Law

Forms of State and Government: Tables + 7 Exercises

Form of state is about power and citizens; form of government is about how power is split between institutions. Comparison tables and 7 solved exercises.

Recommended for: Grade 11 · Grade 12

Form of state and form of government are two different questions asked about the same country. The first asks who holds power and how they relate to the people; the second asks how that power is shared between the institutions. Mixing them up is the single most common exam mistake: “republic” and “monarchy” are forms of government, not forms of state.

Form of state: who holds sovereignty

The form of state describes the relationship between the state as an apparatus (the machinery that exercises power) and the state as a community (the people living on the territory). As that relationship changed through history, so did the forms of state.

Form of state	Sovereignty	Rights recognised	Example
Absolute state	In the monarch	None enforceable against the ruler; subjects, not citizens	France under Louis XIV
Liberal state	In the nation, with census suffrage	Civil and economic liberties; minimal state	Britain and Europe in the 19th century
Democratic state	In the people, with universal suffrage	Civil and political rights; rigid constitution	Most of Europe after 1945
Social state	In the people	Social rights too: education, health, pensions	Germany, Scandinavia
Totalitarian state	In the single party and its leader	Rights suppressed; information controlled	Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy
Socialist state	In the single party, in the name of the workers	Collective ownership of the means of production	USSR, China

The absolute state concentrates every power in one holder. The nineteenth-century liberal state introduces separation of powers and a constitution, but limits the vote to those with property or education: a democracy for a minority. The move to the democratic state happens through the widening of suffrage, a process that in most of Europe was completed only when women got the vote in the twentieth century.

The social state is not an alternative to the democratic one but its later stage: the state is now expected to act so that rights become effective in practice. A clear written example is the post-war Italian charter, whose opening articles are broken down in our summary of the Italian Constitution.

How power is spread across the territory

The second way of classifying forms of state asks how much power stays at the centre and how much goes to the periphery.

Model	Autonomy of territorial units	Constitution	Examples
Centralised unitary state	Administrative only	One, national	19th-century France
Decentralised unitary state	Broad administrative powers	One, national	France, United Kingdom
Regional state	Legislative, in listed matters	One, national	Italy, Spain
Federal state	Legislative, with their own constitutions	A federal one plus those of the member states	United States, Germany, Switzerland
Confederation	Members stay sovereign and may secede	A treaty between states	United States, 1781-1789

The difference between regional and federal is not the amount of autonomy but its source: in a federation autonomy comes from a pact between units that were already states, while in a regional state the national constitution grants it and can redraw it.

Form of government: how the institutions interact

Here the question changes: not who holds sovereignty, but how power circulates between head of state, government and parliament. One criterion decides almost everything: is there a relationship of confidence between parliament and the executive?

Form of government	Head of state	Head of government	Confidence of parliament	Example
Absolute monarchy	The monarch, who governs	The monarch	No	France before 1789
Constitutional monarchy	The monarch	Ministers chosen by the monarch	No, they answer to the monarch	Prussia, 19th century
Parliamentary monarchy	The monarch, who does not govern	Prime minister	Yes	United Kingdom, Spain, Japan
Parliamentary republic	President elected by parliament or a college	Prime minister or chancellor	Yes	Germany, Italy, India
Presidential republic	President elected by the voters	The same president	No	United States, Brazil
Semi-presidential republic	President elected by the voters	Prime minister	Yes, for the prime minister	France
Directorial republic	A seven-member college	The same college	No, it cannot be voted out	Switzerland

In a parliamentary republic the government exists only as long as it holds the confidence of the chamber. Germany adds the constructive vote of no confidence of Article 67 of the 1949 Basic Law: the Bundestag can remove the Chancellor only by electing a successor in the same vote.

In the presidential United States there is no confidence relationship at all. The President is elected for four years through 538 electors, may serve at most two terms under the Twenty-Second Amendment of 1951, and cabinet secretaries answer only to the President. The rigid separation of powers is balanced by checks: the presidential veto, the two-thirds override in Congress, and impeachment.

The semi-presidential French model combines the two designs: a directly elected President, since the referendum of 1962, and a Prime Minister answerable to the National Assembly. When the two majorities diverge you get cohabitation, which happened three times between 1986 and 2002.

