that it is often difficult to remove a president from office early. Even if a president is "proved to be inefficient, even if he becomes unpopular, even if his policy is unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured until the moment comes for a new election." (Balfour, intro to the English Constitution). Consider John Tyler, who only became president because William Henry Harrison had died after thirty days. Tyler refused to sign Whig legislation, was loathed by his nominal party, but remained firmly in control of the executive branch. Since most presidential systems provide no legal means to remove a president simply for being unpopular, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate.

In parliamentary systems, unpopular leaders can be quickly removed by a vote of no confidence, a procedure which is reckoned to be a "pressure release valve" for political tension. Votes of no confidence are easier to achieve in minority government situations, but even if the unpopular leader heads a majority government, nonetheless he is often in a far less secure position than a president. Removing a president through impeachment is a procedure mandated by most constitutions, but impeachment proceedings usually cannot be initiated except in cases where the president has violated the constitution and/or broken the law. Impeachment is usually made into a very difficult process, by comparison the process of removing a party leader is governed by the (often much less formal) rules of the party in question. Nearly all parties (including governing parties) have a relatively simple and straightforward process for removing their leaders. If a premier sustains a serious enough blow to his/her popularity and refuses to resign on his/her own prior to the next election, then members of his/her party face the prospect of losing their seats. So other prominent party members have a very strong incentive to initiate a leadership challenge in hopes of mitigating damage to the party. More often than not, a premier facing a serious challenge will resolve to save face by resigning before he/she is formally removed—Margaret Thatcher's relinquishing of her premiership being a prominent, recent example.

In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot criticized presidentialism because it does not allow a transfer in power in the event of an emergency.

Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency the people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion. The great qualities, the imperious will, the rapid energy, the eager nature fit for a great crisis are not required—are impediments—in common times. A Lord Liverpool is better in everyday politics than a Chatham—a Louis Philippe far better than a Napoleon. By the structure of the world we want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman—to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm.

But under a presidential government you can do nothing of the kind. The American government calls itself a government of the supreme people; but at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people. You have got a congress elected for one fixed period, going out perhaps by fixed installments, which cannot be accelerated or retarded—you have a president chosen for a fixed period, and immovable during that period: ..there is no elastic element... you have bespoken your government in advance, and whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it ... (The English Constitution, the Cabinet.)

Opponents of the presidential system note that years later, Bagehot's observation came to life during World War II, when Neville Chamberlain was replaced with Winston Churchill.

However, supporters of the presidential system question the validity of the point. They counter that republics such as the United States successfully endured this and other crises without the need to change heads of state. Supporters argue that presidents elected in a time of peace and prosperity have proven themselves perfectly capable of responding effectively to a serious crisis, largely due to their ability to make the necessary appointments to his cabinet and elsewhere in government, and/or by creating new positions to deal with new challenges. One prominent, recent example would be the appointment of a Secretary of Homeland Security following the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Some supporters of the presidential system counter that impediments to a leadership change is a strength as opposed to a weakness in times of crisis. In such times, a prime minister might hesitate due to the need to maintain the support of parliament, whereas a president can act without fear of being removed from office by those who might disapprove of his actions. Unlike what would be possible in a presidnetial system, a perceived crisis in the parliamentary system might provide disgruntled backbenchers or leadership rivals an opportunity to launch a vexatious challenge for a prime minister's leadership. In such a circumstance, there is no guarantee that the sudden accession of an unproven prime minister during such a crisis will be a change for the better - the ouster of Thatcher is cited as one such example by those who argue her successor John Major proved less able to defend British interests in the ensuing Gulf War than Thatcher would have.

Finally, many have criticized presidential systems for their alleged slowness in responding to their citizens' needs. Often, the checks and balances make action extremely difficult. Walter Bagehot said of the American system "the executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name, since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of others [and not itself] will suffer the effects". (ibid.)

Defenders of Presidential systems, on the other hand, hold that this can serve to ensure that minority wishes and rights are not trampled upon, thus preventing a "Tyranny of the majority" and vice versa protect the wishes and rights of the majority from abuse by legislature and/or executive that holds a contrary view point, especially when there are frequent, scheduled elections.

British-Irish philosopher and MP Edmund Burke stated that officials should be elected based on "his [or her] unbiased opinion, his [or her] mature judgment, [and] his [or her] enlightened conscience", and therefore should reflect on the arguments for and against certain policies before taking positions and then act out on what an official would believe to be best in the long run for one's constituents and country as a whole even if it means short term backlash. Thus Defenders of Presidential systems hold that sometimes what is wisest may not always be the most popular decision and vice versa.

Differences from a cabinet system[link]

A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a cabinet system:

• In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By contrast, in parliamentarism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a "parliament", a "diet", or a "chamber").
• As with the president's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.
• In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as checks and balances on each other's powers.
• Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy. Though semi-presidential systems may reduce a president's power over day to day government affairs, semi-presidential systems commonly give the president power over foreign policy.

Presidential systems also have fewer ideological parties than parliamentary systems. Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very similar (but see also polarization). In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber—Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members—Paul Douglas and Herbert Lehman. This pattern does not prevail in Latin American presidential democracies.

Overlapping elements[link]

In practice, elements of both systems overlap. Though a president in a presidential system does not have to choose a government answerable to the legislature, the legislature may have the right to scrutinize his or her appointments to high governmental office, with the right, on some occasions, to block an appointment. In the United States, many appointments must be confirmed by the Senate, although once confirmed an appointee can only be removed against the President's will through impeachment. By contrast, though answerable to parliament, a parliamentary system's cabinet may be able to make use of the parliamentary 'whip' (an obligation on party members in parliament to vote with their party) to control and dominate parliament, reducing parliament's ability to control the government.

Some countries, such as France have similarly evolved to such a degree that they can no longer be accurately described as either presidential or parliamentary-style governments, and are instead grouped under the category of semi-presidential system.

