# Government Creation



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 8, 2016)

With the development of society the government changes, but how do you decide what changes happened, when, and how thy came about? I'm going to guess that most countries evolve differently than any in real
Life earth, so how do you determine the current government? Or is it more of an intuition/what does the story call for situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Nov 8, 2016)

There are many schools of thought on this that can be broken down into two camps. I will represent one train of thought. Do what the story needs. And only build so far as nevesssry. If government is a big part of the story then you'll need to flesh it out. However if it's not a big part then there is no need to flesh it out, just tell the reader the government is X type of government and be done with it. 

Now then, if government is a big part of your story you need to address a few threshold questions first. The first is a cultural question of do you want certain protections for free speech and thought. If the answer is no you want a fairly despotic system. If the answer is yes you need to ask yourself what kind of economy do you want. If it's broad and fairly free market leaning you have two important factors to create a democracy. If the answer is no you have a monarchy or some other kind of some ruler that may have democratic influences. 

Once these threshold questions are answered I'd love to continue the discussion.


----------



## WooHooMan (Nov 8, 2016)

Thomas Laszlo said:


> With the development of society the government changes, but how do you decide what changes happened, when, and how thy came about? I'm going to guess that most countries evolve differently than any in real life



Wrong, governments tend to evolve roughly the same.
In political theory, it is believed that a nation follows the following life cycle: 1) monarchy, 2) aristocracy and 3) democracy.

In nature, you have anarchy.  The natural tendency of humans towards hierarchy, kinship and competition leads to development of a monarchy.  A clan headed by a patriarch/matriarch becomes a tribe headed by a chief and then finally, a kingdom lead by a monarch.  The monarch's power usually expands with conquest.
Monarchies tend to be the longest lasting and least corrupt form of government but once it does become corrupt, the monarch is overthrown by the upper class.  This establishes the aristocracy.
The tendency of wealth and power to be filtered towards the upper class is what leads an aristocracy to become corrupt.  It is then usually overthrown by a disenfranchised aristocrat who channels the will of the masses - those without wealth and power.
From here, a democracy is set-up.  However, the diversity of a democracy tends to lead to internal conflict and a "tyranny of the majority".  When this happens, it becomes necessary for a single group to take the reigns and establish order.  Usually this group is able to do so by having the most popular positions/opinions.  This is when a democracy becomes an autocracy/dictatorship which tends to operate like a monarchy.  Then the cycle starts over.

The variable in all this is the notion of republics and mixed governments.  Usually, mixed government would lean towards autocracy, aristocracy or democracy.  The Weimar Republic leaned towards democracy so it become a dictatorship.  I'd argue that the United States is closer to an aristocracy so it will likely become more democratic before devolving into dictatorship (and it'll probably become more aristocratic before becoming more democratic).



Thomas Laszlo said:


> how do you determine the current government? Or is it more of an intuition/what does the story call for situation?



Sometimes I go with whatever seems interesting to develop.  Not too long ago, I set-up a "stable anarchy" mixed government in which the monarch, several knightly orders, guilds and a representative assembly wrestled for power.
In my last WIP (that called for a government), I used the government as a means of illustrating the story's themes.   So, it ended-up being an aristocratic republic.


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 8, 2016)

Brian,

So basically my plot is a prince who is quite noble in his country is dragged through the mud when his country comes under siege.  He becomes a key member of a group set to tear a hole in the enemy behind enemy lines. Blah blah blah. He also seems the rabble of his country horrible people. He believes himself quite above them. They have a "democracy" in his government but it is a heavy parliament inside a constitutional monarchy. He goes through the low towns with this ravenous group of killers discovering the lives of these low born people in other countries. In one especially they are horrible conditions but I am trying to find a world history that supports stable anarchism. The people suffer from the government type. My ultimate goal is to use this as a subplot for the character to change and
Go back and free the low borns from his own country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Nov 8, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> Wrong, governments tend to evolve roughly the same.
> In political theory, it is believed that a nation follows the following life cycle: 1) monarchy, 2) aristocracy and 3) democracy.
> 
> In nature, you have anarchy.  The natural tendency of humans towards hierarchy, kinship and competition leads to development of a monarchy.  A clan headed by a patriarch/matriarch becomes a tribe headed by a chief and then finally, a kingdom lead by a monarch.  The monarch's power usually expands with conquest.
> ...



Woohooman I think would agree that this is a very boiled down version of the process but that should be all you need. However, there is some thought out there that we never really had a "state of nature" or the state of anarchy that woohooman describes. Some believe that we always had governments of a kind. It is usually a clan leader or something. The belief is that even when we were prehistoric we always had a leader. They base this theory on primate observations within nature itself.

