First, the basic characteristics of the American political system model
The political system of the United States is a presidential country. In its early power structure, there was no political party factor, but in the later political competition, political parties continued to play an increasingly important role in it. Its main features are:
1. Presidential candidates are recommended by political parties, and the President is directly and indirectly elected by all voters in the country. Being elected president is not necessarily the person who gets more absolute votes, but the person who gets more electoral votes. Any presidential candidate who gets 270 electoral votes will be elected president of the United States. The party that elects the president is the "ruling party", which takes office to form a cabinet and exercise administrative power. The president is also the chief executive, who directly controls the administrative organs and is also the commander-in-chief of the three armed forces.
2. The political party system in the United States is quite loose, and the significance of the existence of political parties is more as a tool for various elections. After the election, the role of political parties as an organizational system is quite weak, so they are typical "election parties". The United States is a typical two-party system, but it is different from the two-party system in western European countries. Not by ideology, but by regions and interest groups. In essence, these two political parties represent the interests of different bourgeoisie. In the American power system, most of the power of governments at all levels, from federal to local, is in the hands of two parties, and the third party has never posed a real threat to the Democratic Party.
3. Members of the United States Congress, that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are generally elected by political parties and directly elected by referendum, and have legislative power. Except for a few elected members who are members of the third party and independents, most of them are won by the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party to form their own party groups. The speaker of the House of Representatives is a senior member of the majority party, the speaker of the Senate is a vice president, and there is an interim speaker. Unlike western European countries, even if you get a majority of seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, you are not necessarily the ruling party. Only the president's party is the ruling party. There will be mid-term elections in the middle of the presidency, mainly some senators and all members of the House of Representatives.
4. Although the president of the United States is nominally the leader of his party, he appears more as the "president of the whole people" after his election, and the party background and traces have faded. No American president has led a political party in an all-round way, and it is difficult for him to control public officials in Congress, states and localities through party organizations. The president of the United States is not elected by Congress, and he is not responsible to Congress.
5. The advantages of this political system model are: the president of the United States has more power, is less restricted by political parties, and is more independent, which is conducive to making political decisions quickly and improving the ruling efficiency. Its weakness is that the three major power systems in the United States have obvious mutual constraints and constraints, resulting in some institutional consumption. The president has no right to dissolve Congress, but he can veto bills passed by Congress, and Congress can impeach the president. The President can appoint the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can decide whether the laws and decisions of Congress and the President are unconstitutional.
Second, Britain, Germany and other basic characteristics of the political system model
The pattern of party politics and political power in these countries is very common in the West, including Britain, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Japan and most developed countries in Western Europe. They basically belong to the responsibility cabinet system and are typical parliamentary democracy. Its basic characteristics are:
1. The main way for political parties to gain power is to win parliamentary elections, that is, to obtain a majority of seats in the lower house, that is, the House of Representatives. Most candidates for parliamentary seats are recommended by political parties or have political party backgrounds. Multi-party elections are an important aspect of their so-called democratic system. Generally, a threshold vote of 3-5% is set, and the electoral system of majority representation is implemented, which is more conducive to the big party to obtain a majority of seats. Generally, the leader of a political party with a relatively large majority in the lower house forms a cabinet, and the leader of the party serves as the head of government. However, there is also a phenomenon that minority parties have cabinets in the parliament, which is more likely when many parties have entered the parliament and no party has obtained a relative majority in the parliament.
2. The power system of the country is centered on the Cabinet, which has the highest executive power of the country. The Cabinet is accountable to and subject to Parliament. The cabinet not only has the executive power, but also has the right to propose legislation, and the parliamentary majority controlled by the ruling party guarantees the passage of legislation. The prime minister or prime minister has great power. He can not only choose cabinet members, but also decide the country's major policies. He can even dissolve parliament and announce an early election.
3. The president or king is more of an honorary position and has no real power. In this regime, the king is hereditary, and the president is mostly indirectly elected, such as by members of Congress. As the head of state, the president or king is more symbolic and ceremonial, but only intervenes in the power mediation between political parties under special circumstances, usually detached and does not bear specific responsibilities.
Most political parties have a relatively strict organizational system, but the right wing is looser than the left. Political parties, whether as mass political parties or elite political parties, mostly have a top-down organizational system, and even a set of party peripheral organizations, such as trade unions, youth and women's organizations, play an auxiliary role in the party's governance and even form some constraints on the government.