Republics with a presidential system of government[link]

See also[link]

• Parliamentary system
• Rotating Regional Primary System
• Semi-presidential system

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Great Debate: Parliament versus Congress
• Castagnola, Andrea/Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal: Presidential Control of High Courts in Latin America: A Long-term View (1904-2006), in: Journal of Politics in Latin America, Hamburg 2009.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2011)

Eric Eustace Williams (25 September 1911 – 29 March 1981) served as the first Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. He served from 1956 until his death in 1981. He was also a noted Caribbean historian, and is widely regarded as "The Father of The Nation."

Early life[link]

Williams' father was a minor civil servant, and his mother was a descendant of the French Creole elite. Eric Williams was a descendant of the de Boissiere family which is known for its public service, charity, and focus on human rights. He was educated at Queen's Royal College in Port of Spain, where he excelled at academics and football. He won an island scholarship in 1932 which allowed him to attend St Catherine's Society, Oxford (which subsequently became St Catherine's College, Oxford). In 1935, he received first class honours for his B.A in history, and was ranked in first place among University of Oxford students graduating in History in 1935. He also represented the university in soccer. In 1938 he went on to obtain his doctorate (see section below). In Inward Hunger, his autobiography, he described his experience of racism in Great Britain, and the impact on him of his travels in Germany after the Nazi seizure of power.

Scholarly career[link]

In Inward Hunger, Williams recounts that in the period following his graduation "I was severely handicapped in my research by my lack of money... I was turned down everywhere I tried ... and could not ignore the racial factor involved". However, in 1936, thanks to a recommendation made by Sir Alfred Claud Hollis (Governor of Trinidad and Tobago, 1930–36), the Leathersellers' Company awarded him a £50 grant to continue his advanced research in history at Oxford.^[1] He completed the D.Phil in 1938 under the supervision of Vincent Harlow. His doctoral thesis, The Economic Aspects of the Abolition of the Slave Trade and West Indian Slavery, was both a direct attack on the idea that moral and humanitarian motives were the key facts in the victory of British abolitionism, and a covert critique of the idea common in the 1930s, emanating in particular from the pen of Oxford Professor Reginald Coupland, that British imperialism was essentially propelled by humanitarian and benevolent impulses. Williams's argument owed much to the influence of C. L. R. James, whose The Black Jacobins, also completed in 1938, also offered an economic and geostrategic explanation for the rise of British abolitionism.

Despite his extraordinary academic success at Oxford, Williams was denied the opportunity to pursue a career in the United Kingdom. In 1939 he moved to the United States to Howard University ('Negro Oxford' as he called it in his autobiography), where he was rapidly promoted twice, attaining full professorial rank. In Washington he completed the manuscript of his masterwork – Capitalism and Slavery – which was published by the University of North Carolina in 1944. This book assaulted many sacred cows of British imperial historiography, and it was not published in the United Kingdom until 1964, meeting with a critical reception.

Shift to public life[link]

In 1944 he was appointed to the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission. In 1948 Williams returned to Trinidad as the Commission's Deputy Chairman of the Caribbean Research Council. In Trinidad, Williams delivered a series of educational lectures for which he became famous. In 1955 after disagreements between Williams and the Commission, the Commission elected not to renew his contract. In a famous speech at Woodford Square in Port of Spain, he declared that he had decided to "put down his bucket" in the land of his birth. He rechristened that enclosed park, which stood in front of the Trinidad courts and legislature, "The University of Woodford Square", and proceeded to give a series of public lectures on world history, Greek democracy and philosophy, the history of slavery, and the history of the Caribbean to large audiences drawn from every social class.

Entry into nationalist politics in Trinidad and Tobago[link]

From that public platform, Williams on January 15, 1956 inaugurated his own political party, the People's National Movement, which would take Trinidad and Tobago into independence in 1962, and dominate its postcolonial politics. Until this time his lectures had been carried out under the auspices of the Political Education Movement (PEM) a branch of the Teachers Education and Cultural Association, a group which had been founded in the 1940s as an alternative to the official teachers’ union. The PNM’s first document was its constitution. Unlike the other political parties of the time, the PNM was a highly organized, hierarchical body. Its second document was The People’s Charter, in which the party strove to separate itself from the transitory political assemblages which had thus far been the norm in Trinidadian politics.

In elections held eight months later, on September 24, the PNM won 13 of the 24 elected seats in the Legislative Council, defeating 6 of the 16 incumbents running for re-election. Although the PNM did not secure a majority in the 31-member Legislative Council, he was able to convince the Secretary of State for the Colonies to allow him to name the five appointed members of the council (despite the opposition of the Governor, Sir Edward Betham Beetham). This gave him a clear majority in the Legislative Council. Williams was thus elected Chief Minister and was also able to get all seven of his ministers elected.

Federation and independence[link]

After the Second World War, the British Colonial Office had preferred that colonies move towards political independence in the kind of federal systems which had appeared to succeed since the Confederation of Canada, which created the Dominion of Canada, in the nineteenth-century. In the British West Indies this imperial goal coincided with the political aims of the nationalist movements which had emerged in all the colonies of the region during the 1930s. The Montego Bay conference of 1948 had declared the common aim to be the achievement by the West Indies of "Dominion Status" (which meant constitutional independence from Britain) as a Federation. In 1958, a West Indies Federation emerged out of the British West Indies, which with British Guiana (now Guyana) and British Honduras (now Belize) choosing to opt out of the Federation, left Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago as the dominant players. Most political parties in the various territories aligned themselves into one of two Federal political parties – the West Indies Federal Labour Party (led by Grantley Adams of Barbados and Norman Manley of Jamaica) and the Democratic Labour Party (led by Manley's cousin, Sir Alexander Bustamante). The PNM affiliated with the former, while several opposition parties (the People's Democratic Party, the Trinidad Labour Party and the Party of Political Progress Groups) aligned themselves with the DLP, and soon merged to form the Democratic Labour Party of Trinidad and Tobago.

