dlatimer . # .

The difference obvious lack of obvious difference: If your point is that all nations could be subject to emergencies, then you are stating the obvious. Why would a cyclone avoid a country because of its constitutional system?

There are no provisions in the Australian constitutional system for a state of emergency, and they are not needed. Nor would they be needed if we elected a President who\'s powers were limited to appointing governors.

However, if we codified the Governor-General\'s powers (because they become President) then that may need to include state of emergency provisions.

In all instances I\'m assuming that a parliamentary system continues, so the necessity for state of emergency provisions is not about parliamentary vs presidential systems.

I am not sure why it would be difficult to monitor the executive response to an emergency under any particular democratic system. That is a question of the political culture in which officials do their work.

I cannot see why formal emergency provisions in a constitution are any help at all.