I'd also quibble with revolution point. There are two kinds of revolutions, revolutions by aristocrats and revolutions by the masses. The American Revolution was a revolution by aristocrats. It was all about protecting their power within the US. These kinds of revolutions have far less bloodshed for the upper classes, for obvious reasons. (Note that even with the American Revolution and the era thereafter there was still the threat of mass uprisings and by virtue of Washington and his Cabinet that was avoided). The next type is the revolution by the masses. This is best exemplified by France. These revolutions tend towards Reigns of Terror and other bloody and violent clashes until they have their Thermadore (sp?). After the aristocracy is wiped clean then you can have the playing field "leveled," eventually there will be spikes and oddly enough the aristocratic that survived tend to be the "new" aristocrats. This starts the process over again where the revolution can be either bloody or it can be done by the pen and by the ballot.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Nov 8, 2016)

Thomas Laszlo said:


> Brian,
> 
> So basically my plot is a prince who is quite noble in his country is dragged through the mud when his country comes under siege.  He becomes a key member of a group set to tear a hole in the enemy behind enemy lines. Blah blah blah. He also seems the rabble of his country horrible people. He believes himself quite above them. They have a "democracy" in his government but it is a heavy parliament inside a constitutional monarchy. He goes through the low towns with this ravenous group of killers discovering the lives of these low born people in other countries. In one especially they are horrible conditions but I am trying to find a world history that supports stable anarchism. The people suffer from the government type. My ultimate goal is to use this as a subplot for the character to change and
> Go back and free the low borns from his own country
> ...



I personally do not believe that there can be stable anarchism in all save the smallest of communities. What you could potentially have is a series of places where people come to for common defense and such but are otherwise wholly autonomous in smaller communities. This would necessitate being a primarily agrarian economy though.


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 8, 2016)

Oh that sounds interesting. I never thought about that way before


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Nov 8, 2016)

Thomas Laszlo said:


> Oh that sounds interesting. I never thought about that way before
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Also this would be a fairly temporary state because if there are large state actors these small communities would get gobbled up. The most likely history would be an utter collapse of government due to some cataclysm where the entire ruling class and merchant class were wiped out.


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 8, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Also this would be a fairly temporary state because if there are large state actors these small communities would get gobbled up. The most likely history would be an utter collapse of government due to some cataclysm where the entire ruling class and merchant class were wiped out.



Ok, this is interesting...



Slightly off topic; I'm glad I found this place because I would've never stopped fleshing
Our governments otherwise XD I'm slightly addicted to politics of government creation. Political science I guess


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 8, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I personally do not believe that there can be stable anarchism in all save the smallest of communities. What you could potentially have is a series of places where people come to for common defense and such but are otherwise wholly autonomous in smaller communities. This would necessitate being a primarily agrarian economy though.


Or if the status quo [anarchic though it might be] is supported by at least one external actor.
This sort of thing has happened in the Congo area for much of the last 20 years. For a variety of reasons [ideology, race, ethnicity, culture, greed, politics etc] the area of the eastern Congo has been in a state of armed conflict, that has varied in intensity over time but never peaceful for long.
It has been said that the mineral wealth of the area has lead to a lot  of groups wrestling for control or to stop other form gaining control.


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 8, 2016)

Interesting! I do apologize if my replies come late and any action is taken later School is in session at the moment (boring math) and I can't always reply!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NaNoWriMo WIP!


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 8, 2016)

*Pay attention in class!!!*


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 8, 2016)

CupofJoe said:


> *Pay attention in class!!!*



I am!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NaNoWriMo WIP!


----------



## skip.knox (Nov 8, 2016)

>With the development of society the government changes

I disagree with the fundamental proposition, but am willing to grant it for now. When you say the government changes, are you talking about when one ruler succeeds another, or are you talking about changes in the actual institutions? If so, which institutions?


----------



## WooHooMan (Nov 8, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Woohooman I think would agree that this is a very boiled down version of the process but that should be all you need. However, there is some thought out there that we never really had a "state of nature" or the state of anarchy that woohooman describes.



Well, clearly.  Any kind of meta-narrative that attempts to explain the evolution of society is bound to be some kind of generalization.  I didn't think that needed to be said.
When I said the beginning is "anarchy", I was using that in the classical definition of the word: social disorder.  Revolutions and transitional governments can be considered "anarchy".  I thought I made clear that the cycle is autocracy-aristocracy-democracy-autocracy-etc.  There is no period of total statelessness.



Brian Scott Allen said:


> The next type is the revolution by the masses. This is best exemplified by France. These revolutions tend towards Reigns of Terror and other bloody and violent clashes until they have their Thermadore (sp?).