The DLP victory in the 1958 Federal Elections and subsequent poor showing by the PNM in the 1959 County Council Elections soured Williams on the Federation. Lord Hailes (Governor-General of the Federation) also over-ruled two PNM nominations to the Federal Senate in order to balance a disproportionately WIFLP-dominated Senate. When Bustamante withdrew Jamaica from the Federation, this left Trinidad and Tobago in the untenable position of having to provide 75% of the Federal budget while having less than half the seats in the Federal government. In a famous speech, Williams declared one from ten leaves nought. Following the adoption of a resolution to that effect by the PNM General Council on January 15, 1962, Williams withdrew Trinidad and Tobago from the West Indies Federation. This action led the British government to dissolve the Federation.

In 1961 the PNM had introduced the Representation of the People Bill. This Bill was designed to modernise the electoral system by instituting permanent registration of voters, identification cards, voting machines and revised electoral boundaries. These changes were seen by the DLP as an attempt to disenfranchise illiterate rural voters through intimidation, to rig the elections through the use of voting machines, to allow Afro-Caribbean immigrants from other islands to vote, and to gerrymander the boundaries to ensure victory by the PNM. Opponents of the PNM saw "proof" of these allegations when A.N.R. Robinson was declared winner of the Tobago seat in 1961 with more votes than there were registered voters, and in the fact that the PNM was able to win every subsequent election until the 1980 Tobago House of Assembly Elections.

The 1961 elections gave the PNM 57% of the votes and 20 of the 30 seats. This two-thirds majority allowed them to draft the Independence Constitution without input from the DLP. Although supported by the Colonial Office, independence was blocked by the DLP, until Williams was able to make a deal with DLP leader Rudranath Capildeo which strengthened the rights of the minority party and expanded the number of Opposition Senators. With Capildeo's assent, Trinidad and Tobago became independent on August 31, 1962.

Independence era[link]

Black Power[link]

Between 1968 and 1970 the Black Power movement gained strength in Trinidad and Tobago. The leadership of the movement developed within the Guild of Undergraduates at the St. Augustine Campus of the University of the West Indies. Led by Geddes Granger, the National Joint Action Committee joined up with trade unionists led by George Weekes of the Oilfields Workers' Trade Union and Basdeo Panday, then a young trade union lawyer and activist. The Black Power Revolution got started during the 1970 Carnival. In response to the challenge, Williams countered with a broadcast entitled I am for Black Power. He introduced a 5% levy to fund unemployment reduction and established the first locally-owned commercial bank. However, this intervention had little impact on the protests.

On April 3 , 1970 a protester was killed by the police. This was followed on April 13 by the resignation of A.N.R. Robinson, Member of Parliament for Tobago East. On April 18 sugar workers went on strike, and there was talk of a general strike. In response to this, Williams proclaimed a State of Emergency on April 21 and arrested 15 Black Power leaders. In response to this, a portion of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force, led by Raffique Shah and Rex Lassalle mutinied and took hostages at the army barracks at Teteron. Through the action of the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard the mutiny was contained and the mutineers surrendered on April 25.

Williams made three additional speeches in which he sought to identify himself with the aims of the Black Power movement. He re-shuffled his Cabinet and removed three Ministers (including two White members) and three senators. He also introduced the Public Order Act which reduced civil liberties in an effort to control protest marches. After public opposition, led by A.N.R. Robinson and his newly created Action Committee of Democratic Citizens (which later became the Democratic Action Congress), the Bill was withdrawn. Attorney General Karl Hudson-Phillips offered to resign over the failure of the Bill, but Williams refused his resignation.

See Black Power Revolution

Legacy[link]

Academic contributions[link]

Williams specialised in the study of the abolition of the slave trade. In 1944 his book Capitalism and Slavery argued that the British abolition of their Atlantic slave trade in 1807 was motivated primarily by economics—rather than by altruism or humanitarianism. By extension, so was the emancipation of the slaves and the fight against the trading in slaves by other nations. As industrial capitalism and wage labor began to expand, eliminating the competition from slavery became economically advantageous.

Before Williams the historiography of this issue had been dominated by (mainly) British writers who generally were prone to depict Britain's actions as unimpeachable. Indeed, Williams' impact on the field of study has proved of lasting significance. As Barbara Solow and Stanley Engerman put it in the preface to a compilation of essays on Williams, which is based on a commemorative symposium held in Italy in 1984, Williams "defined the study of Caribbean history, and its writing affected the course of Caribbean history... Scholars may disagree on his ideas, but they remain the starting point of discussion... Any conference on British capitalism and Caribbean slavery is a conference on Eric Williams."

In addition to Capitalism and Slavery, Williams produced a number of other scholarly works focused on the Caribbean. Of particular significance are two published in the 1960s long after he had abandoned his academic career for public life: British Historians and the West Indies and From Columbus to Castro. The former, based on research done in the 1940s and initially presented at a symposium at Atlanta University, sought to debunk British historiography on the region and to condemn as racist the nineteenth and early twentieth century British perspective on the West Indies. Williams was particularly scathing in his description of the nineteenth century British intellectual Thomas Carlyle. The latter work is a general history of the Caribbean from the 15th through the mid-20th centuries. Curiously, it appeared at the same time as a similarly titled book (De Cristóbal Colón a Fidel Castro) by another Caribbean scholar-statesman, Juan Bosch of the Dominican Republic.

Williams sent one of 73 Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to NASA for the historic first lunar landing in 1969. The message still rests on the lunar surface today. Williams wrote, in part, "It is our earnest hope for mankind that while we gain the moon, we shall not lose the world."

The Eric Williams Memorial Collection[link]

The Eric Williams Memorial Collection (EWMC) at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad and Tobago was inaugurated in 1998 by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell. In 1999, it was named to UNESCO’s prestigious Memory of the World Register. Secretary Powell heralded Dr. Williams as a tireless warrior in the battle against colonialism, and for his many other achievements as a scholar, politician and international statesman.