5. The advantage of this regime model is that it is relatively democratic and fair, both in system formation and actual operation, which is more conducive to scientific and comprehensive decision-making. But the disadvantage is that the system or system is easy to model, which leads to bureaucracy and affects the efficiency of governance.
Third, the basic characteristics of the French political system model
Different from the United States, Britain and other western countries, France's political system model is a "semi-presidential system" model, which has the characteristics of both presidential system and parliamentary system. Its main features are as follows:
1. Presidential candidates are recommended by political parties or coalitions of political parties and elected by universal direct election. Their term of office has been reduced from seven years to five years, in line with the terms of office of the parliament and the government. As the head of state, the president is not as powerful as the president of the United States, but far more powerful than the president or king of the cabinet system. He is in charge of the country's foreign affairs and national defense, decides all major policies including economic and social affairs, actually grasps the highest administrative power of the country (but he is not the chief executive, nor is he specifically responsible for economic and social affairs), presides over cabinet meetings, enjoys the right to appoint government officials, has the right to dissolve parliament, announce early elections, and can exercise special powers stipulated in Article 16 of the Constitution.
2. The government consists of political parties that have won a majority of seats in the House of Commons (the National Assembly). The Prime Minister is also the leader of a political party and is appointed by the President. The main responsibility of the government is to manage the economy and internal affairs, and it is also responsible to the president and parliament, which can question and impeach the government.
3. In France, the president and parliament generally adopt the two-round voting system (if the president wins more than 50% of the votes in the first round, there is no need to hold a second vote), and both the president and members of parliament are candidates who win a relative majority in the second round. If the president is not the same party as the party that won the majority of seats in parliament, there will be a political phenomenon of "ruling from left to right", but the party that is in power in the government is generally regarded as the ruling party. In the past 20 years, this phenomenon of "left and right * * * rule" has appeared several times in France.
The advantage of this political model is that the power is relatively dispersed, and it is not easy to lead to dictatorship and autocracy. The president has certain real power, which is conducive to political stability. Its disadvantage is that the decentralization of administrative power weakens the authority of the government, which is not conducive to national management. Moreover, the phenomenon of "ruling from left to right" leads to the struggle for power and profit among political parties, which damages the image of political parties and is not conducive to the smooth solution of social problems.
:?
(1) exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in common law system
The United States is the first country to establish the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, and it is also a representative country to implement the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. As early as 19 14, the Supreme Court of the United States put forward the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in the judgment of Vickers v. the United States according to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution stipulates: "The people's right to protect their person, house, documents and property from any unreasonable search and seizure is inviolable; No search warrant shall be issued unless there is a justifiable reason, supported by one or more oaths, and the place to be searched and the person or thing to be detained are clearly stated. " According to this regulation, people think that when the government forcibly disposes of citizens' basic rights such as personal and property, it must go through proper and legal procedures and must not infringe on citizens' rights and interests, otherwise it will be regarded as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, in case law, all illegally collected evidence should be excluded in principle. However, the vast majority of cases in the United States do not exclude evidence obtained illegally by private individuals, because they believe that the Fourth Amendment aims to limit the illegal behavior of the government. Due to the high crime rate in the United States, in order to calm people's dissatisfaction, the Supreme Court of the United States has also carried out some reforms in recent years and set some exceptions to the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. Although some exceptions have been set for the exclusion rule of "fruit of the poison tree", from the implementation of these exceptions, they have certain restrictions on the application of the entire exclusion rule of illegal evidence. For example, the Supreme Court established the "bona fide exception" in 1984. The relevant judgment pointed out: "Evidence obtained by the police with a search warrant signed in good faith by a fair and independent local court and finally found invalid may be allowed to be used in court." ? (9)? The court held that the illegal exclusion rule is used to restrain the illegal behavior of the police, not to punish the mistakes of the judges. In the case of Korur, this principle of exception based on good faith was extended: the evidence obtained by the police according to the law that was later found to be unconstitutional is still valid. The setting of these exception rules undoubtedly limits the scope of application of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence to a certain extent. ?