The directorial Swiss republic is the outlier: the Federal Council has seven members elected by the Federal Assembly for four years, cannot be voted out, and its presidency rotates annually among them.

The most common mistakes

Calling “democratic” a form of government. Democratic describes the form of state; the form of government is parliamentary, presidential, semi-presidential and so on.
Treating monarchy and republic as forms of state. They describe how the head of state is chosen, so they belong to the form of government. Spain is a monarchy and a fully democratic state.
Confusing presidential with semi-presidential. If there is a prime minister answerable to parliament it is semi-presidential; if the president is also head of government it is presidential.
Confusing a federation with a confederation. In a confederation the members keep sovereignty and may leave; in a federal state sovereignty is single. Switzerland is called a Confederation for historical reasons but is a federal state.
Assuming an uncodified constitution means no constitution. The United Kingdom has one, spread across statutes, case law and conventions.
Applying cohabitation to the United States. The American equivalent is divided government, and the President still runs the executive.

For the historical roots of these models it helps to revisit how Athenian democracy worked, the first experiment in popular sovereignty, and the power of the pharaoh in Ancient Egypt, the textbook case of theocratic absolute rule.

The exercises below start from identifying a form of state out of a description, move on to classifying six countries and telling the two concepts apart, and end with the German constructive vote of no confidence and the internal consistency of a reform proposal.

Solved exercises

1. Name the form of state described in each case. a) Sovereignty belongs to the monarch, who holds legislative, executive and judicial power at once; the people are subjects, not citizens. b) There is a constitution and the powers are separated, but only men who own property or pay a certain amount of tax may vote. c) Suffrage is universal, the constitution is rigid, and the state is required to remove the economic obstacles that limit real equality. d) The means of production are collectively owned and a single party directs both the state and the economy. base

Show solution

a) All powers concentrated in one person and no rights that can be claimed against the ruler: this is the absolute state, typical of Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries.
b) Separation of powers and civil liberties exist, but political participation is limited to property owners: this is the 19th-century liberal state with census suffrage.
c) Universal suffrage plus a duty to remove material obstacles: this is the democratic and social state of the 20th century, the model of most post-war European constitutions.
d) Collective ownership plus a single ruling party: this is the socialist state.

Answer: a) absolute state; b) liberal state; c) democratic and social state; d) socialist state

2. For each country, give the territorial form of state (unitary, regional or federal) and the form of government: a) United States; b) United Kingdom; c) France; d) Germany; e) Switzerland; f) India. base

Show solution

a) United States: the fifty states have their own constitutions, legislatures and courts and take part in amending the federal constitution, so it is a federal state. The President is head of state and head of the executive and does not need the confidence of Congress: a presidential republic.
b) United Kingdom: Westminster keeps legislative supremacy and devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was granted by ordinary statute, so it is a decentralised unitary state. The monarch is a hereditary head of state who does not govern, while the Cabinet answers to the House of Commons: a parliamentary monarchy.
c) France: regions are administrative bodies without legislative power, so it is a decentralised unitary state. The President is directly elected but the Prime Minister answers to the National Assembly: a semi-presidential republic.
d) Germany: the Länder have their own constitutions and are represented in the Bundesrat, so it is a federal state. The Chancellor is elected by and depends on the Bundestag: a parliamentary republic.
e) Switzerland: the cantons have their own constitutions and constitutional revision requires a mandatory referendum, so it is a federal state. The executive is a seven-member college elected by the Federal Assembly and cannot be voted out: a directorial republic.
f) India: the states have their own legislatures and a constitutionally listed set of powers, so it is a federal state, though a strongly centralised one. The Prime Minister leads a government that answers to the Lok Sabha, while the President is elected by an electoral college of legislators: a parliamentary republic.

