Countries without a head of state

[politicus]

The republican movement in Denmark claim that they do not want a President to lead a Danish republic, but that after abolishing the monarchy our Prime Minister could just represent us on the few occasions where a symbolic figurehead is required.

This is politically expedient, since "why replace the Queen with some dull retired politician that half the population dislikes" is a favoured argument among monarchists (all though a bit sloppy as having a well respected artist or scientist as President works fine in countries where the post is symbolic).

But it made me wonder, does any country actually have a constitution in which no one has the function of head of state? (that is no individual, duo (as in Andorra), junta or council acts as HoS). I cant remember any current or historical cases. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You could make a semi-convincing argument that Japan is technically an example of this, since its Constitution goes out of its way to define the Emperor as 'symbol of the state' rather than 'head of state', but in practice the difference is nonexistent.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Africa, Botswana, and Nauru all have systems in which the parliament selects a head of government on its own who then also functions as head of state.  However, in all three cases they call the office President. In the case of Nauru, the President can and has lost office by losing a vote of confidence.  I don't know if that is possible in South Africa or Botswana.

[Person Man]

Are we talking about a system where there is no primary vesting of ultimate executive power?

[Blue3]

Are we talking about a system where there is no primary vesting of ultimate executive power?

I think he means no ceremonial "head of state" to do all the nonpolitical stuff, like pardon turkeys and comfort disaster victims.

[politicus]

Yes, the executive power would be in the hands of the Minister of State (Prime Minister), but he or she wouldn't be HoS and would also not have the title President.

[Del Tachi]

Are we talking about a system where there is no primary vesting of ultimate executive power?

I think he means no ceremonial "head of state" to do all the nonpolitical stuff, like pardon turkeys and comfort disaster victims.

Except that these things do have somepolitical value. 

HoS seems to be a position that exists essentially rather than because it is written into some constitution.  Simply having a government necessitates having a Head of State.

[Mr. Morden]

Are we talking about a system where there is no primary vesting of ultimate executive power?

I think he means no ceremonial "head of state" to do all the nonpolitical stuff, like pardon turkeys and comfort disaster victims.

Except that these things do have somepolitical value. 

HoS seems to be a position that exists essentially rather than because it is written into some constitution.  Simply having a government necessitates having a Head of State.

What about a system in which there is no singular chief executive, but in which executive power is shared among a number of individuals?  In principle, they could share any HoS duties.

[politicus]

Are we talking about a system where there is no primary vesting of ultimate executive power?

I think he means no ceremonial "head of state" to do all the nonpolitical stuff, like pardon turkeys and comfort disaster victims.

Except that these things do have somepolitical value.  

HoS seems to be a position that exists essentially rather than because it is written into some constitution.  Simply having a government necessitates having a Head of State.

What about a system in which there is no singular chief executive, but in which executive power is shared among a number of individuals?  In principle, they could share any HoS duties.

A collective HoS is not that uncommon (a junta, revolutionary council, council of state etc.) - all though they often have a chairman. But that is not what I am asking about here.
You can also divide the functions between the Speaker and a Prime Minister, Supreme Court President etc.

To Del Tachi: So you are saying that the head of government becomes HoS by default if there is no formal HoS? I suppose thats close to what the Danish republicans argue. I just find this line of reasoning peculiar.

An additional question: HoS is essentially the role of the monarch nowadays normally tranferred to a President. Is the role of HoS an anacronism that just survives because we are used to every country having one?

[Јas]

In this place?

[Del Tachi]

I'm guess what I'm saying is that its impossible to imagine a modern state without some person serving in a ceremonial, Head of State role.  In some nations, that power is vested in monarchs or governors-general while in others its largely filled by elected officials.

For example, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly establish the president as the Head of State.  However, the President serves this function (HoS) because the responsibility of hosting foreign dignitaries, visiting troops in wartime and cutting ribbons has to be devolved upon somebody.  It is not that difficult to imagine, under a different set of circumstances involving the personalities of the inaugural office holders, that these responsibilities could have wound up in the hands of the Speaker of the House, Senate PPT, or even the Vice President.   

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The closest thing is probably Switzerland, where a federal council collectively handles these responsibilities. Does that equal just a collective head of state though? Another case could be made for San Marino which has two individuals in this capability who serve only six month terms. But are we saying simply no single leader or no recognized ceremonial leader at all?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For example, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly establish the president as the Head of State.  However, the President serves this function (HoS) because the responsibility of hosting foreign dignitaries, visiting troops in wartime and cutting ribbons has to be devolved upon somebody.  It is not that difficult to imagine, under a different set of circumstances involving the personalities of the inaugural office holders, that these responsibilities could have wound up in the hands of the Speaker of the House, Senate PPT, or even the Vice President.   

AFAIK, German Basic Law doesn't explicitly establish the Federal President as "head of state", but he serves this function too.

[BaconBacon96]

Not possible. Every nation has a head of state in some form.

[politicus]

Not possible. Every nation has a head of state in some form.

Yeah, that's my impression too - depending on definition.
But what functions would a country need a HoS for? Whats the bare minimum of functions that has to be performed by a HoS?

The question raised in the Danish debate is if you could simply let the Prime Minister do the few ceremonial things a HoS does (that's the position of republicans) and avoid electing a formal HoS.

To BRTD: Read my OP for clarification about the topic.

[⛄]

Switzerland

[politicus]

Switzerland

Since people seems not to read the OP before they comment, I will repost the central part.

"But it made me wonder, does any country actually have a constitution in which no one has the function of head of state? (that is no individual, duo (as in Andorra), junta or council acts as HoS). I cant remember any current or historical cases."

Switzerland would fall under the council model, San Marino the duo.

[ingemann]

Historical the Republic of Corsica had the Virgin Mary as Queen/head of state, which are somewhat comparable to not having one. North Korea in theory doesn't have a head of state either, as Kim Il-sung was declared eternal president after his death.

[politicus]

Given that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations operates under the presumption that the head of a diplomatic mission of the sending state is accredited to the head of state of the receiving state at least this role must belong to someone. Still, I suppose a Prime Minister elected by parliament could have this role.

[Stranger in a strange land]

In Iran hidden Imam is head of state and great leader is only vicar.

In North Korea, Kim Il Sung is the Eternal President of the Republic.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In many historical states with a collective head of state, the Chairman or President of such body was usually performing ceremonial and representative duties usually reserved for heads of state (Chairman of the Polish Council of State or Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet are such examples).

Switzerland is interesting. The Federal Council is theoretically a collective "head of state", but President of the Swiss Confederation doesn't perform any such tasks, except of delivering a New Year and  Swiss National Holiday addresses.

Switzerland also carries out no state visits. When traveling abroad, the President does so only in his capacity as head of his or her department, while visiting heads of state are received by the seven members of the Federal Council together.

In this regard, you can say Switzerland has no "head of state" or "a person representing the collective head of state".

Historical the Republic of Corsica had the Virgin Mary as Queen/head of state, which are somewhat comparable to not having one. North Korea in theory doesn't have a head of state either, as Kim Il-sung was declared eternal president after his death.

After Kim Il Sung's death, Presidents of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly assumed many responsibilities of a ceremonial head of state, particularly in foreign affairs. But indeed, Kim is still considered "President", even after his death. After Kim Jong Il has died, some countries even sent condolences to his already long dead father due to his capacity as "Eternal President".