The heads of government of five members of the Commonwealth of Nations at the 1944 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

Head of government is the chief officer of the executive branch of a government, often presiding over a cabinet. In a parliamentary system, the head of government is often styled prime minister, chief minister, premier, etc. In presidential republics or absolute monarchies, the head of government may be the same person as the head of state, who is often also called a president or a monarch.

In semi-presidential systems, the Head of Government may answer to both the Head of State and the legislative power (such as parliament). An example is the French Fifth Republic (1958–present), where the Président de la République appoints a Prime Minister but must choose someone who can get government business through, and has the support of, the National Assembly. When the opposition controls the National Assembly (and thus government funding and most legislation), the President is in effect forced to choose a Prime Minister from the opposition; in such cases, known as cohabitation, the government controls internal state policy, with the President restricted largely to foreign affairs.

Titles of respective heads of government[link]

The most common title for a head of government is "Prime Minister."^{[citation needed]} This is used as a formal title in many states, but also informally a generic term to describe whichever office is formally the first amongst the executive "ministers" of an otherwise styled Head of State, as Minister — Latin for servants or subordinates — is a common title for members of a government (but many other titles are in use, e.g. secretary (of state)).

Formally the "head of state" can also personally be the "head of government" (ex officio or by ad hoc cumulation such as an absolute monarch nominating himself) but otherwise has formal precedence over the Head of Government and other ministers, whether he is their actual political superior (absolute monarch, executive president) or rather theoretical or ceremonial in character. Various constitutions use different titles, and even the same title can have various political meanings depending on the constitution and political system of the state in question.

As political chief[link]

In addition to Prime Minister, titles used for the democratic model, where there is an elected legislative body checking the Head of government, include the following. Some of these titles relate to governments below the national level (e.g. states or provinces)

Alternate English terms & renderings[link]

• Chairman of the Executive Council
• Chief Minister (often sub-national)
• First Minister (often sub-national)
• Minister-President
• Premier (from French premier ministre)
• President of the Cabinet
• President of the Council of Ministers
• President of the Council of State
• President of the Executive Council
• President of the Government
• Prime Minister
• State President (used exclusively in South Africa)

Equivalent titles in other languages[link]

• Bundeskanzler/Chancellor (German)
• In Malaysia, the head of government of the constituent states are expressed in the Malay language (either Ketua Menteri, "chief minister" in the Malaysian states without a monarchy (Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak), or Menteri Besar "great minister" in the sultanates and other monarchic states).
• Lehendakari (Basque Country)
• Leitender Minister (German, literally 'directing minister')
• Pääministeri (Finnish)
• Statsminister (Scandinavian)
• Taoiseach (Irish)

Under a dominant head of state[link]

In a broader sense, a prime minister can be used loosely to refer to various comparable positions under a Head of State that is an absolute monarch (especially is the case of ancient or feudal eras, so the term "prime minister", in this case, could be considered an anachronism). In this case, the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the monarch and holds no more power than the monarch allows. In some cases a disgraced head of government has even been executed for his failure. Some such titles are:

• Diwan
• Mahamantri
• Pradhan
• Wasir or Grand Vizier

Indirectly referred as the head of state[link]

In some cases, the Head of state is a figurehead whilst the Head of the government leads the ruling party. In some cases a head of government may even pass on the title in hereditary fashion. Such titles include the following:

• Mayor of the Palace of the Merovingian kingdoms
• Nawab wasir of the Mughal Empire (also governor of Awadh)
• Peshwa of Satara and the Maratha empire
• Shogun in the empire of Japan
• Sultan in the original case of the Seljuk Turks who made the Caliphs of Baghdad their puppets; later both styles were often used for absolute rulers in Nepal

Heads of state and government[link]

In some models the head of state and head of government are one and the same. These include:

• President (executive)
• Absolutist monarch reigning and ruling without a prime minister (or nominating himself)
• Chief Magistrate
• Führer (sometimes used in Nazi Germany)

An alternative formula is a single chief political body (e.g. presidium) which collectively leads the government and provides (e.g. by turns) the ceremonial Head of state See Head of State for further explanation of these cases.

Parliamentary heads of government[link]

In parliamentary systems, government functions along the following lines:

• The head of government — usually the leader of the majority party or coalition — forms the government, which is answerable to parliament;
• Full answerability of government to parliament is achieved through
  • The ability of parliament to pass a vote of no confidence.
  • The ability to vote down legislative proposals of the government.
  • Control over or ability to vote down fiscal measures and the 'budget' (or 'supply'); a government is powerless without control of the state finances. In a bicameral system, it is often the so-called lower house, e.g. the British House of Commons that exercises the major elements of control and oversight; in some others, e.g. Australia and Italy, the government is constitutionally or by convention answerable to both chambers/Houses of Parliament.