Based on my understanding of history and political theory, these revolutions tend to be lead by some kind of vanguard.  I find that these vanguards tend towards aristocratic leadership.  In the case of the French Revolution; there were the Girondins, the Jacobins, the Mountains and so forth.
I would actually describe the French Revolution and the subsequent Reign of Terror to fit into the "democracy" stage of the cycle before the autocracy of the Second French Empire.

Also, Thermidor.  I interpret that as just the transition from one vanguard leader (the Committee of Public Safety) to another (The Directory).  Still aristocratic as both groups placed a small amount of "important people" in charge of the masses.



Brian Scott Allen said:


> I personally do not believe that there can be stable anarchism in all save the smallest of communities. What you could potentially have is a series of places where people come to for common defense and such but are otherwise wholly autonomous in smaller communities. This would necessitate being a primarily agrarian economy though.



I disagree, however technological level would be a big part in determining how big an anarchist society can be.
The smaller communities could still have a diverse economy.  It's not as though there is anything stopping the people of the community from trading with outside communities or even becoming part of international economies.  In fact, lack of a state could mean much freer trade.
The defense is an interesting point.  I would argue that any "common defense" would basically be a government.  Even if it is only a night watchmen state.  There were regions of Germany and the Baltic in the Middle Ages that operated like that.



Thomas Laszlo said:


> I am trying to find a world history that supports stable anarchism. The people suffer from the government type. My ultimate goal is to use this as a subplot for the character to change and
> Go back and free the low borns from his own country



Somalia from 1986 onward?  Granted, it is technically a civil war and transitional government but I think it could be a good starting point.
The closest thing to a consistent government that most of the country had were an association of legal courts united by their common laws (Shariah law, specifically).  Basically, a guild of courts.  Their national defense were wealthy warlords (and foreign military groups) who agree to work with those courts (out of religious devotion).  It was almost a blend of theocracy, military dictatorship and anarchy - a partnership between several militaries, the masses, the religious institutions and the legal courts.  Perfect for a slummy, despotic dystopia.
Seeing a place like this might help the character see the importance of a fair, legitimate and orderly government.


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 8, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> Well, clearly.  Any kind of meta-narrative that attempts to explain the evolution of society is bound to be some kind of generalization.  I didn't think that needed to be said.
> When I said the beginning is "anarchy", I was using that in the classical definition of the word: social disorder.  Revolutions and transitional governments can be considered "anarchy".  I thought I made clear that the cycle is autocracy-aristocracy-democracy-autocracy-etc.  There is no period of total statelessness.
> 
> 
> ...



I think that is a very good idea, or something similar. Maybe a mobocracy united through the local court systems and wealthy warlords? Ish?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NaNoWriMo WIP!


----------



## Caged Maiden (Nov 9, 2016)

One thing to consider also is how religion factors into the government. Depending on the rough "age" of your society and the level of spirituality or superstition, a church or churches may have considerable influence over who becomes king, or how much power a senate or oligarchy has. In one of my stories, there exists (based off Renaissance Venice) a republic with a sort of prince and then a senate of affluent or noble persons. Then, there is a religion that is sort of pagan and appeals to the lower classes. And there is also a wealthy and powerful church that is associated with the upper class (which in the story is losing financial ground to the growing middle class). The thing is, the church often had a lot of power over who became a leader because if the church can use its money and influence to strong arm a couple wealthy landowners to send a few thousand men to aid one prince over another...well, that could turn the tide in a conquest. 

In my story, the church supported a certain prince in a foreign war, and when that prince swept through his land, taking territory from neighboring principalities, the vacant land reverted to church rule, per their agreement. The church became more powerful for aiding that prince who eventually became an even wealthier and more powerful prince, and then the church used its newfound wealth to exert more control over parts of the republic, buying allies in the senate and wresting control away from the central governing body. 

Just something else to consider, since depending on your story's setting and time period, it might be feasible to separate church and state, or it might all sort of roll together.

Best wishes.


----------



## R.H. Smith (Nov 11, 2016)

Interesting topic. Love all the well thought out points and views. Got me thinking (for some weird reason) on Star Trek. You got the Federation, a group of allys in a democratic setting. You got the Klingons. A military state that has the vibe of only the strong survive. This type of setting would be ripe for many political subplots with alot of action/fight scenes.


----------



## Thomas Laszlo (Nov 11, 2016)

R.H. Smith said:


> Interesting topic. Love all the well thought out points and views. Got me thinking (for some weird reason) on Star Trek. You got the Federation, a group of allys in a democratic setting. You got the Klingons. A military state that has the vibe of only the strong survive. This type of setting would be ripe for many political subplots with alot of action/fight scenes.



Yes yes it would!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NaNoWriMo WIP!


----------

