Charles de Gaulle described the role he envisaged for the French president when he wrote the modern French constitution, stating the head of state should embody "the spirit of the nation" for the nation itself and the world: une certaine idée de la France (a certain idea about France). Today many countries expect their head of state to embody national values in a similar fashion.
Different state constitutions (fundamental laws) establish different political systems, but four major types of heads of state can be distinguished:
One form that the head of state role takes can be loosely called the non-executive head of state model. Its holders are excluded completely from the executive: they do not possess even theoretical executive powers or any role, even formal, within the government. Hence their states' governments are not referred to by the traditional parliamentary model head of state styles of "His/Her Majesty's Government" or "His/Her Excellency's Government." Within this general category, variants in terms of powers and functions may exist. The King of Sweden, since the passage of the modern Swedish constitution (the Instrument of Government) in the mid 1970s, no longer has any of the parliamentary system head of state functions that had previously belonged to Swedish kings, but still receives formal cabinet briefings monthly in the royal palace. In contrast, the only contact the Irish president has with the Irish government is through a formal briefing session given by the Taoiseach (prime minister) to the President. However, he or she has no access to documentation and all access to ministers goes through the Department of An Taoiseach (prime minister's office).
Examples of this category, invariably dating from the twentieth century, include: the President of Ireland, the King of Sweden (since 1975), the President of Germany, the President of Greece, the President of Israel and the Emperor of Japan (since 1947).
In parliamentary systems the head of state may be merely the nominal chief executive officer of the state, possessing executive power (hence the description of the United Kingdom monarch's government as His/Her Majesty's Government; a term indicating that all power belongs to the sovereign and the government acts on Her Majesty's behalf, not parliament's). In reality however, due to a process of constitutional evolution, powers are usually only exercised by direction of a cabinet, presided over by a prime minister, or President of the Government, who is answerable to the legislature. This accountability requires that someone be chosen from parliament who has parliament's support (or, at least, not parliament's opposition - a subtle but important difference). It also gives parliament the right to vote down the government, forcing it either to resign or seek a parliamentary dissolution. Governments are thus said to be responsible (or answerable) to parliament, with the government in turn accepting constitutional responsibility for offering constitutional advice to the head of state.
In parliamentary constitutional monarchies, the legitimacy of the unelected head of state typically derives from the tacit approval of the people via the elected representatives. Accordingly, at the time of the Glorious Revolution, the English Parliament acted of its own authority to name a new king and queen (joint monarchs Mary II and William III); likewise, Edward VIII's abdication required the passage of a law in the parliament of each of the Commonwealth realms, due to the independence of each country's monarchy in personal union. In monarchies with a written constitution, the position of monarch is a creature of the constitution and could quite properly be abolished through a democratic procedure of constitutional amendment, although there are often significant procedural hurdles imposed on such a procedure (as in the Constitution of Spain).
In reality, numerous variants exist to the position of a head of state within a parliamentary system. The older the constitution, the more constitutional leeway tends to exist for a head of state to exercise greater powers over government, as many older parliamentary system constitutions in fact give heads of state powers and functions akin to presidential or semi-presidential systems, in some cases without containing reference to modern democratic principles of accountability to parliament or even to modern governmental offices. For example, the 1848 constitution of the Kingdom of Italy was sufficiently ambiguous and outdated by the 1920s to give King Victor Emmanuel III leeway to appoint Benito Mussolini to power in controversial circumstances. Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law, unwritten constitutional precedent, Orders-in-Council, letters patent, etc. that may give a head of state or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances (such as the dismissal of Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.)
Other examples of heads of state in parliamentary systems using greater powers than usual, due either to ambiguous constitutions or unprecedented national emergencies, include the decision by King Léopold III of the Belgians to surrender on behalf of his state to the invading German army in 1940, against the will of his government. Judging that his responsibility to the nation by virtue of his coronation oath required him to act, he believed that his government's decision to fight rather than surrender was mistaken and would damage Belgium. (Leopold's decision proved highly controversial. After World War II, Belgium voted in a referendum to allow him back on the throne, but because of the ongoing controversy he ultimately abdicated.)
