In keeping with the British theme, today’s post illuminates the difference between a head of state and a head of government using Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series. I’m speaking, of course, of creator of the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, 7-time ‘Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe’ and Galactic President Zaphod Beeblebrox! Seriously. Stick with me and this will make sense.
First, what is the difference between a head of state and a head of government? For those interested in more details, this chapter (http://www.reocities.com/noelcoxfiles/Cox_Miller2006.pdf) from a book on the New Zealand political system[i] has a pretty good, quick description. For the purposes of this post, the difference can be most easily be delineated this way. The head of state is an often-ceremonial position that primary engages in public relations and occasionally diplomacy with other countries. Conversely, the head of government is typically a position of domestic political authority. Most of the time, the person that holds the position – Prime Minister, President, etc. – controls executive power and often legislative power as well.
Not clear? Let’s look at some real-world examples before we dig into the science-fiction version. In the British system, the Monarch would be thought of as the head of state and the Prime Minister as the head of government. The Prime Minister holds the true power because they control the bureaucracy, the budget, and, in Great Britain, is the legislative party leader as well. The Monarch, on the other hand, primarily serves a legitimizing and symbolic function.
Consider the recent film The King’s Speech. The primary conflict in the movie was King George VI’s inability to perform these inspirational and ceremonial duties because of a crippling speech impediment. The penultimate scene was Colin Firth giving a radio address, not passing substantial legislation or commanding the army. That was Winston Churchill’s job.[ii] Nothing better than putting the government in the hands of a man who proved sobriety was not a prerequisite for leadership.
The United States provides another real-world example. Here, instead of the positions being separated, the head of state and the head of government are the same person, the President. The President controls the bureaucracy and also serves as the nation’s public face and head diplomat.[iii] In fact, despite current belief in the Imperial Presidency or almost unlimited Presidential power,[iv] the U.S. Constitution was largely designed to reduce the President, as much as possible, to a head of state whose true power lay in foreign relations but substantially reduced power in the domestic sphere.
Unlike Parliament where the Prime Minister is the head of the majority party, the President has no legislative position. He cannot introduce legislation on his/her own, vote for bills, etc. The President’s legislative power is mostly diffuse and reliant largely on party leaders within the legislature. These legislative party leaders have their own agenda and bases of support that are unconnected to the President. Hell, the President isn’t even guaranteed to have a legislative majority from his own party. However, the President’s control of certain legislative triggers like the veto and his/her position as head of the Executive branch would define them as a head of government as well as head of state, although one with less direct power than a Prime Minister.
So, what does this have to do with Zaphod Bebblebrox? President Bebblebrox was almost the Platonic ideal of a head of state. Douglas Adams describes his position, quite amusingly but relatively accurately, as a “role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge.” Zaphod’s purpose is to commemorate the inaugural flights of ships with Infinite Improbability Drives and gallivant around the galaxy getting interviewed by Playbeing. He had no ‘official’ power other than publicity and a willingness to commit grand-theft starship.
To avoid spoilers, I’ll merely mention that the later books in the increasingly inaccurately named “Hickhicker’s Trilogy” explore who’s really in control of the galaxy, but I’ll leave you with this. Consider the Vogon Constructor Fleet. If Beeblebrox were a head of government rather than of state, he would have had the ability to command the Vogons, make them stop or continue. Do you really think that if, just as a hypothetical, Beeblebrox had shown up and commanded the Vogons not to destroy earth,[v] they would have? At least without commands signed in triplicate?
[i] Their Head of State is the Governor-General, appointed by the British Monarch. Gotta love the Commonwealth.
[ii] Played wonderfully by Timothy Spall - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001758/?ref_=tt_trv_trv.
[iii] Or at least the head diplomat’s – the Secretary of State – boss.
[iv] The Monkey Cage, an excellent blog on political science research, recently had several good posts on the misunderstanding of Presidential Power. See http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/03/why-the-permission-structure-makes-obama-smart-and-too-many-pundits-dumb/.