The treatment of illegal evidence in Britain is obviously different from that in the United States. The general principle is that evidence obtained through illegal search or similar acts is acceptable. Whether to exclude illegally obtained evidence is up to the judge. In an early case in England, that is, the Lissam case of 186 1, the judge once pointed out: "The crux of the problem is not how you get it: even if you steal it, it will be used as evidence." ? ( 10)? In the Sang case of 1979, the British House of Lords pointed out that the court had no right to exclude the evidence produced by the prosecution that a detective caused the crime, because such evidence was actually equally valid. ? ( 1 1)? The Privy Council of the United Kingdom pointed out more clearly that the relevant rules on the admissibility of oral evidence are not applicable to the evidence obtained by illegal search or similar acts. ? 1984 article 78 of the British police and criminal procedure law clearly affirms that judges have the discretion to exclude obviously unfair illegal evidence. However, from the new precedent, illegal search and seizure of evidence, as long as it is related to the facts to be proved, is not ruled out in principle. Regarding the treatment of "the fruit of the poisonous tree", Britain has adopted the principle of "excluding the poisonous tree" but "eating the fruit of the poisonous tree", that is, any evidence and facts found from the confession of the excluded defendant can be used as the basis for deciding the case as long as they are relevant and have other conditions. ?
(2) Exclusion rules of civil law system.
Germany and France are representatives of civil law system, and the main goal of criminal procedure is to realize substantive justice. The provisions on the probative force of relevant evidence are far less perfect and strict than those in common law countries, especially the United States. Whether the evidence is admissible or not mainly depends on the judge's discretion. In Germany, whether to exclude illegal evidence is not clearly stipulated by law. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates the prohibition of obtaining evidence and the prohibition of using evidence, but they are independent of each other, that is, some evidence that violates the prohibition of obtaining evidence can be adopted as evidence, while some evidence that does not violate the prohibition of obtaining evidence is excluded from the evidence as the basis of judgment. Although there are no specific and clear standards in practice, the following factors should be considered, such as the severity of the charges charged by the defendant; The degree of violation of the law when collecting evidence; The role of illegal evidence in "accurate" handling cases and so on. At present, there are precedents in Germany to determine that the recordings obtained by eavesdropping and illegally obtained diaries are not used as the basis for conviction. Generally speaking, Germany does not exclude evidence from illegally obtained information, that is, "the fruit of the poisonous tree". When explaining that they refused to accept the theory of "the fruit of the poisonous tree", the German Federal Supreme Court thought that excluding these evidences would cause too much loss in the process of finding out the truth and lead to the paralysis of criminal proceedings. ? ( 12)? In France, the problem of evidence ability of illegal evidence is brought into the discussion of evidence law, which appears as the opposite of the principle of freedom of evidence, that is, restricting freedom of evidence. Although both legislation and precedents hold a negative attitude towards verbal evidence obtained by illegal means, the court cannot exclude illegal material evidence. Japan adopted the exclusionary rule of illegally collected evidence in 1978, which excluded illegal evidence in principle, but set two conditions at the same time. First, there are major illegal acts that do not conform to the spirit of writ doctrine; First, if such evidence is allowed, it will not be conducive to the control of illegal searches in the future. In judicial practice, there are also cases to confirm the probative force of illegally collected evidence. In case law, the main consideration is "major violation of the law". If the investigation procedure is not a "major violation of the law", evidence cannot be excluded. When judging whether it is a "major violation", we should consider: the degree of violation, whether the investigators have violated the intention of writ doctrine, whether they have used coercive force, and so on. At the same time, drawing lessons from the Anglo-American legal system, we set up exceptions to the exclusion rule: the inevitable discovery exception and the bona fide exception. ?
(3) The legislative and judicial status of illegal evidence in China.
From the legislative point of view, China's criminal procedure law has provisions on illegally obtaining the defendant's confession and illegally obtaining material evidence. However, because the system has no checks and balances on the power of the investigation and control organs, such as the principle of judicial writ and the restriction on the ability of illegally obtaining evidence, its provisions are generally sloppy. In the aspect of illegally obtaining confessions, Articles 9 1 to 98 of China's Criminal Procedure Law stipulate the procedure of interrogating criminal suspects, Article 43 prohibits the illegal collection of evidence, and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court also stipulates the exclusion of relevant evidence. However, due to the lack of relevant supporting systems, such as the distribution system of burden of proof and the right to silence, these provisions are in a virtual state, with only declarative significance and no practical effect. In judicial practice, the confession of a criminal suspect obtained in violation of legal procedures or violation of the criminal suspect's personal rights and litigation rights, if verified, has probative force on the facts of the case and the evidence can be adopted. If the confession is used as a clue to obtain relevant evidence, it is easier to confirm the evidential ability of the confession. Articles 109 to 1 18 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulate the specific procedures for searching and seizing material evidence, but they also do not stipulate how to remedy the violation of legal procedures, nor do they express whether the illegally obtained material evidence has evidential ability. In judicial practice, if the physical evidence obtained by searching and seizing in violation of legal procedures is verified, it can be used as long as the corresponding procedures are performed afterwards, and it is not considered necessary to exclude illegal physical evidence and documentary evidence with probative force. ?