Note: "presidential" in this context does not automatically imply a president but any head of state – elected, hereditary, or dictatorial – who presides. It is sometimes called the "imperial model," without regard for the monarchic title emperor, rather referring to the luster.
Some constitutions or fundamental laws provide for a head of state who is not just in theory but in practice chief executive, operating separately from, and independent from, the legislature. This system is sometimes known as a "presidential system" because the government is answerable solely and exclusively to a presiding, acting head of state, and is selected by and on occasion dismissed by the head of state without reference to the legislature. It is notable that some presidential systems, while not providing for collective executive answerability to the legislature, may require legislative approval for individuals prior to their assumption of cabinet office and empower the legislature to remove a president from office (for example, in the United States of America). In this case the debate centres on the suitability of the individual for office, not a judgement on them when appointed, and does not involve the power to reject or approve proposed cabinet members en bloc, so it is not answerability in the sense understood in a parliamentary system.
Some presidential systems may also include a prime minister, but, as with the other ministers, they are responsible to the president, not the legislature. In many such instances the office is of minimal political importance, sometimes even held by some administrative technocrat rather than a politician. A prime minister in a presidential system lacks the constitutional and political dominance of a prime minister in a parliamentary system and is often seen as simply a politically junior figure who may run the mechanics of government while allowing the president to set the broad national agenda.
Presidential systems are a notable feature of constitutions in the Americas, including those of the United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Most presidents in such countries are selected by democratic means (popular direct or indirect election); however, like all other systems, the presidential model also encompasses people who become head of state by other means, notably through military dictatorship or coup d'état, as seen in South American, Middle Eastern, and other presidential regimes. Some of the characteristics of a presidential system (i.e., a strong dominant political figure with an executive answerable to them, not the legislature) can also be found among absolute monarchies, parliamentary monarchies and Communist regimes, but in most cases of dictatorship apply their stated constitutional models in name only and not in political theory or practice.
In the 1870s in the United States, in the aftermath of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and his near-removal from office, it was speculated that the United States, too, would move from a presidential system to a semi-presidential or even parliamentary one, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming the real center of government as a quasi-prime minister. This did not happen and the presidency, having been damaged by three late nineteenth century assassinations (Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley) and one impeachment (Johnson), reasserted its political dominance by the early twentieth century through such figures as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Semi-presidential systems combine features of presidential and parliamentary systems, notably a requirement that the government be answerable to both the president and the legislature. The constitution of the Fifth French Republic provides for a prime minister who is chosen by the president, but who nevertheless must be able to gain support in the National Assembly. Should a president be of one side of the political spectrum and the opposition be in control of the legislature, the president is usually obliged to select someone from the opposition to become prime minister, a process known as Cohabitation. President François Mitterrand, a Socialist, for example, was forced to cohabit with the neo-Gaullist (right wing) Jacques Chirac, who became his prime minister from 1986 to 1988. In the French system, in the event of cohabitation, the president is often allowed to set the policy agenda in foreign affairs and the prime minister runs the domestic agenda.
Other countries evolve into something akin to a semi-presidential system or indeed a full presidential system. Weimar Germany, for example, in its constitution provided for a popularly elected president with theoretically dominant executive powers that were intended to be exercised only in emergencies, and a cabinet appointed by him from the Reichstag, which was expected, in normal circumstances, to be answerable to the Reichstag. Initially, the President was merely a symbolic figure with the Reichstag dominant; however, persistent political instability, in which governments often lasted only a few months, led to a change in the power structure of the republic, with the president's emergency powers called increasingly into use to prop up governments challenged by critical or even hostile Reichstag votes. By 1932, power had shifted to such an extent that the German President, Paul von Hindenburg, was able to dismiss a chancellor and select his own person for the job, even though the outgoing chancellor possessed the confidence of the Reichstag while the new chancellor did not. Subsequently President von Hindenburg used his power to appoint Adolf Hitler as Chancellor without consulting the Reichstag.
This may even lead to an institutional variability, as in North Korea, where, after the presidency of party leader Kim Il Sung, the office was vacant for years, the late president being granted the posthumous title (akin to some ancient far eastern traditions to give posthumous names and titles to royalty) of president "in eternity" (while all real power, as party leader, itself not formally created for 4 years, was inherited by his son Kim Jong Il, initially without any formal office) until it was formally replaced on 5 September 1998, for ceremonial purposes, by the office of the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, while the party leader's post as Chairman of the National Defense Commission was simultaneously declared "the highest post of the state," not unlike Deng Xiaoping earlier in the People's Republic of China.