The Collection consists of the late Dr. Williams' Library and Archives. Available for consultation by researchers, the Collection amply reflects its owner’s eclectic interests, comprising some 7,000 volumes, as well as correspondence, speeches, manuscripts, historical writings, research notes, conference documents and a miscellany of reports. The Museum contains a wealth of emotive memorabilia of the period and copies of the seven translations of Williams’ major work, Capitalism and Slavery, (into Russian, Chinese and Japanese [1968, 2004] among them, and a Korean translation was released in 2006). Photographs depicting various aspects of his life and contribution to the development of Trinidad and Tobago complete this extraordinarily rich archive, as does a three-dimensional re-creation of Dr. Williams’ study.

Dr. Colin Palmer, Dodge Professor of History at Princeton University, has said: “as a model for similar archival collections in the Caribbean...I remain very impressed by its breadth...[It] is a national treasure.” Palmer’s new biography of Williams up to 1970, Eric Williams and the Making of the Modern Caribbean, published by the University of North Carolina Press, is dedicated to the Collection.

Criticism[link]

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2010)

This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. (November 2011)

Some^[who?] state that the economic decline in the West Indies was consequently more likely to have been a direct result of the suppression of the slave trade. Such a criticism can itself, however, be overturned by noting that the apparent prosperity of these British colonies was only a temporary artifact of the revolutionary turmoil in Haiti, which made the British West Indies for a brief while seem more profitable. Williams' evidence showing falling commodity prices as a rationale can largely be discounted; the falls in price led to an increase in demand, raising overall profits for the importers. Profits for the slave traders remained at around ten percent on investment and displayed no evidence of declining. Land prices in the West Indies, an important tool for analysing the economy of the area did not begin to decrease until after the slave trade was discontinued. Supporters of Williams would note, however, that this apparent rise of land prices was merely due to wartime inflation.

It is thus a matter of dispute whether the sugar colonies were in terminal decline after the American Revolution. Their apparent economic prosperity in 1807 can be interpreted, as suggested above, in two ways. It should be noted that Williams was heavily involved in the movements for independence of the Caribbean colonies and had a fairly obvious motive to impugn the colonial power. Indeed, Williams' reputation among black West Indian scholars was always high.

A third generation of scholars led by Seymour Drescher and Roger Anstey have discounted many of Williams' arguments. They do however acknowledge that morality had to be combined with the forces of politics and economic theory to bring about the end of the slave trade.

On the other hand, Williams' central point that the rise of industrial capitalism in Britain was fueled by West Indian slavery, and that, in turn the new industrial bourgeoisie saw the maintenance of slavery as a drag on their profits, both still have some merit. In particular, we should note that significant decline in the British West Indies dates to after the abolition of the Corn Laws by the British in 1846 (one of the imperial preferences abolished was that in sugar).

Richardson (1998) finds Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are greatly exaggerated, for profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain.^[2]

Williams was frequently lampooned in the paintings of his countryman Isaiah James Boodhoo.

It was under Williams' government that the state initiated the first unemployment relief programme, the Development and Environmental Works Division (DEWD).

Notes[link]

References[link]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2009)

• Eric Williams. 1944. Capitalism and Slavery Richmond, Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, 1944.
• Eric Williams. 1964. History of the People of Trinidad and Tobago. Port of Spain ISBN 1-881316-65-3
• Eric Williams. 1964. British Historians and the West Indies, Port of Spain.
• Solow, Barbara + Engerman, Stanley (eds). 1987. British Capitalism & Caribbean Slavery: the Legacy of Eric Williams.
• Cudjoe, Selwyn. 1993. Eric E. Williams Speaks: Essays on Colonialism and Independence ISBN 0-87023-887-6
• Drescher, Seymour. 1977. Econocide: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition
• Meighoo, Kirk. 2003. Politics in a Half Made Society: Trinidad and Tobago, 1925–2002 ISBN 1-55876-306-6
• Rahman, Tahir (2007). We Came in Peace for all Mankind- the Untold Story of the Apollo 11 Silicon Disc. Leathers Publishing. ISBN 978-1-58597-441-2. 

External links[link]

• Eric Williams Memorial Collection Homepage
• Eric Eustace Williams in the Digital Library of the Caribbean
• Williams, Eric. Capitalism and Slavery Richmond, Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, 1944.

v t e Prime Ministers of Trinidad and Tobago Eric Williams • George Chambers • A. N. R. Robinson • Patrick Manning • Basdeo Panday • Patrick Manning • Kamla Persad-Bissessar

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2011)

Gerald Celente (born November 29, 1946) is an American trend forecaster,^[1][2] publisher of the Trends Journal, business consultant^[3] and author who makes predictions about the global financial markets and other events of historical importance. Celente has described himself as a "political atheist" and "citizen of the world".^[4] He has appeared as a guest on television news shows such as The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Today Show, Good Morning America, CBS Morning News, The Glenn Beck Show, NBC Nightly News, The Alex Jones Show and Russia Today.^[5][6][7]

Background[link]

Celente was born in The Bronx, New York City, New York. He had early political experience running a mayoral campaign in Yonkers, New York and served as executive assistant to the secretary of the New York State Senate, which Celente called the worst job he ever had.^[8] From 1973 to 1979 Celente traveled between Chicago and Washington D.C. as a government affairs specialist.^[8] In 1980 Celente founded The Trends Research Institute (at first called the Socio-Economic Research Institute of America), now located in Kingston, New York, publisher of the Trends Journal which forecasts and analyzes business, socioeconomic, political, and other trends.^[9]

Forecasting[link]

