What is the reason behind keeping a President in a country when Prime Minister rules?

Answer 1

It might help if you could be specific about which country you mean. Even where both offices exist, the exact function of each is not always the same from one country to another. But generally, the President is the head of state, meaning in charge of foreign affairs and diplomacy; where the Prime Minister is the head of government, or the administrative functions of the nation. In such situations the Prime Minister is in charge for all intents and purposes, while the President is a largely ceremonial post or at best a senior Foreign Minister. The US is unusual in that our President serves both functions.

Answer 2

That's because President is the Head of the State and Prime Minister is the Head of the Government, which effectively means that PM's post is that of real Executive while that of the President is a largely ceremonial one, that is in India. In France on the other hand the responibility shared between PM (Premier) and the President is almost equal, but the President is powerful authoritywise. The creation of the two posts is essentially because to keep checks and balances on the exercise of authority, where the legislative wing is perecived to be relatively weak. Where the legislative wing is strong, as in the US, there is no need to have such two posts and only one real Executive suffiices. I hope that answers your query

Answer 3

No, in the commonwealth republics she's ineligible as she isn't a citizen. She isn't allowed to circulate into the homestead of Commons in the united kingdom (the top Minister might desire to be a member of the Commons together as in place of work). In Australia she must be a citizen and that i could anticipate thats the comparable for the different 13 geographical regions.