Another complication exists with South Africa, in which the President is in fact elected by the legislature (similar, in principle, to a prime minister) but also holds the title of President, serves for a fixed term, and is expected to be the nation's head of state. Nauru and Botswana are similar.
Panama, during the military dictatorships of Omar Torrijos and Manuel Noriega, was nominally a presidential republic. However, the elected civilian presidents were effectively figureheads with real political power being exercised by the chief of the military.
One of the most important roles of the modern head of state is being a living national symbol of the state; in monarchies this extends to the sovereign being a symbol of the unbroken continuity of the state. For instance, the Canadian monarch is described by the government as being the personification of the Canadian state, and is described by the Department of Canadian Heritage as the "personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians."
In many countries, official portraits of the head of state can be found in government offices, courts of law, even airports, libraries, and other public buildings. The idea, sometimes regulated by law, is to use these portraits to make the public aware of the symbolic connection to the government, a practice that dates back to mediaeval times. Sometimes this practice is taken to excess, and the head of state begins to believe that he is the only symbol of the nation, resulting in the emergence of a personality cult where the image of the head of state is the only visual representation of the country, surpassing other symbols such as the flag, constitution, founding father(s) etc. A modern champion in this field was Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Führer. Other common iconic presences, especially of monarchs, are on coins, stamps, and banknotes; more discreet variations see them represented by a mention and/or signature. Furthermore, various institutions, monuments, and the like, are named for current or previous heads of state, such as streets and squares, schools, charitable and other organisations; in monarchies (e.g. Belgium) there can even be a practice to attribute the adjective 'royal' on demand based on existence for a given number of years. However, such political techniques can also be used by leaders without the formal rank of head of state, even party - and other revolutionary leaders without formal state mandate.
In general, the active duties amount to a ceremonial role. Thus in diplomatic affairs, heads of state are often the first person to greet an important foreign visitor. They may also assume a sort of informal host role during the VIP's visit, inviting the visitor to a state dinner at his or her mansion or palace, or some other equally hospitable affair.
At home, they are expected to render luster to various occasions by their presence, such as by attending artistic or sports performances or competitions, expositions, celebrations, military parades and remembrances, prominent funerals, visiting parts of the country, enterprises, care facilities (often in a theatrical honour box, on a platform, on the front row, at the honours table etc.), sometimes performing a symbolic act such as cutting a ribbon or pushing a button at an opening, christening something with champagne, laying the first stone, and so on. Some parts of national life receive their regular attention, often on an annual basis, or even in the form of official patronage.
As the potential for such invitations is enormous, such duties are often in part delegated: to such persons as a spouse, other members of the dynasty, a vice-president —for whom this is often the core of their public role— or in other cases (possibly as a message, for instance, to distance themselves without giving protocollary offence) just a military or other aide.
For non-executive heads of state there is often a degree of censorship by the politically responsible government (such as the prime minister), discreetly approving agenda and speeches, especially where the constitution (or customary law) assumes all political responsibility by granting the crown inviolability (in fact also imposing political emasculation) as in the Kingdom of Belgium from its very beginning; in a monarchy this may even be extended to some degree to other members of the dynasty, especially the heir to the throne.
The head of state also signs international treaties on behalf of the state, or has them signed in his/her name by ministers (government members or diplomats); subsequent ratification, when necessary, usually rests with the legislature.
In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, these roles of the head of state have been taken over by the vice-regal representative.
In practice, these decisions are often a formality. The last time a British monarch unilaterally selected the UK's prime minister was in 1963, when Queen Elizabeth II chose Sir Alec Douglas-Home to succeed Harold Macmillan as her chief advisor in that country. In Canada, a similar situation took place wherein Governor General Lord Byng of Vimy appointed Arthur Meighen after William Lyon Mackenzie King refused to resign the premiership. Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr appointed Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister after dismissing Gough Whitlam.