His forecasts since 1993 ^[10] have included predictions about terrorism, economic collapses and war. More recent forecasts involve fascism in the United States, food riots and tax revolts.^{[3][11][12][13][14][15]} Celente has long predicted global anti-Americanism, a failing economy and immigration woes in the U.S.^[11] In December 2007 Celente wrote, "Failing banks, busted brokerages, toppled corporate giants, bankrupt cities, states in default, foreign creditors cashing out of US securities ... whatever the spark, the stage is set for panic in the streets" and "Just as the Twin Towers collapsed from the top down, so too will the U.S. economy ... when the giant firms fall, they’ll crush the man on the street." He has also predicted tax revolts.^[16][17] In November 2008 Celente appeared on Fox Business Network and predicted economic depression, tax rebellions and food riots in the United States by 2012.^[18] Celente also predicted an "economic 9/11" and a "panic of 2008."^[19]

In 2009 Celente predicted turmoil which he described as "Obamageddon" and he was a popular guest on conservative cable-TV shows such as Fox News Sunday and Glenn Beck's television program.^[6] In April 2009 Celente wrote, "Wall Street controls our financial lives; the media manipulates our minds. These systems cannot be changed from within. There is no alternative. Without a revolution, these institutions will bankrupt the country, keep fighting failed wars, start new ones, and hold us in perpetual intellectual subjugation."^[20] He appeared on the Glenn Beck show and criticized the U.S. stimulus plan of 2009, calling government controlled capitalism "fascism" and saying shopping malls in the U.S. would become "ghost malls."^[21] Celente has said, "smaller communities, the smaller groups, the smaller states, the more self-sustaining communities, will 'weather the crisis in style' as big cities and hypertrophic suburbias descend into misery and conflict," and forecasts "a downsizing of America."^[14]

Revolution in the USA[link]

On Russia Today, he predicted that the USA would face a revolution.^[22]

Neosurvivalism[link]

Celente's website has stated that:

Predictions[link]

2009[link]

"The Crash of '09 was as dramatic as the crash of '29. The New Depression had begun." (Trends Journal, Summer 2008, pg. 12)

2010[link]

Some areas of the U.S. are experiencing resurgences in real estate values due to highly localized factors, and some investors profit from this. However, the rises will almost all stop and reverse with time, and the overall national trend in real estate values is downward. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 8)

Ghost malls have become a common sight across America. Especially hard-hit are big chain stores (Sears, Home Depot, etc.). (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 8)

2011[link]

Developers have begun rehabbing some of the ghost malls for more productive uses. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 9)

2012[link]

The economic policies of the U.S. government over the past few years have failed to fix America's fundamental problems and have merely papered over them and in fact made them worse. By 2012, the "American Empire" is collapsing. In the U.S., basic staple goods like quality food and water are too expensive for most people to afford,(T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1) and "food riots" happen across the country (T.J. Summer 09, pg.1). Major American cities look like disaster zones, and mass homelessness exists across the country. Crime is rampant, with much of it being directed at the rich. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1) Kidnappings and ransomings of rich people are on the rise. Average people fed up with big government, high taxes and out-of-control spending join tax revolts. (T.J. Summer 09, pg. 1) The world is also experiencing major environmental problems and "the blackest of plagues." The global financial system has also "melted down" and the situation is very bad outside the U.S.(T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1) The advanced industrial economies collapse first, and their sagging consumer spending drags down the export-based economies of emerging economies next.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 2) The economy is as bad as it was during the Great Depression in many ways. In spite of all this, the U.S. government, power elites, and mainstream media continue to insist that the fundamentals of the world economy are sound, and that official policies can lead to a recovery. A growing number of average people, however, doubt this. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1)

While the Mayan and Hopi prophecies of global destruction do not come to pass, 2012 is indeed a watershed year that sees the death of an ailing and unsustainable global economic system and lifestyle and its replacement with something better. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 2)

By 2012, Obama is viewed by most as a stale president who sold himself as a fresh, visionary candidate in 2008 and instead proved to be a servant of the big corporations and the military-industrial complex like his predecessors.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 5) His economic policies only delayed disaster and in fact have made the situation worse: Expansionary monetary policy and the various government bailouts and stimulus programs create a "Bailout Bubble" that invariably bursts in a cataclysm for the U.S. and world economy.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 11) Obama blames other factors for this and might have even tried to start a war by 2012 to distract attention from the domestic misery.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 12) Obama's foreign policy has also failed to accomplish anything significant on the world stage, and Pakistan is a mess and the Afghan war continues to drag on without hope of conclusion.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 12)

In the 2012 U.S. elections, online news sites, bloggers and independent journalists wield as much influence on voters as mainstream media outlets (TV, cable, magazines, newspapers) for the first time. This breaks the corporate and moneyed stranglehold on American politics and allows a third party to attain nation-level recognition. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 5)

Broad future trends[link]

Americans will adapt to lower standards of living and will travel less, both on a daily basis and for vacations. Higher fuel costs, advances in telecommuting and an aging American population will push many more people to work from home or close to home. Walking-distance communities will be constructed and will become popular. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 7)

Geographically isolated resort destinations like Las Vegas will wither due to higher fuel costs, lower American incomes and increased overseas competition while vacation spots closer to population centers will revive. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 9)

Government-run lotteries, on the other hand, will thrive. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 9)

In America and to a lesser extent overseas, consumer spending habits will be motivated out of fear and escapism. Businesses that capitalize upon this will succeed. (T.J. Summer 09, pg. 24)

Publications[link]

• Trend Tracking: The System to Profit from Today's Trends (1991), ISBN 978-0446392877
• Trends 2000: How to Prepare for and Profit from the Changes of the 21st Century (1997), ISBN 978-0446519014
• What Zizi Gave Honeyboy: A True Story about Love, Wisdom, and the Soul of America (2002), ISBN 978-0066212661

References[link]

External links[link]

• trendsresearch.com
• geraldcelente.com

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (April 2012)

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (April 2012)

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (April 2012)