Answer: a) federal, presidential republic; b) decentralised unitary, parliamentary monarchy; c) decentralised unitary, semi-presidential republic; d) federal, parliamentary republic; e) federal, directorial republic; f) federal, parliamentary republic

3. Decide whether each statement concerns the form of state or the form of government, and justify it in one line. a) The right to vote is extended to every adult citizen. b) The head of state is directly elected by the people. c) The constitution guarantees a right to education and to health care. d) The government must resign if parliament passes a motion of no confidence. e) Sub-national units are given legislative power in listed matters. f) The head of state may veto a bill passed by the legislature. intermedio

Show solution

The test: form of state describes the relationship between power and the community (who holds sovereignty, which rights are recognised, how power is spread across the territory); form of government describes the relationship between the constitutional organs inside that state.
a) Extending suffrage changes who holds sovereignty: form of state.
b) It is a rule about how one organ is selected: form of government.
c) Social rights granted to citizens: form of state, specifically the social or welfare state.
d) The confidence relationship between legislature and executive: form of government.
e) Territorial distribution of power: form of state.
f) It regulates how executive and legislature interact: form of government.
Check: a, c and e all mention citizens, rights or territory; b, d and f mention only institutions. The test holds.

Answer: Form of state: a, c, e. Form of government: b, d, f.

4. A newly appointed prime minister asks the legislature for confidence and loses the vote by a narrow margin. Explain what happens next in a) a parliamentary system, b) a presidential system, and c) a semi-presidential system, and say in which of the three the question could not even be asked. intermedio

Show solution

a) Parliamentary system: confidence is the foundation of the government's existence. Losing the vote means the government cannot take office or must resign, and the head of state either looks for another majority or dissolves the chamber and calls an election.
b) Presidential system: the question cannot be asked at all. The president is elected directly for a fixed term and there is no confidence vote; the legislature can block laws and budgets, and in extreme cases start impeachment for misconduct, but it cannot dismiss the executive for political disagreement.
c) Semi-presidential system: the prime minister and the cabinet do depend on the assembly, so the same fall happens as in a parliamentary system, but the president stays in office because the popular mandate is separate. This is what makes cohabitation possible, with a president from one camp and a prime minister from the other.
So the answer to the last part is the presidential system: without a confidence relationship, a confidence vote is not part of the constitutional toolkit.

Answer: a) The government falls and the head of state seeks a new majority or dissolves parliament. b) It cannot happen: there is no confidence vote, only impeachment for misconduct. c) The prime minister falls but the president remains, which is why cohabitation can occur. The question could not be asked in a presidential system.

5. Article 67 of the German Basic Law of 1949 allows the Bundestag to remove the Chancellor only by electing a successor by an absolute majority in the same vote. Explain: 1) the name of this device; 2) the historical problem it was designed to solve; 3) why it makes government more stable without changing the parliamentary form of government; 4) how often it has actually worked. avanzato

Show solution

1) It is called the constructive vote of no confidence: constructive because the vote that brings a government down must build the next one at the same time.
2) The precedent was the Weimar Republic, where purely negative majorities of the far right and the far left could bring cabinets down without being able to form one, feeding the instability that preceded 1933.
3) The form of government stays parliamentary, because the Chancellor still depends on the confidence of the Bundestag. Only the procedure changes: the power to remove the government remains in parliament, but it can be used only by those who have the numbers to govern, not merely the numbers to say no.
4) It has been attempted twice and succeeded once: in 1972 Rainer Barzel fell two votes short against Willy Brandt, and in 1982 Helmut Kohl replaced Helmut Schmidt through a successful constructive vote.

Answer: 1) The constructive vote of no confidence. 2) It was meant to prevent the purely negative majorities that destabilised the Weimar Republic. 3) Because the Chancellor still depends on the Bundestag's confidence: the procedure changes, the confidence relationship does not. 4) Attempted twice, successful once: it failed in 1972 against Brandt and succeeded in 1982 with Kohl replacing Schmidt.

6. In a country the president is directly elected for five years and appoints the prime minister; at the next parliamentary election the opposing camp wins a majority, and the president has to appoint a prime minister from that camp. Name the form of government, name the situation described, and explain why it could not occur in the United States. intermedio

Show solution

Direct election of the head of state plus a separate prime minister who depends on the parliamentary majority means two heads in the executive and two popular mandates: this is a semi-presidential republic, the model of the French Fifth Republic founded in 1958, with direct presidential election introduced by the 1962 referendum.
The situation in which president and prime minister come from opposing camps is called cohabitation. France has been through it three times: Mitterrand with Chirac in 1986-1988, Mitterrand with Balladur in 1993-1995 and Chirac with Jospin in 1997-2002.
It cannot happen in the United States because there is no prime minister there. The President is at once head of state and head of the executive, cabinet secretaries answer only to the President, and Congress cannot remove the executive by a political vote.
Do not confuse this with divided government, the American case in which Congress is controlled by the opposing party. There the President still leads the executive; only the difficulty of passing legislation changes.
Since the 2000 reform that cut the French presidential term to five years, matching the Assembly's, the two elections fall weeks apart and cohabitation has become far less likely.