In presidential systems, such as that of the United States, appointments are nominated by the President's sole discretion, but this nomination is often subject to parliamentary confirmation (in the case of the US, the Senate has to approve cabinet nominees and judicial appointments by simple majority).
The head of state may also dismiss office-holders. There are many variants on how this can be done. For example, members of the Irish Cabinet are dismissed by the President on the advice of the Taoiseach (prime minister); in other instances, the head of state may be able to dismiss an office holder unilaterally; other heads of state, or their representatives, have the theoretical power to dismiss any office-holder, while it is exceptionally rarely used. In France, while the president cannot force the prime minister to tender the resignation of his government, he can, in practice, request it if the prime minister is from his own majority. In presidential systems, the president often has the power to fire ministers at his sole discretion. In the United States, convention calls for cabinet secretaries to resign on their own initiative when called to do so.
Most countries require that all bills passed by the house or houses of the legislature be signed into law by the head of state. In some states, such as the United Kingdom, Belgium and Ireland, the head of state is, in fact, formally considered a tier of parliament. However, in most parliamentary systems, the head of state cannot refuse to sign a bill, and, in granting a bill their assent, indicate that it was passed in accordance with the correct procedures. The signing of a bill into law is formally known as promulgation. Some monarchical states call this procedure Royal Assent.
In some parliamentary systems, the head of state retains certain powers in relation to bills to be exercised at his or her discretion. They may have authority to veto a bill until the houses of the legislature have reconsidered it, and approved it a second time; reserve a bill to be signed later, or suspend it indefinitely (generally in states with the Royal Prerogative; this power is rarely used); refer a bill to the courts to test its constitutionality; refer a bill to the people in a referendum.
If he or she is also chief executive, he or she can thus politically control the necessary executive measures without which a proclaimed law can remain dead letter, sometimes for years or even forever.
In a constitutional monarchy or non-executive presidency the head of state may hold the ultimate authority over the armed forces but will only normally, as per either written or conventional laws, exercise their authority on the advice of their ministers, meaning de facto decision making on military manoeuvers lies with the cabinet. The monarch or president will, however, perform ceremonial duties related to the country's armed forces, and will sometimes appear in military uniform for these purposes; in the case of a female sovereign her consort and other members of the royal family may also appear in military garb. This is generally the only time a head of state of a stable, democratic country will appear dressed in such a manner, as statesmen and public are eager to assert the primate of (civilian, elected) politics over the armed forces.
In military dictatorships, or governments which have arisen from coups-d'etat, the position of commander-in-chief is obvious, as all authority in such a government derives from the application of military force; occasionally a power vacuum created by war is filled by a head of state stepping beyond his or her normal constitutional role, as King Albert I of Belgium did during World War I. In these, and revolutionary, regimes, the head of state, and often executive ministers whose office in legally civilian, will frequently appear in military uniform.
In a monarchy, the Monarch is the Head of State. This is a relatively recent phenomenon; until the last few decades a sovereign was seen as the personal embodiment of the state ("L'etat c'est moi", so to speak), and therefore could not be head of himself or herself (hence many constitutions from the 19th century and earlier make no mention of a "head of state"). Though some still maintain that calling a Monarch Head of State is incorrect, it has now become a widespread political convention to attach the label to Monarchs, regardless of their political position. The Tennō (Emperor) of Japan is defined as a symbol, not head, of state by the post-war constitution (contrasting with the former divine status) but is treated as an imperial head of state under diplomatic protocol (even ranking above kings) and retains Shinto mystique.
For the numerous styles in past and present monarchies, in most cases commonly -though often not quite accurately- rendered as King or Emperor, but also many other (e.g. Grand duke, Sultan), see Prince, princely state and monarchy.
In a republic, the head of state is nowadays usually styled President, and usually their permanent constitutions provide for election, but many have or had other titles and even specific constitutional positions (see below), and some have used simply 'head of state' as their only formal title.
In a monarchy, this is usually a regent or collegial regency (council). In a republic, this is - depending on provisions outlined by the constitution or improvised - a vice-president, the chief of government, the legislature or its presiding officer.