Fourthly, the idea of establishing the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China.
As for the construction of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China, the author's point of view is: under the premise that the current legal system cannot be greatly changed, establish a basic supporting system and establish the principle of comprehensive exclusion of illegal evidence. In other words, any illegal evidence that violates the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Law and other relevant laws should be excluded, even if it is verified, it cannot be used as the basis for conviction and sentencing. ?
The present situation of China's legal system determines the necessity of establishing a comprehensive exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. The restrictive provisions of the existing laws in China on the investigation and control organs are very rough and cannot effectively restrict the investigation and control behavior. Mainly reflected in the following aspects: there is no preventive mechanism before the illegal act occurs, and the judicial writ doctrine is not implemented, so it is impossible to review the legality of the law enforcement behavior of the investigation organ in advance; In the process of illegal acts, people whose rights have been violated have no effective judicial relief channels, and defendants or criminal suspects have no defense against the illegal search, seizure and torture of investigation organs in the face of powerful dictatorship machines. In foreign countries, the court is the main channel of judicial relief, but in China, the court cannot interfere with the illegal acts of the investigation organs; After an illegal act occurs, the court can neither correct the illegal act nor negatively evaluate the illegal result. Although the judicial interpretation made by the Supreme Court has made exclusionary provisions on extorting confessions by torture, it can be said that this interpretation is ineffective in curbing illegal evidence collection because it does not solve the burden of proof for illegal acts. In judicial practice, the restraint of illegal investigation mainly depends on the self-restraint mechanism of the investigation organ. However, practice has proved that this self-restraint mechanism has not played a role, at least not effectively. However, if the act of illegally obtaining evidence is to enter the court for judicial review, unless the investigation organ extorts a confession from the defendant or criminal suspect by torture and causes serious injury or even death, it may be punished by law as a felony. General acts of extorting confessions by torture, illegal search and illegal seizure simply cannot enter the court's review field of vision. ?
From the above analysis of the legislation of illegal evidence in China, we can see that the provisions of the current laws on illegal evidence collection in China are quite loose, and the freedom of law enforcement by investigation organs is great, and there is little institutional obstacle to the establishment of comprehensive exclusion rules. ?
The present situation of human rights protection in China requires the establishment of a comprehensive exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. China's judicial practice for decades shows that the protection of civil rights will be ineffective without specific and effective procedural remedies. Although the constitution of our country clearly stipulates all kinds of basic rights that Chinese citizens should enjoy, the protection of human rights of citizens in the specific legal system is very weak, and the protection of human rights in the current criminal procedure law is not sufficient. In a sense, the establishment of the comprehensive exclusion rule of illegal evidence only raises the banner of protecting citizens' most basic human rights, and is a necessary choice for the current situation in China, instead of absolutizing and only protecting the value of individual freedom or citizens' basic rights. As far as China's current social security situation is concerned, it is necessary to intensify the crackdown on crime. However, compared with the situation of human rights protection in China, it is more necessary to protect citizens' basic human rights. Therefore, the concept of due process should become a superior concept, and the establishment of illegal evidence exclusion rules is the embodiment of this concept. ?
The establishment of comprehensive exclusion rule needs corresponding supporting system. First of all, it is necessary to set up a basic supporting system from the illegally obtained confession of the defendant. Such as the burden of proof distribution system, the burden of proof of the legality of the defendant's confession is handed over to the investigation organ; Lawyer's right to be present system, when investigators interrogate defendants or criminal suspects, lawyers have the right to be present from beginning to end; Double recording, compulsory audio and video recording when the investigation organ interrogates the suspect, etc. Secondly, from the illegal material evidence and documentary evidence. Articles 109 to 1 18 of our country stipulate the specific procedures for searching and seizing material evidence. Since China has not implemented judicial review and judicial writ doctrine, the investigation organ has the right to issue search warrants and decide the time, method and content of search and detention, so it has great autonomy and arbitrariness. However, in judicial practice, there are still a large number of cases of illegal coercive measures, illegal seizure and illegal search. Based on this, we should at least establish a judicial review system and implement judicial writ doctrine. ?