Shashi Tharoor
Shashi Tharoor
Member of Parliament - Lok Sabha
Incumbent
Assumed office 2009
Preceded by	Pannyan Raveendran
Constituency	Thiruvananthapuram
Minister of State for External Affairs
In office 28 May 2009 – 18 April 2010
Prime Minister	Manmohan Singh
Preceded by	Anand Sharma
Succeeded by	E. Ahamed
Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
In office January 2001 – April 2007
President	Kofi Annan
Personal details
Born	(1956-03-09) 9 March 1956 (age 56) London, United Kingdom
Political party	Indian National Congress
Spouse(s)	Tilottama Mukherji (divorced) Christa Giles (divorced) Sunanda Pushkar (2010 - present)
Children	Ishaan, Kanishk
Residence	New Delhi/Trivandrum
Alma mater	St. Stephen's College, Delhi (B.A.) Tufts University (M.A., M.A.L.D., Ph.D.)
Occupation	Writer, Diplomat, Politician
Religion	Hinduism
Website	tharoor.in

Shashi Tharoor (Malayalam: ശശി തരൂര്‍) (born 9 March 1956) is an Indian politician and a Member of Parliament (MP) from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in Kerala. He previously served as the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information^{[citation needed]} and as the Minister of State for the Ministry of External Affairs.

He is also an author and columnist.

Childhood and education[link]

Shashi Tharoor was born in London to Lily and Chandran Tharoor, both Malayalis, hailing from the state of Kerala^{[citation needed]}. Tharoor studied at Montfort School in Yercaud and Campion School in Mumbai^{[citation needed]}. He attended high school at St. Xavier’s Collegiate School in Kolkata and obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in history from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi.^[1]

He went on to win a scholarship to study at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and earned three degrees in three years - a Ph.D. and two master's degrees at the age of 22, Tharoor is the youngest person in the history of the Fletcher School to be awarded a doctorate.^[2] His doctoral thesis, "Reasons of State", was a required reading in courses on Indian foreign-policy making.^[3][4] In 2000, Tharoor was awarded an honorary Doctor of Letters degree^{[citation needed]} by the University of Puget Sound and in 2008 he received an honorary doctorate degree by the University of Bucharest^{[citation needed]}.

Diplomatic career[link]

Beginning[link]

Shashi Tharoor's career in the United Nations began in 1978 as a staff member of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva. From 1981 to 1984 he headed the UNHCR office in Singapore during the boat people crisis. In 1989 he was appointed as the Special Assistant to the Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs, the unit that later became the Peacekeeping Operations in New York. Until 1996, he led the team responsible for peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia.^[5]

Under-Secretary-General at the UN[link]

In 1996 Tharoor was appointed Director of Communications and Special Projects and as Executive Assistant to the Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In January 2001, he was appointed as the Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, and as the head of Department of Public Information (UNDPI). In this capacity, he was responsible for the communication strategy, enhancing the image and effectiveness of the UN. In 2003, the Secretary-General appointed him to the additional responsibility of United Nations Coordinator for Multilingualism.^[5] During his tenure at the UNDPI, Tharoor reformed his department and undertook a number of initiatives, ranging from organizing and conducting the first-ever UN seminar on anti-Semitism,^[6] the first-ever UN seminar on Islamophobia^[7] and launching an annual list of "Ten Under-Reported Stories the World Ought to Know About".^[8]

On 9 February 2007, Tharoor resigned from the post of UN Under-Secretary-General and left the UN effective 1 April 2007.^[9]

Campaign for Secretary-General: 2007[link]

Wikinews has related news: Shashi Tharoor gives four-point plan to reform UN

2007 Secretary-General candidates[10]
	Name	Position
	Ban Ki-moon	South Korean foreign minister
	Shashi Tharoor	Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations for public information; from India
	Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga	President of Latvia
	Ashraf Ghani	Chancellor of Kabul University, Afghanistan
	Surakiart Sathirathai	Deputy prime minister of Thailand
	Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad	Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations
	Jayantha Dhanapala	Former Under-Secretary-General for disarmament; from Sri Lanka

Wikinews has related news: Shashi Tharoor withdrawing candidacy

In 2006, Tharoor was nominated by the Government of India for the post of UN Secretary General.^[11][12][13] Tharoor came a close second (behind Ban Ki-moon) in each of the four straw polls conducted by the UN Security Council^[14][15][16] and won the online poll conducted by the BBC News website.^[17] After the fourth poll, Ban emerged as the only candidate with the support of all five permanent members, each of whom has the power to veto candidates. Of the seven contenders for the post, Tharoor remained the only other to enjoy a majority in the Security Council. One Permanent Member (later revealed to be the US under the Bush Administration) opposed and China abstained from voting. After the vote, Tharoor withdrew his candidacy expressing his confidence for Ban to win.^[18]

Had he been elected, the then 50 year old Shashi Tharoor would have been the second-youngest Secretary-General to be appointed to the post. The first being Dag Hammarskjöld who was appointed at the age of 46 years.^[19][20]

Post-UN career[link]

In February 2007, amidst rampant speculation about his post-UN future, it was presciently reported in the Indian press that Tharoor might be inducted into council of ministers of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as Minister of State for External Affairs.^[21] In the same month, it was reported in an American gossip blog that Tharoor was a finalist for the position of dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication in Los Angeles, though he withdrew his name from consideration at the final stage.^[22] Instead, Dr. Tharoor—in addition to a variety of other activities in his private life— became chairman of Dubai-based Afras Ventures, which established the Afras Academy for Business Communication (AABC) in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. He also spoke widely around the globe about India and Kerala, the state where he spent increasing amounts of time before moving for good in October 2008.^[23]

Political Career in India[link]

Shashi Tharoor at a march parade with NSUI President Hibi Eden and other Congress workers in Ernakulam, Kerala.

