Presidents of the USA and CSA/CSSA

I'm wondering why the Communists necessarily have to come to power via coup or revolution and not via balloting, albeit perhaps with some rigging. Also, I don't like your lists because even in OTL Communist states, there was a (nominal) head of state who was a figure separate from the First Secretary of the Party.

Thank you for the response Wendell!

In my story at least, the Revolution happens in the middle of TTL Great War, when the Redneck coalition takes advantage of most of the CSA's Army being on the frontlines to rebel and take control of the Deep South.

As for the First Secratary, I thought that was what the head of state was called in a Communist Country. If that is not the case, what should the title of the Confederate Communist Chief Executive be?
 
Thank you for the response Wendell!

In my story at least, the Revolution happens in the middle of TTL Great War, when the Redneck coalition takes advantage of most of the CSA's Army being on the frontlines to rebel and take control of the Deep South.

As for the First Secratary, I thought that was what the head of state was called in a Communist Country. If that is not the case, what should the title of the Confederate Communist Chief Executive be?

The First Secretary of the Communist Party is de facto leader, but not de jure. Because Communist regimes in our timeline have emerged in parliamentary systems, they have an official head of government who is separate from the official head of state. Sometimes one person would hold all three positions, but usually the First Secretary was the real power broker.

Since we are talking about a presidential system, and a (presumbably) single party regime, adapting Communist norms to this sort of style seems doable.

Have the First Secretary designate presidential electors in consultation with the state parties while becoming himself the Presidential Secretary or Chief of Staff to the figurehead Confederate president.
 
The First Secretary of the Communist Party is de facto leader, but not de jure. Because Communist regimes in our timeline have emerged in parliamentary systems, they have an official head of government who is separate from the official head of state. Sometimes one person would hold all three positions, but usually the First Secretary was the real power broker.

Since we are talking about a presidential system, and a (presumbably) single party regime, adapting Communist norms to this sort of style seems doable.

Have the First Secretary designate presidential electors in consultation with the state parties while becoming himself the Presidential Secretary or Chief of Staff to the figurehead Confederate president.

So Presidential Secretary would be the formal title of the Head of State recoginized overseas?
 
So Presidential Secretary would be the formal title of the Head of State recoginized overseas?

No, the Head of State recognized abroad would still be the President of the Confederate(d Socialist) States; this individual would still receive ambassadors, sign bills into law, grant pardons, etc. But the actual power broker, the man telling him who to pardon, and where to sign would be the presidential secretary. The individuals you have in mind would likely be the latter because the former would lack real power.
 
No, the Head of State recognized abroad would still be the President of the Confederate(d Socialist) States; this individual would still receive ambassadors, sign bills into law, grant pardons, etc. But the actual power broker, the man telling him who to pardon, and where to sign would be the presidential secretary. The individuals you have in mind would likely be the latter because the former would lack real power.

So to use an example, Albert Parsons might be the General Secratary, but the Presidential Secratary would controlmost of the nation?
 
So to use an example, Albert Parsons might be the General Secratary, but the Presidential Secratary would controlmost of the nation?

Well, no. As an example, Parsons might be head of state (President), or the real power broker (Secretary).

Although, the more I think about it, I suppose you could have a full presidentialist Communist state, but the electoral college would have be perpetually under Party rule, and the Party Chairman would presumably be the President of the Confederacy.
 
Well, no. As an example, Parsons might be head of state (President), or the real power broker (Secretary).

Although, the more I think about it, I suppose you could have a full presidentialist Communist state, but the electoral college would have be perpetually under Party rule, and the Party Chairman would presumably be the President of the Confederacy.

I imagine having one party rule might solve the big quandry over electoral college controll.

We really need someone like Jello here for structural advice. :eek:
 
Top