Answer: It is a semi-presidential republic and the situation is called cohabitation. It cannot happen in the United States because there is no prime minister: the President is also head of government and does not depend on the confidence of Congress.

7. A reform proposal states: the head of state will be directly elected; the head of state may appoint and dismiss ministers at will; the government will still need the confidence of parliament; the head of state may dissolve parliament. Answer: 1) which form of government the country is moving towards; 2) which clause contradicts the others; 3) whether the reform would also change the form of state. avanzato

Show solution

1) Direct election of the head of state, power of dissolution and a surviving confidence relationship are the ingredients of semi-presidentialism on the French model, so the country moves from a parliamentary to a semi-presidential republic.
2) The contradiction is between free dismissal of ministers by the president and the confidence relationship with parliament. If ministers can be removed at will by the president, parliament's power of no confidence becomes empty; if they answer to parliament, the president cannot dismiss them freely. In the French Fifth Republic the President appoints the Prime Minister but does not formally dismiss him, and ministers are appointed on the Prime Minister's proposal.
3) On its own, no. Every clause concerns relations between constitutional organs, which is the form of government. The form of state would change only if the reform touched who holds sovereignty, the catalogue of rights, or the territorial division of power.

Answer: 1) Towards a semi-presidential republic. 2) Free dismissal of ministers by the head of state is incompatible with a parliamentary confidence relationship: ministers cannot answer to two masters. 3) No, unless the reform also touched sovereignty, rights or territorial autonomy.

FAQ

What is the difference between form of state and form of government?

Form of state is about the relationship between power and the community: who holds sovereignty, which rights citizens have, and how power is spread across the territory (unitary, regional, federal). Form of government is about how the constitutional organs of that same state relate to each other: who the head of state is, how the government is formed, and whether it needs the confidence of parliament. A quick test: if the question mentions citizens, rights or regions, it is form of state; if it mentions only president, cabinet and parliament, it is form of government.

What is the difference between a parliamentary and a presidential republic?

In a parliamentary republic the government is born out of parliament and survives only as long as it keeps its confidence; the head of state is usually elected by parliament or by an electoral college and acts as a neutral guarantor rather than a policy-maker. Germany, Italy and India work this way. In a presidential republic the president is elected by the voters for a fixed term, is both head of state and head of the executive, and cannot be removed by a political vote: only impeachment for misconduct is available. The United States is the standard example.

Can a monarchy be democratic?

Yes, if it is a parliamentary monarchy. In the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark the monarch is a hereditary head of state who does not govern: the government comes out of an elected parliament and answers to it, and royal acts are countersigned by ministers who take political responsibility for them. What makes a state democratic is universal suffrage and guaranteed rights, not the way the head of state is chosen. An absolute monarchy, where the ruler keeps real and unlimited power, is a different matter.

What is the difference between a federal and a unitary state?

In a federal state the constituent units have their own constitutions, take part in amending the federal constitution and are represented in a dedicated chamber, such as the United States Senate or the German Bundesrat: their autonomy comes from the federal pact itself. In a unitary state there is one constitution, and any regional autonomy is granted by the centre and can be redrawn by it. Regional states such as Italy and Spain sit between the two: their regions have real legislative power listed in the national constitution, but no constitution of their own.

Is the United Kingdom a state without a constitution?

No. The United Kingdom has a constitution, but an uncodified one: instead of a single document it rests on statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, on court decisions and on political conventions. The practical consequence is flexibility: since no statute is formally superior, Parliament can change constitutional rules by an ordinary majority. Countries with a rigid codified constitution instead require a special procedure and usually a constitutional court to enforce it.