In March 2009, Shashi Tharoor contested the Indian General Elections in 2009 as Congress Party candidate from Thiruvananthapuram (Lok Sabha constituency) in Kerala. His opponents included P. Ramachandran Nair of the Communist Party of India (CPI), Neelalohitadasan Nadar of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), M.P. Gangadharan of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and P. K. Krishna Das of Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP).^[24] Despite being criticized as an "elite outsider" he went on to win defeating his nearest CPI rival P. Ramachandran Nair by a margin of approximately 100,000 votes. Subsequently Shashi Tharoor was selected as Minister of State in the Council of Ministers of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. On 28 May 2009 he was sworn in as the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs.

Tharoor become the first Indian celebrity to get 100,000 followers on Twitter.^[25] However, some of his tweets (or twitter posts) proved controversial and were quoted by the press and opposition parties to criticize his work. On 18 April 2010 Tharoor resigned from his post as Minister of State for External Affairs on instructions from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,^[26] following allegations that he had misused his office to get shares in the IPL cricket franchise of Cochin. Tharoor denied the charges and in his resignation speech called for a full inquiry. On 2 May 2010, he was nominated to be a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for External Affairs by Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar.^[27]

Literary career[link]

Shashi Tharoor delivering a lecture at Université d'été du MEDEF, 2007

Tharoor has written numerous books in English^{[citation needed]}.

Tharoor has been a columnist in each of India's three best-known English-language newspapers^{[citation needed]}, most recently for The Hindu newspaper (2001–2008) and in a weekly column, “Shashi on Sunday,” in the Times of India (January 2007 – December 2008). Following his resignation as Minister of State for External Affairs, he began a fortnightly column on foreign policy issues in the "Deccan Chronicle". Previously he was a columnist for the Gentleman^{[citation needed]} magazine and the Indian Express newspaper, as well as a frequent contributor to Newsweek International and the International Herald Tribune. His Op-Eds and book reviews have appeared in the Washington Post^{[citation needed]}, the New York Times^{[citation needed]} and the Los Angeles Times^{[citation needed]}, amongst other papers^{[citation needed]}. His monthly column, "India Reawakening", distributed by Project Syndicate, appears in some 80 newspapers around the world^{[citation needed]}.

Tharoor began writing at the age of six^{[citation needed]} and his first published story appeared in the “Bharat Jyoti”, the Sunday edition of "The Free Press Journal", in Mumbai at age 10^{[citation needed]}. His World War II adventure novel Operation Bellows, inspired by the Biggles books, was serialized in the Junior Statesman starting a week before his 11th birthday^{[citation needed]}. Each of his books has been a best-seller in India^{[citation needed]}. The Great Indian Novel is currently in its 28th edition in India and his newest volume.^[when?] The Elephant, the Tiger and the Cellphone has undergone seven hardback re-printings there^{[citation needed]}.

Tharoor has lectured widely on India^{[citation needed]}, and is often quoted for his observations^{[citation needed]}, including, "India is not, as people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country, but rather, in the context of its history and cultural heritage, a highly developed one in an advanced state of decay."^[28] He has also coined a memorable comparison of India's "thali" to the American "melting pot": "If America is a melting pot, then to me India is a thali - a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together on the same plate, and they complement each other in making the meal a satisfying repast.".^[29] (Other quotes in Wikiquote.)

Personal life[link]

A theatre buff and successful actor^{[citation needed]} in his school days, he played Antony to Mira Nair’s Cleopatra in a 1974 production of Antony and Cleopatra.^[30] At St. Stephen’s in the early 1970s he founded the Quiz Club, which is still in existence; he also revived the Wodehouse Society, which is no longer in existence. Upon election as President of the College Union^{[citation needed]} he relinquished the Secretaryship of the History Society as well as the editorship of the campus humour magazine “Kooler Talk.” He was invited by St. Stephen’s College to deliver the college’s 125th Anniversary Jubilee Lecture in 2005^{[citation needed]}.

He has been an elected Fellow of the New York Institute for the Humanities^{[citation needed]} and a member of the Advisory Board of the Indo-American Arts Council and also served on the Board of Directors of Breakthrough^{[citation needed]}, an international human rights organization, the Board of Overseers of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, the Board of Trustees of the Aspen Institute, and as an International Adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross. He also supported various educational causes, including as Patron of the Modern High School in Dubai^{[citation needed]}.

At the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1976, he founded and was the first chair of the editorial board of the Fletcher Forum of International Affairs, a journal examining issues in international relations.^[31]

Later he was married to Christa, a Canadian working at the United Nations.^[32] After their divorce, Tharoor married Sunanda Pushkar in at his ancestral home in Elavanchery village in Kerala's Palakkad district on 22 August 2010.^[33]

Controversies[link]

• In September 2009, Tharoor and S M Krishna were accused of staying in luxurious 5-star hotels.^[34] Tharoor defended himself, saying that it was because of the delay in his official residence being ready and he only spent from his own pocket for the accommodation.^[35] Later on Pranab Mukherjee's request^[36] Tharoor and Krishna moved out of the hotels.^[37]

• A controversy erupted when Tharoor, responding to the question as to whether he would travel in "Cattle Class", replied that he would do so. This remark on Twitter (@ShashiTharoor), equated the travelling public to cattle and also taunted his party, the Indian National Congress over their austerity drive.^[38] It was also reported that Congress may take action against him.^[39][40] However, this was subsequently resolved when Tharoor met his party leadership and offered them an apology/explanation.