In cases where one person is head of state of multiple sovereign countries there may be need to appoint a permanent representative in each (except in the head of state's country of primary residence). Examples are all but one of the Commonwealth realms, where their king or queen resides in another of the Crown's kingdoms, the United Kingdom, and so is represented in the others by a crown-appointed governor-general (unhyphenated in Canada as "Governor General"), as well as Andorra, which is headed by two non-resident co-princes, one of which is also the President of France.
In Commonwealth realms the Governor-General may fulfill many of the roles of a head of state, but is typically not, either legally or conventionally, regarded as the head of state, but rather as an appointed representative of the head of state mandated to act in his or her place, even when the monarch is present in the country. Some governors-general are considered de facto heads of state because, though not the de jure (juridical or legal) head of state, in practice they function like a head of state in most or all jurisdictions.
In diplomatic situations, governors-general, if treated as de facto heads of state, are sometimes accorded a status akin to a head of state, but that is by tradition and on a case by case and person by person basis, not automatic. At state banquets, for example, toasts are made to the head of state (e.g. "Her Majesty the Queen of Australia"), never to a governor-general, except insofar as a personal toast may be proposed subsequently to "Governor-General and Mrs. Smith" as hosts of, or guests at, the banquet. Similarly, letters of credence may contain the name of the head of state, not the governor-general, even if it is the latter who signs and receives them.
In 2005, Canada, Australia and New Zealand changed their policies and now all Letter of Credence address solely the Governor-General of the relevant state, not to Queen Elizabeth II, making these countries the only sovereign nations to not expressly issue or receive letters in the name of their respective head of state. Despite the fact that the Governor General in each country remains the representative of the monarch, are appointed by her to that role, and thus are still constitutionally issuing Letters of Credence indirectly on behalf of the Queen, even if no longer explicitly by name, the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada stated in its press release announcing the changes to the Letters of Credence and Recall, issued 29 December 2004, that "in international diplomatic practice, Letters of Credence are formal diplomatic instruments that are presented by High Commissioners and Ambassadors to the Head of State of the host country... Letters of Credence and Recall presented by foreign High Commissioners and Ambassadors to Canada will now be addressed to the Governor General directly." This wording implies that the government of Canada, as least during the premiership of Paul Martin, regarded the Governor General as the Canadian Head of State.
Similarly, a 2004 report issued by the Canadian Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates recognised that the nation is a constitutional monarchy, however described the 1947 Letters Patent as having devolved all powers of the sovereign to the Governor General, making the latter head of state, and then continued to refer to the Governor General as head of state throughout the report. That same year, the then Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, attended a ceremony in France to recognize Canada's involvement at Juno Beach in the D-Day landings of 1944. Her office stated that she was present as Canada's head of state, and thus the Governor General was treated as the senior official in attendance, over even the Queen who was also present at the ceremony. While laying wreaths, the ceremony commentator stated that the Governor General was laying a wreath on behalf of Canada, whereas the Queen was laying a wreath on behalf of the Commonwealth. Rideau Hall later retracted the assertion that the Governor General attended as head of state, saying that it was an error of a junior official, but this did not explain the unusual shift in protocol observed at the ceremony itself.
In opposition to this thinking, in the opening of his first speech in the Canadian House of Commons as Prime Minister, Stephen Harper stated: "I'd like to acknowledge and thank a number of people. First of all I'd would like to pay tribute to our head of state, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As well, the Governor General of Canada's website now refers to the Queen of Canada as Canada's head of state. However, the Canadian Letters of Credence and Recall continue to be issued in the name of, and addressed to the Governor General alone.
The question of whether the sovereign or the Governor General is head of state has also arisen in Australia, where some, especially amongst those on the monarchist side of the republic debate, and most notably Professor David Flint, National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy in his book The Cane Toad Republic, and Sir David Smith in his book Head of State: the Governor-General, the Monarchy, the Republic and the Dismissal, have stated that the Governor General is the Australian head of state, and the Queen as Australia's sovereign.
Flint says that under inter national law and diplomatic practice, the Governor-General is the Australian Head of State, and that soon after the Commonwealth of Australia came into existence, the High Court of Australia unanimously ruled that the Governor-General is the “constitutional head of the Commonwealth” and the State Governors are the “constitutional heads of state.” In the case of Andorra, two Co-Princes act as the principality's heads of state; one is also simultaneously the President of France, residing in France, and the other is the Bishop of Urgell, residing in Spain. Each Co-Prince is represented in Andorra by a delegate, though these persons hold no formal title.