In a word, the "total exclusion rule" proposed by the author is a compromise to reality, which seems radical, but actually conservative. If we want to effectively protect the basic rights and interests of citizens from infringement, this system is far from enough. However, due to the unreasonable power distribution of judicial organs, the low quality and level of law enforcement personnel, the difficulty of obtaining evidence due to material and technical conditions, the existence of social privileges and the unsatisfactory overall rule of law, these factors are the objective reasons that urge investigators to obtain evidence illegally. In view of the fact that the solution of these problems will not take a day, especially where the judicial system and political system need to be reformed, it will take more time. Therefore, the author believes that under the premise that the existing legal system cannot be greatly changed, the idea of establishing a comprehensive exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is in line with the current legal situation in China and is also feasible. ?
Administrative system refers to a series of norms and practices related to the composition, system, authority and activities of state administrative organs. People's Republic of China (PRC)'s administrative system is the product of the country's fundamental political system and the relationship model between the central and local governments, including the central administrative system under the people's congress system and the leadership relationship between the central administrative organs and local administrative organs at all levels.
That is, the government system is recognized by certain administrative thoughts and concepts, and it is worried about the normative system of the emergence, function, authority, organizational structure, leadership mechanism and activity rules of the state administrative organs stipulated by the national constitution and laws, as well as the relationship forms of various power themes within the government system.
There are differences and connections between administrative system, administrative thought and administrative theme. The core content is the legal rules of fishy smell authority.
-
Aristotle's classification of government system: According to the number of "supreme power executors", governments can be divided into three types: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.
Monarchy: Monarchy, as a political system, refers to the form of political organization with the monarch (king or emperor) as the head of state.
Constitutional monarchy: Constitutional monarchy, also known as limited monarchy, refers to the form of state power organization in some capitalist countries, among which monarchs (kings, emperors, emperors, etc.). ) is the first hereditary country, but its power is stipulated by the constitution and subject to certain restrictions.
Dual constitutional monarchy: The dual constitutional monarchy mostly originated in countries where capitalism developed late, the bourgeoisie could not obtain full sovereignty, the feudal landlord class was powerful, and the bourgeoisie had to compromise with the feudal aristocracy, which prevailed in the19th century. The historical German Empire, Meiji Restoration and Japan before the end of World War II all belong to this type. Its characteristics are: the monarch has complete sovereignty, the state power is in the hands of the monarch, the monarch is the real power center, and his actions are not bound by parliament. Legislation belongs to parliament, but the monarch has the right to dissolve parliament and veto parliamentary resolutions. Parliament only enjoys the functions stipulated by the Constitution. If the function of parliament conflicts with the power of the monarch, the power of the monarch shall prevail. Cabinet and ministers are appointed by the monarch and are only responsible to him. Therefore, the dual constitutional monarchy is a form of state power organization in which the monarch and parliament are separated. The monarch has actual power, and the regime is only responsible to the monarch, not to the parliament.
* * * Harmonious system: * * Harmonious system is the symmetry of monarchy, which refers to the political organization form in which state power organs and heads of state are elected for a certain term. Countries that adopt this form of government are called * * * and countries.
Monopolistic system: Monopolistic system is a state structure form in which several administrative regional units form a single sovereign state, and the highest sovereignty of the state is concentrated in one or a group of organs, so the unitary government is also called centralized government.
Shadow Cabinet: In western countries, there is a form called "shadow cabinet", or "reserve cabinet" or "opposition cabinet". It means that the parliamentary opposition party that implements the responsibility cabinet system forms a ruling team ready to take office according to the organizational form of the cabinet. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was initiated by the British Conservative Party, and later formed a constitutional convention. The shadow cabinet is generally composed of influential members of the party designated by the leader of the opposition party in the House of Commons, and some are elected by all members of the opposition party. Its task is to lead all the activities of our party in the House of Commons.
French semi-presidential government:
It is a presidential system with the characteristics of parliamentary system, which is between the presidential system and parliamentary system. The term "semi-presidential system" was first coined by French politician Maurice? De Moger used it in his political system and constitution. 1June, 958, Charles de Gaulle came to power and established the Fifth Republic of France. In order to achieve political stability, Charles de Gaulle amended the Constitution. On the one hand, the revised constitution expands the power of the president, on the other hand, it weakens the power of the parliament, making France a "semi-presidential Republic". Countries that adopt the presidential system are: 19655. Iceland, Ireland, Portugal and Sri Lanka.