All of these requirements directly impact the Head of government's role. Consequently, they often play a 'day to day' role in parliament, answering questions and defending the government on the 'floor of the House', while in semi-presidential systems they may not be required to play as much of a role in the functioning of parliament.

Appointment[link]

In many countries, the Head of government is commissioned by the Head of state to form a government, on the basis of the strength of party support in the lower house, in some other states directly elected by parliament. Many parliamentary systems require ministers to serve in parliament, while others ban ministers from sitting in parliament; they must resign on becoming ministers.

Removal[link]

Heads of government are typically removed from power in a parliamentary system by

• Resignation, following:
  • Defeat in a general election.
  • Defeat in a leadership vote at their party caucus, to be replaced by another member of the same party.
  • Defeat in a parliamentary vote on a major issue, e.g. loss of supply, loss of confidence. (In such cases, a head of government may seek a parliamentary dissolution from the Head of state and attempt to regain support by popular vote).
• Dismissal — some constitutions allow a Head of state (or their designated representative, as is the case in Commonwealth countries) to dismiss a Head of government, though its use can be controversial, as occurred in 1975 when then Australian Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in the Australian Constitutional Crisis.
• Death — in this case, the deputy Head of government typically acts as the head of government until a new head of government is appointed.

First among equals or dominating the cabinet?[link]

Constitutions differ in the range and scope of powers granted to the head of government. Some older constitutions (for example, Australia's 1900 text, and Belgium's 1830 text) do not mention the office of Prime minister at all, the office becoming a de facto reality without formal constitutional status. Some constitutions make a Prime minister primus inter pares (first among equals) and that remains the practical reality in places like Finland and Belgium. Other states however, make their Prime minister a central and dominant figure within the cabinet system; Ireland's Taoiseach, for example, alone can decide when to seek a parliamentary dissolution, in contrast to other countries where this is a cabinet decision, with the Prime Minister just one member voting on the suggestion. Under the Constitution of the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister's role has evolved, based often on the individual's personal appeal and strength of character, as contrasted between, for example, Winston Churchill as against Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher as against John Major.

It is alleged that the increased personalisation of leadership in a number of states has led to prime ministers becoming themselves "semi-presidential" figures, due in part to: media coverage of politics that focuses on the leader and his or her mandate, rather than on parliament; and to the increasing centralisation of power in the hands of the Prime minister. Such allegations have been made against two recent British Prime ministers, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. They were also made against Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau and Chancellor of West Germany (later all of Germany), Helmut Kohl, when in power.

Official residence[link]

The Head of government is often provided with an official residence, in the same way as Heads of state often are. The name of the residence is often used as a metonym or alternate title for 'the government' when the office is politically the highest, e.g. in the UK "Downing Street announced today..."

Well-known official residences of heads of government include:

• 10 Downing Street in London — Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (who also has a country residence Chequers)
• 7 Race Course Road (Panchavati) in New Delhi — Prime Minister of India
• Catshuis — Prime Minister of the Netherlands
• 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa — Prime Minister of Canada (who also has a country residence Harrington Lake)
• Kantei in Tokyo — Prime Minister of Japan
• Palazzo Chigi in Rome — Prime Minister of Italy
• Kirribilli House in Sydney; and The Lodge in Canberra — Prime Minister of Australia
• Hôtel Matignon in Paris— Prime Minister of France (a grand palace is called a hôtel in French)
• The Lambermont in Brussels — federal Prime Minister of Belgium
• Palacio de la Moncloa in Madrid — President of the Government, Spain
• Premier House in Wellington — Prime Minister of New Zealand
• Kesäranta in Helsinki — Prime Minister of Finland
• Sager House in Stockholm — Prime Minister of Sweden (who also has a country residence Harpsund)
• Zhongnanhai in Beijing — Premier of China

Fuller list in the official residence article.

Similarly the Heads of government of (con)federal entities below the level of the sovereign state (often without an actual Head of state, at least under international law) may also be given an official residence, sometimes used as an opportunity to display its aspirations of statehood. E.g. in Belgium:

• Hotel Errera in Brussels — Minister-president of the Flemish community and region
• Élysette in Namur — Minister-president of the Walloon region

However, Heads of governments' residences are usually far less grand than those (often called palace) of a Head of state (even a merely ceremonial one), unless they combine both roles, as for example:

• The White House (1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) in Washington, D.C. — President of the United States of America

Even the formal representative of the Head of State, such as a Governor-General, may well be housed in a grander palace-type residence, often with such names as Government House.

Statistics[link]

• Main article: Records of heads of government

Current[link]

(as in mid 2011)

• World's longest serving unelected head of government: Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, Prime Minister of Bahrain since 1971.^[1]
• World's longest serving current monarchy head of government: Tage Erlander, Prime Minister of Sweden from 1946 to 1969 (&1000000000000002300000023 years, &100000000000000030000003 days).
• World's longest serving current republican head of government: Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore from 1965 to 1990 (&1000000000000002500000025 years, &10000000000000111000000111 days).