As a colony or other dependent state or territory lacks the authority to vest in a true head of state of its own, it either has no comparable office, simply receiving those roles exercised by the paramount powers (in person or, most of the time, through an appointed representative, often styled (Lieutenant-)governor, but also various other titles, on the Cook Islands even simply King/Queen's Representative) or has one, such as a formerly sovereign dynasty, but under a form of metropolitan guardianship, such as protection, vassal or tributary status.
In Christianity (Roman Catholicism, and in some cases continued when turned Protestant):
In Hinduism, certain dynasties adopted a title expressing their positions as 'servant' of a patron deity of the state, but in the sense of a (prime) minister under a figure head of state, ruling 'in the name of' the patron god(ess), e.g.:
The paradoxical term crowned republic (see there) refers to various state arrangements that combine 'republican' and 'monarchic' characteristics
Such arrangements are not to be confused with supranational entities which are not states and are not defined by a common monarchy but may (or not) have a symbolical, essentially protocollary, titled highest office, e.g. Head of the Commonwealth (held by the British crown, but not legally reserved for it) or 'Head of the Arab Union' (14 February - 14 July 1958, held by the Hashemite King of Iraq, during its shortlived Federation with Jordan, its Hashemite sister-realm).
In 1959, when former British crown colony Singapore gained self-government, it adopted the Malay style Yang di-Pertuan Negara (literally means "head of state" in Malay) for its governor (the actual head of state remained the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II). The second and last incumbent of the office, Yusof bin Ishak, kept the style at the 31 August 1963 unilateral declaration of independence and after the 16 September 1963 accession to Malaysia as a state (so now as a constitutive part of the federation, a non-sovereign level). After withdrawing from Malaysia at 9 August 1965, it became a sovereign Commonwealth republic and installed Yusof bin Ishak as its first President.
There are also a few nations in which the exact title and definition of the office of head of state have been vague. During the Cultural Revolution, following the downfall of Liu Shaoqi, who was Chairman of the People's Republic of China, no successor was named, so the duties of the head of state were transferred collectively to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. This situation was later changed: the Head of State of the PRC is now the President of the People's Republic of China.
In North Korea, Kim Il-sung was named "eternal president" following his death and the presidency was abolished. As a result, the duties of the head of state are constitutionally delegated to the Supreme People's Assembly whose chairman is "Head of State for foreign affairs" and performs some of the roles of a Head of State, such as accrediting foreign ambassadors. However, the symbolic role of a Head of State is generally performed by Kim Jong-il, who as the leader of the party and military, is the most powerful person in North Korea.
There is debate as to whether Samoa is/was an elective monarchy or an aristocratic republic, given the comparative ambiguity of the title O le Ao o le Malo and the nature of the head of state's office.
In some states the office of head of state is not expressed in a specific title reflecting that role, but constitutionally awarded to a post of another formal nature. Thus in March 1979 Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, who kept absolute power (still known as "Guide of the Revolution"), after ten years as combined Head of State and Head of government of the Libyan Jamahiriya ("state of the masses"), styled Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, formally transferred both qualities to the General secretaries of the General People's Congress (comparable to a Speaker) respectively to a Prime Minister, in political reality both his creatures.
Sometimes a head of state assumes office as a state becomes legal and political reality, before a formal title for the highest office is determined; thus in the since 1 January 1960 independent republic Cameroon (Cameroun, a former French colony), the first President, Ahmadou Babatoura Ahidjo (b. 1924 - d. 1989), was at first not styled président but 'merely' known as Chef d'état (literal French for 'Head of State') until 5 May 1960; in Uganda, military coup leader since 25 January 1971 Idi Amin was formally styled military head of State till 21 February 1971, only from then on regular (but unconstitutional, not elected) President.