The semi-presidential system is characterized by:
(1) A semi-presidential government has two chief executives. The president elected by referendum is both the head of state and the executive power, and the government also has a prime minister.
(2) The government is not responsible to the President, but to the Parliament, which can condemn the government. When the parliament passes a vote of no confidence or rejects the government's policy agenda or general policy statement, the prime minister must submit the government's resignation to the head of state. From this perspective, this kind of government has the characteristics of cabinet system.
(3) The president holds actual sovereignty and becomes the core of state institutions, and he is not responsible for any institutions. In addition to actually having the power to convene special parliamentary meetings, sign decrees, promulgate laws, issue orders and make diplomatic decisions, the President also enjoys the following privileges: appointing prime ministers and government ministers, presiding over cabinet meetings, issuing emergency orders directly without the endorsement of the prime minister, exercising extraordinary powers, issuing presidential speeches, relatively vetoing bills passed by parliament, submitting important bills to a referendum, dissolving parliament and commanding the army. It can be seen that in the French-style semi-presidential system, the power of the president is greater than that of the general president, while the power of the parliament is relatively weak and strictly restricted. The political system of the Fifth Republic of France has the characteristics of presidential system, that is, the president holds important power, but the government is responsible to the parliament, which has the characteristics of parliamentary system, so it is called a political system between presidential system and parliamentary system.
Committee government
Committee system, also known as collegiate system, refers to a form of political organization in which the highest administrative power of the state is not concentrated in the hands of heads of state or government, but is exercised collectively by committees produced by parliament. The typical representative of this form of government is Switzerland, which is the only country that has implemented the Committee system for a long time. The government system of Swiss election commission system embodies the historical tradition and national characteristics of Switzerland and runs through the ideal of people's rule. It is a system suitable for Switzerland's national conditions and occupies an important position in the government system of western countries.
The characteristics of the Committee government are:
A, the government (that is, the seven-member committee) is elected by the parliament, not necessarily by the majority party or party in the parliament. Members may not serve concurrently as members for a term of four years and may be re-elected. The Committee is governed by four parties (Radical Party, Christian Democratic Party and Socialist Party, two each, and Central Democratic Alliance, 1).
Adopt a collegiate system. All government decisions are made by a seven-member committee. The Committee exercises collective leadership, and all orders are issued not in the name of the chairman, but in the name of the whole Committee. The seven members have equal status and equal power, and they are all ministers of the administrative department. The actual status of the chairman of the Committee is equal to that of other members. All important government affairs are discussed collectively, and the principle of minority obeying majority and collective responsibility is implemented. When the Committee makes a decision, at least four members must agree to take effect. Although each member serves as the minister of a certain department, he has no independent decision-making power on major issues of the department, and must be studied and decided by a three-person team designated by the Federal Council (requiring all federal members).
C, there is no decentralization. There is no president or prime minister. The chairman of the Committee is the head of state and government, and is elected by the two houses of the Federal Parliament from among the seven members. The term of office is one year and cannot be re-elected. After the expiration of one year, the vice-chairman is promoted to chairman and another vice-chairman is elected. In fact, the chairmanship is held by seven members in rotation. The chairman's authority is extremely limited. As a ceremonial national representative, he is responsible for presiding over the meeting of the Federal Council at home. He may not exercise the functions and powers of the Federal Council, appoint officials, veto bills or dissolve Parliament.
Members of the Committee are not members of parliament, but they can attend the parliament and participate in discussions at any time. They can introduce bills to Parliament and submit their policies to Parliament for discussion at any time, but they cannot vote in Parliament. When the parliament passes a bill or other decision, they cannot ask the parliament to reconsider it, but they must implement the bill or decision and be responsible to the parliament. Their term of office is fixed. Before the expiration of their term of office, they cannot resign because their important bills have not been passed by the parliament, nor can they be urged to be removed early through a vote of no confidence in the parliament. The Committee has no power to dissolve the parliament, nor does it bear joint responsibility for the parliament. This committee is actually an executive body of Parliament. Parliament can change or cancel the decisions and measures of the Committee, and the Committee must obey the decisions of Parliament.