See also[link]

• Head of state
• List of current heads of state and government
• Official Portraits (book)

Sources and References[link]

• Jean Blondel & Ferdinand Muller-Rommel Cabinets in Western Europe (ISBN 0-333-46209-2)
• WorldStatesmen (click on each country)

Mohammad Afzal Guru, also known as Afzal Guru, is a Kashmiri terrorist who was convicted of conspiracy in the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of India in 2004. The sentence was scheduled to be carried out on 20 October 2006. Afzal was given a stay of execution and remains on death row.

Early life[link]

He belonged to Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir.^[1] He had completed the first year of his MBBS course and was pursuing for IAS exams. However later on he was involved in terrorist activities and became a member of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front and subsequently went to Pakistan and received terrorist training and got involved into such terrorist activities. Unhappy with the situation there, he shifted back to India and surrendered before Border Security Force.^[2] In a 2011 interview to Tehelka, he stated that his family had probably been Brahmins around seven centuries ago.^[3]

In his confessional statement during the trial, he mentioned about joining JKLF, a militant outfit during the year 1989-90 and had received training in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan in insurgent activities and coming back to India with arms. He then confessed about arriving in Delhi with his cousin Shaukat for studies, coming into contact with SAR Gilani while studying in Delhi University, surrendering before Border Security Force in 1993 on the advice of his family members, returning back to his native place Sopore and doing commission agency business, coming into contact with one Tariq of Anantanag at that time, who motivated him to join Jihad for liberation of Kashmir and assured him of financial assistance, Tariq introducing him to one Ghaziabad, Karachi who was a proclaimed offender in Kashmir who further exhorted him to join the movement and apprised him of the mission to carry out attacks on important institutions in India like Parliament and Embassies and asked him to find a safe hideout for the 'Fidayeens' in Delhi.

The case[link]

The attack was conducted jointly by the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM). Seven members of the security forces, including a female constable, were killed, as were the five still incompletely identified men who carried out the attack.

Following were the charges against Afzal Guru as per the Chargesheet: The Charges against him included:^[1]

• Leading the Police to recovery of explosive substance from his place of hideout in Delhi.
• Conspiring to commit and knowingly facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or acts preparatory to terrorist act and also voluntarily harboured and concealed the deceased terrorists knowing that such persons were terrorists and he himself were the members of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, a banned terrorist organisation, which is involved in terrorists act and hence committed an offence punishable Under Section 3(3) (4) and (5) of Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act.
• Possession of 10 Lakhs given to them by the terrorists who were killed by the police when they had attacked the Parliament of India.

He was arrested on December 12, 2001 along with Shaukat and later on explosives were found from their hideout in Delhi. Eighty witnesses were examined for the prosecution and ten were examined for defense. The judgment mentions:

"The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender."^[4]

On December 19, 2001 he made a confession of the offenses which was recorded and was signed by him. He also confirmed having made the confessional statement without any threat or pressure.^[5]

He was convicted for the offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, Section 120B read with Sections 302 & 307 read with Section 120B IPC, sub-Sections (2), (3) & (5) of Section 1, 3(4), 4(b)of POTA and Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act. He was also sentenced to life imprisonment on as many as eight counts under the provisions of IPC, POTA and Explosive Substances Act in addition to varying amounts of fine.^[6]

An appeal was made to the Delhi High Court but after going through the case and taking in consideration various authorities and precedents, the Court found that the conviction of Afzal Guru was safe and hence his appeal was dismissed.^[1]

Pressure for clemency[link]

There is an appeal to issue clemency to Afzal from various human rights groups including political groups in Kashmir, who believe that Afzal Guru did not receive a fair trial and was subject to a frame up of corrupt and inefficient police work. Human rights activists in various parts of India and the world have demanded reprieve as they believe that the trial was flawed. Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai castigated the trial and argued that Afzal has been denied natural justice.^[7][8] Accusations of human rights violations have been made by many.

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad of the Indian National Congress and local political groups voiced their support of clemency for Afzal. It is alleged many have done so to appease Muslim voters in India.^[9]

Communist Party of India (Marxist) is critical of both the Congress, who is delaying the legal procedure in the case as well as BJP who tries to whip up enmity between communities in the name of a crime done by a group of criminals. The party wants the law of the land to take its course without any interference.^[10]

Ram Jethmalani holds that it is completely within the President's power to commute the Death sentence and is not a mercy plea. He says, "It’s a misnomer to call it a mercy petition. It leads to total misunderstanding of the constitutional power. The constitutional power is that the President has the power to disagree with the Supreme Court both with its findings of fact and law."^[11]

But others^[who?] are of the view that such a sweeping Constitutional power cannot be given to the President inasmuch as it would subvert the concept of justice enshrined in the Constitution.

The Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party president and MP, Mehbooba Mufti commented that the Centre should pardon Afzal if Pakistan accepted the clemency appeal for Sarabjit Singh.^[12]

Ms. Mufti, said that if clemency appeals were made for Sarabjit citing his Indian nationality, voices should also be raised for Afzal for "he too is an Indian citizen". "Two citizens of India cannot be treated with different yardsticks" she had said.

However, the All India Anti-Terrorist Front Chairman Maninderjeet Singh Bitta has urged the President of India not to accept any clemency pleas on Afzal's behalf. He warned that his organisation would launch agitations if Afzal was pardoned. He also criticised statements of various political leaders and blamed them for "encouraging activities of militants in Jammu and Kashmir".^[13]

An India Today poll in late October showed that 78% of Indians supported the death penalty for Afzal^[9]

On 12 November 2006, the former Deputy Prime Minister of India, Mr. Lal Krishna Advani criticized the delay in carrying out the death sentence on Guru for the Parliament terror attack, saying, "I fail to understand the delay. They have increased my security. But what needs to be done immediately is to carry out the court's orders".

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has severely criticized Arundhati Roy. BJP spokespoerson Prakash Javadekar said:

"Those who are supporting Afzal by demanding that he should not be hanged are not only acting against public sentiment in the country but are giving a fillip to terrorist morale," ^[14]

On 23 June 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs has recommended the President's office to reject the mercy petition.
On the 7th of January 2011, a whisleblowing site indianleaks.in has leaked a document which states that the mercy petition file is not with President of India.^[15] This was confirmed by Home Minister P. Chidambaram in New Delhi on 23 Feb 2011.^[16]

On the 10th of August 2011 the home ministry of India rejected the mercy petition and sent a letter to the President of India recommending the death penalty .^[17]

Posted on Sep 07, 2011 at 02:42pm IST, HuJI claims responsibility for Delhi HC blast at the Delhi High Court in which 10 people have been killed and 65 others injured. HuJI in an e-mail sent to a media house claimed that the blast was carried out in retaliation to Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru's death sentence.

"We owe the responsibility of todays blasts at high court delhi..... our demand is that Afzal Guru's death sentence should be repealed immediately else we would target major high courts & THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA," the e-mail read.

See also[link]

• Justice for Afzal Guru - website
• 2001 Indian Parliament attack
• Maulana Masood Azhar
• Indian Airlines Flight 814
• Ajmal Kasab

References[link]

1. ^ ^{a b c} State v. Mohd. Afzal and Ors., Judgment of High Court of Delhi in Murder Reference No. 1/2003 and Crl. A. No. 43/2003 by J. Usha Mehra and J. Pradeep Nandrajog 9October 29, 20030
2. ^ http://www.amarujala.com/national/nat-Afzal-Compunction-why-not-exploded-a-car-bomb-16054.html.
3. ^ "Afzal Guru invited Tihar jail superintendent Manoj Dwivedi to convert to Islam". Tehelka. 29 August 2011. http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws290811Afzal.asp. Retrieved 27 December 2011. 
4. ^ http://justiceforafzalguru.org/background/AfzalBooklet-1.pdf
5. ^ State ( N . C . T . of Delhi ) vs . Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, Supreme Court of India, August 8, 2005
6. ^ State ( N . C . T . of Delhi ) vs . Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, Supreme Court of India, August 8, 2005.
7. ^ Roy, Arundhati (15 December 2006). "India's shame". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1972788,00.html. Retrieved 13 May 2010. 
8. ^ Afzal must not hang
9. ^ ^{a b} (30 October 2006). No Mercy. India Today, [5(43)], [14-15].
10. ^ Playing With National Security People's Democracy
11. ^ http://www.tehelka.com/story_main21.asp?filename=Ne102806Afzal_was_CS.asp
12. ^ [1]
13. ^ "Bitta urges President not to pardon Afzal". The Times Of India. 8 November 2006. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/366888.cms. 
14. ^ The Hindustani Times
15. ^ "Afzal Guru Mercy petition file is not with President of India!". Indian Leaks. 7 January 2010. http://indianleaks.in/leaks/afzal-guru-mercy-petition-file-in-not-with-president-of-india/. 
16. ^ "Afzal Guru’s mercy petition not yet sent to president: Chidambaram.". Deccan Herald. 23 February 2011. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/140350/afzal-gurus-mercy-petition-not.html. 
17. ^ "Home Ministry rejects Afzal Guru's mercy petition.". CNN-IBN. 10 August 2011. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/home-ministry-rejects-afzal-gurus-mercy-plea/174655-3.html.