Sometimes a state chooses to use a descriptive term instead of a specific style, possibly even by abolishing an existing one. Thus when the 18 September 1921 proclaimed Independence of the Rif, under an Emir (ambivalent word, either general or ruler; full Arabic style Amir ar-Rif 18 September 1921 - 1 February 1923) Sayyidi Muhammad bin `Abd al-Karim al-Khattabi; known as Abd el-Krim (b. 1882 - d. 1963) transformed itself on 1 February 1923 into the Rif Republic (Dawlat al-Jumhuriyya ar-Rifiyya, in Arabic means circa 'people's state of the Rif'), the same incumbent Head of State was now re-styled Ra'is ad-Dawla (a literal Arabic translation of "head of state") till it was dissolved, in 1926 by Franco-Spanish forces. When Iraq, which the British had cut out of the Ottoman empire by force, became a separate state, yet not truly independent but a League of Nations mandate, it first had a Chairman of the Council of State (11 November 1920 - 23 August 1921 Saiyid Abdul Rahman al-Haydari) until the establishment of the Hashemite kingdom, only later it was made fully independent; when it was declared a republic, it had a Chairman of Sovereignty Council (14 July 1958 - 8 February 1963 Muhammad Najib al-Rubai) before its first president.
In certain cases a special style is needed to accommodate the imperfect statehood, e.g. Sardar-i-Riyasat in Kashmir after its accession to India; the long de facto embodiment of Palestinian aspiration to independent statehood, PLO-leader Yasser Arafat was styled 5 July 1994 the first "President of the Palestinian National Authority" after an agreement with the military occupying power Israel allowed a Palestinian National Authority as a transitional status including Palestinian interim self-governing and a phased transfer of powers and territories (towns and areas of the West Bank), still awaiting the outcome of bumpy negotiations -he was repeatedly put under a form of Israeli arrest while in office - on its permanent status, which could end in a Palestinian State.
Individual heads of state may acquire their position in a number of constitutional ways:
A head of state may however seize power by force or revolution. This is not to be confused with the notion of an authoritarian or other totalitarian ruler, which rather concerns the oppressive nature of power once acquired, and therefore applies only if he is the true chief executive. Dictators often use democratic titles, though some proclaim themselves monarchs. Examples of the latter include Emperor Napoleon III of France and King Zog of Albania; in Spain, general Francisco Franco adopted the formal title Jefe del Estado, or Chief of State, and established himself as regent for a vacant monarchy. Idi Amin was one of several who made themselves President for Life and later adopted an additional loony monarchic title.
Another type of extra-constitutional imposition, often also changing the constitution, is by a foreign power (state or alliance), either benign or, more often, rather for its own interest, such as establishing a branch of their own or a friendly dynasty.
Apart from violent ousting, a head of state's position can also be lost in several ways:
All ways of ending a head of state's term may carry a risk for the next incumbent, usually by contesting the validity of the procedure, but sometimes even after death in the case of pretenders.
A monarch may retain his style and certain prerogatives after abdication, as King Leopold III of Belgium who left the throne to his son after winning (but not in both linguistic communities of the country) a referendum; he retained a full royal household but no constitutional or representative role at all. In the case of Napoleon I Bonaparte, the Italian principality of Elba, chosen for his luxurious imprisonment after the remains of his Grande Armée (following the disastrous Russian campaign) had finally been defeated in 1814, was transformed into a miniature version of his First Empire, with most trappings of a sovereign monarchy, until his Cent Jours ('100 days' escape and reseizure of power in France) convinced the allies, reconvening the Vienna Congress in 1815, to revoke those gratuitous privileges and send him to die in exile on barren St.Helena.
By tradition a deposed monarch who has not freely abdicated, though no longer head of state, is allowed to use their monarchical title as a courtesy title for their lifetime. Hence, though he ceased to be Greek king in 1973 (in a disputed referendum during the Regime of the Colonels), or in 1974 (in a referendum after the reestablishment of democracy), it is still standard to refer to the deposed king as Constantine II of Greece. However none of his descendants will be entitled to be called King of the Hellenes (not King of Greece) after his death. Some states dispute the international acceptance of the right of their deposed monarchs to be referred to by their former title. It remains however the generally accepted formula, with most states declining to get involved in disputes between governments and deposed monarchs and simply stating that they are doing no more than recognising tradition, not supporting claims to a defunct throne. Other states have no problem with deposed monarchs being so referred to by former title, and even allow them to travel internationally on the state's diplomatic passport.