Presidential personal unions

I have always wondered something: why didn't personal unions of republics ever come into being? For example, why didn't we ever have a situation where protectorates of the United States had in their constitutions a clause stating, as in the case of the Phillippines, that "the Phillippines shall be an independent republic. However, the President of the Republic of the Phillippines shall be whoever is the President of the United States". So basically, whenever a new American President was inaugurated, he also became the President of the Philliphines simulataneously, like how the British monarch also holds the crowns of the Commonwealth realms by virtue of being on the UK throne. Can anyone see a similar system developing for republics?
 
Although not really a republic and with a different history, Andorra already sort of has that- one of the co-princes is the President of France, the other one being the Bishop of Urgell.
 
The whole idea of a republic - a "res publica", "public matter" - is based on the idea that the body of the people, in some way, shape or form, are governing themselves.

A monarchy is based on the idea of the people owing fealty, in some way, shape, or form, to a person. It's much easier to involve a foreigner in a system like that.

The people of the Philippines could not vote for the President of the United States, so to name him the permanent HoS of the Philippines would seem to violate the principles of republicanism.

Which is not to say it couldn't happen.

How about a republic with an electoral college, in which a smallish group, not the whole population, chooses the president. In a time of national crisis, suppose the electoral college of Smetonia elects the President of Germany as its HoS.
 
The people of the Philippines could not vote for the President of the United States, so to name him the permanent HoS of the Philippines would seem to violate the principles of republicanism.

I do see where you're coming from. But just to clarify, the American President doesn't have to be the chief executive and active governing power in the Phillippines as he would be in the US. Maybe it could be a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister chosen by the Phillippine parliament, and as head of state the American President would only have a strictly ceremonial, figurehead role. This would allow the citizens of the Phillippines to be in complete control of their own government, while the American president would basically be window-dressing in his role as Phillippine head of state. Would this still violate the principles of republicanism?
 
I do see where you're coming from. But just to clarify, the American President doesn't have to be the chief executive and active governing power in the Phillippines as he would be in the US. Maybe it could be a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister chosen by the Phillippine parliament, and as head of state the American President would only have a strictly ceremonial, figurehead role. This would allow the citizens of the Phillippines to be in complete control of their own government, while the American president would basically be window-dressing in his role as Phillippine head of state. Would this still violate the principles of republicanism?

I think so. But again, it could still happen, especially in a world where personal unions and ceremonial rulers are more common.
 
I know the South American members are going to hate me for this but I think Bolivar was the president of at lest six different nations (but not all at one time). So it might be possible for a citizen to be elected as a president in two different nations. But in reality I don't believe that this is possible at all.
 
I wonder if this could be a good way to discribe the workings of the east block satellites.
 
I have always wondered something: why didn't personal unions of republics ever come into being?
IIRC, the two Boer republics were in a personal union under the same President for some- short- time. The circumstances were a bit, hm, special, though, and it wasn't a permament thing, de jure- the same guy just happened to be elected to both presidencies.
 
Personal Union tradition

It could be that (for example) The Phillippines puttogether (or have forced on them when they become "independent" some sort of clause in ther constitution that makes the president of the US their president. Alternatively, the ballot could comnsist of whoever chooses to run, along with one more line, "President of the United States" If "President of the United States" is elected, then whoever is president of the USA, even if it changes, is president of the Phillippines.
 
Top