• Another controversy erupted on Gandhi Jayanti when he said people should be working rather than staying at home taking a holiday, thereby paying real homage to Mahatma Gandhi.^[41]

• Tharoor was in the news again for publicly criticizing the new visa guidelines adopted by the Indian Government in the wake of the gaps exposed by the arrest of 26/11 terror suspects, David Headley and Tahawwur Rana. For this he was criticized for breaking ranks with the official position of the Government. He later met External Affairs Minister, SM Krishna and explained his position on the issue. The rules were subsequently partly modified.^[42]

• In January 2010, Tharoor criticized Gandhi and Nehru for their vision on Indian foreign policy by the Indian media. This angered his party, the Indian National Congress. In the wake of this controversy, he held a press conference describing the report as "inaccurate" and "tendentious"."^[43]

• In February 2010 when accompanying^[44] the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on a three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, he said "We feel that Saudi Arabia has a long and close relationship with Pakistan, that makes Saudi Arabia even more a valuable interlocutor for us. When we tell them about our experience, Saudi Arabia listens as somebody who is not in any way an enemy of Pakistan, but a friend of Pakistan and, therefore, will listen with sympathy and concern to a matter of this nature". He was asked whether India expected Saudi Arabia, given their close ties with Islamabad, to help address the terror threat from Pakistan.^[45] The remark about Saudi Arabia being a "valuable interlocutor" raised a strong reaction within the Indian political circle.^[46] The Pakistani press even went on to report that he had proposed that Saudi Arabia play a mediator's role in improving India's relationship with Pakistan.^[47] In response, Tharoor tweeted saying, "An interlocutor is someone you speak to. If I speak to you, you are my interlocutor. I mentioned the Saudis as our interlocutors, i.e. the people we are here to speak to".^[45]

• In February 2010, a website called "Keralawatch" published an investigative report which alleged that Tharoor used incomplete records to enrol his name in the voter's list in Thiruvananthapuram constituency.^[48]

• Lalit Modi published the shareholders details of Kochi-IPL team's franchise owners, Rendezvous Sports World (RSW) group in his Twitter account^[49] and also mentioned that he was asked by an influential Union Minister not to get into details of Sunanda Pushkar, who was given a sweat equity of approximately 4.5 per cent of total equity (estimated by the media to be worth Rs 70 crore) in Kochi IPL team.^[50][51] In an official statement,^[52] Tharoor denied having made any financial gains from the sale or having pressured Modi in any way. He further accused Modi of trying to delay and discredit the new owners so that the franchise can be re-awarded elsewhere. RSW protested Modi's breach of confidentiality agreement. Sunanda Pushkar also issued a statement denying being a proxy for Tharoor.^[53] Later amidst demands for his resignation from the Union Cabinet by the opposition parties,^[54][55] Sunanda Pushkar gave up the sweat equity offered to her by RSW.^[56] But tht Income Tax department stated that she will have to pay income tax on her sweat equity in Rendezvous Sports World even after having given it up and non payment will lead to her arrest.[1] Allegations that this was pay back for denying a request to not issue a visa to a South African model close to Lalit Modi have surfaced, and so have death threats to Shashi Tharoor by the Mumbai underworld.^[57] Under severe push from Congress chief Sonia Gandhi and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee combine, the Congress core committee decided to ask for Tharoor's resignation.[2].18 April 2010 Shashi Tharoor resigned from the post of Minister of State in MEA after calling for a full inquiry into the matter.

Honors, Awards and International Recognition[link]

• 1976 - Wins the Rajika Kripalani Young Journalist Award for the Best Indian Journalist under 30.^[58]
• 1990 – Wins the Federation of Indian Publishers' Hindustan Times Literary Award for the Best Book of the Year for The Great Indian Novel.^{[citation needed]}
• 1991 – His book The Great Indian Novel wins the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for the Best Book of the Year in the Eurasian Region.^[58]
• 1998 – Awarded the Excelsior Award for excellence in literature by the Association of Indians in America (AIA)^{[citation needed]} and the Network of Indian Professionals (NetIP).^[58]
• 2000 – Conferred the honorary degree of Doctor of Letters in International Affairs by the University of Puget Sound^[58]
• 1998 – Named Global Leader of Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland^{[citation needed]}

• 2004 – Awarded the prestigious Pravasi Bharatiya Samman, India’s highest honour for non-resident Indians. But did not accept it at the time owing to UN rules prohibiting acceptance of governmental honours.^{[citation needed]}
• 2007 – Went on to accept the award after having resigned from the position of Under Secretary General at the UN.^[59]
• 2008 – Conferred a Doctorate Honoris Causa by the University of Bucharest, Romania.^{[citation needed]}
• 2009 – Awarded the Zakir Hussain Memorial "Pride of India" Award.^{[citation needed]}
• 2009 – Awarded GQ's Inspiration of the Year Award at its Man of the Year Awards.^{[citation needed]}
• 2009 – Presented with the Hakim Khan Sur Award for National Integration by the Maharana of Udaipur.^{[citation needed]}
• 2010 – Awarded the Sarva Deshiya Prathibha award by the Pazhassiraja Charitable Trust, Kozhikode.^[60]
• March 2010 – Awarded "New Age Politician of the Year" Award by NDTV at its Indian of the Year awards.^{[citation needed]}
• 2010 – Awarded the Fifth IILM Distinguished Global Thinker Award in New Delhi^[61]
• 2010 – Awarded Digital person of the year at the first ever Indian Digital Media Awards (IDMA) for popularising the digital medium in India^[62]

Bibliography[link]

Fiction[link]

• The Great Indian Novel (1989)^[63]
• The Five Dollar Smile and Other Stories (1990)^[64]
• Show Business (1992)^[65]
• Riot (2001)^[66]

Non-fiction[link]

• Reasons of State (1982)^[67]
• India: From Midnight to the Millennium (1997)^[68]
• Nehru: The Invention of India (2003)^[69]
• Bookless in Baghdad (2005)^[70]
• The Elephant, the Tiger, and the Cell Phone: Reflections on India - The Emerging 21st-Century Power (2007)^[71]
• Shadows Across the Playing Field: Sixty Years of India-Pakistan Cricket (2009)(along with Shaharyar Khan)^[72]

Illustrated books[link]

• Kerala: God’s own country (2002) (along with artist M.F. Husain)^[73]
• L'Inde (French) and India (English) (2008) (along with photographer Ferrante Ferranti)

References[link]