[v] To quote another British comedy troupe: don’t worry, it got better.
First, what is the difference between a head of state and a head of government? For those interested in more details, this chapter (http://www.reocities.com/noelcoxfiles/Cox_Miller2006.pdf) from a book on the New Zealand political system[i] has a pretty good, quick description. For the purposes of this post, the difference can be most easily be delineated this way. The head of state is an often-ceremonial position that primary engages in public relations and occasionally diplomacy with other countries. Conversely, the head of government is typically a position of domestic political authority. Most of the time, the person that holds the position – Prime Minister, President, etc. – controls executive power and often legislative power as well.
Not clear? Let’s look at some real-world examples before we dig into the science-fiction version. In the British system, the Monarch would be thought of as the head of state and the Prime Minister as the head of government. The Prime Minister holds the true power because they control the bureaucracy, the budget, and, in Great Britain, is the legislative party leader as well. The Monarch, on the other hand, primarily serves a legitimizing and symbolic function.
Consider the recent film The King’s Speech. The primary conflict in the movie was King George VI’s inability to perform these inspirational and ceremonial duties because of a crippling speech impediment. The penultimate scene was Colin Firth giving a radio address, not passing substantial legislation or commanding the army. That was Winston Churchill’s job.[ii] Nothing better than putting the government in the hands of a man who proved sobriety was not a prerequisite for leadership.
The United States provides another real-world example. Here, instead of the positions being separated, the head of state and the head of government are the same person, the President. The President controls the bureaucracy and also serves as the nation’s public face and head diplomat.[iii] In fact, despite current belief in the Imperial Presidency or almost unlimited Presidential power,[iv] the U.S. Constitution was largely designed to reduce the President, as much as possible, to a head of state whose true power lay in foreign relations but substantially reduced power in the domestic sphere.
Unlike Parliament where the Prime Minister is the head of the majority party, the President has no legislative position. He cannot introduce legislation on his/her own, vote for bills, etc. The President’s legislative power is mostly diffuse and reliant largely on party leaders within the legislature. These legislative party leaders have their own agenda and bases of support that are unconnected to the President. Hell, the President isn’t even guaranteed to have a legislative majority from his own party. However, the President’s control of certain legislative triggers like the veto and his/her position as head of the Executive branch would define them as a head of government as well as head of state, although one with less direct power than a Prime Minister.
So, what does this have to do with Zaphod Bebblebrox? President Bebblebrox was almost the Platonic ideal of a head of state. Douglas Adams describes his position, quite amusingly but relatively accurately, as a “role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge.” Zaphod’s purpose is to commemorate the inaugural flights of ships with Infinite Improbability Drives and gallivant around the galaxy getting interviewed by Playbeing. He had no ‘official’ power other than publicity and a willingness to commit grand-theft starship.
To avoid spoilers, I’ll merely mention that the later books in the increasingly inaccurately named “Hickhicker’s Trilogy” explore who’s really in control of the galaxy, but I’ll leave you with this. Consider the Vogon Constructor Fleet. If Beeblebrox were a head of government rather than of state, he would have had the ability to command the Vogons, make them stop or continue. Do you really think that if, just as a hypothetical, Beeblebrox had shown up and commanded the Vogons not to destroy earth,[v] they would have? At least without commands signed in triplicate?
[i] Their Head of State is the Governor-General, appointed by the British Monarch. Gotta love the Commonwealth.
[ii] Played wonderfully by Timothy Spall - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001758/?ref_=tt_trv_trv.
[iii] Or at least the head diplomat’s – the Secretary of State – boss.
[iv] The Monkey Cage, an excellent blog on political science research, recently had several good posts on the misunderstanding of Presidential Power. See http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/03/why-the-permission-structure-makes-obama-smart-and-too-many-pundits-dumb/.
[v] To quote another British comedy troupe: don’t worry, it got better.