# On Unique Governments



## trentonian7 (Oct 5, 2015)

Recently I've been toying with the idea of an elected diarchy and I began to wonder what kind of unique or unusual governmental systems others had used in their worlds. What are your favorite systems and what are the most unique that you've used?


----------



## Devor (Oct 5, 2015)

Mostly I use fairly typical government types.

But in one setting, I wanted a blend of a Kingdom and a more idealist modern feeling society.  So, the king would send a herald to each city or town.  The herald would then interview a bunch of locals and pick five or six candidates to be voted on for office.  People would then vote for the one they wanted.  If the heralds do their job, people should end up with competent leaders.


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Oct 5, 2015)

I have used traditional king and queen governments and one where the king/queen is elected and serves for the rest of their life, but their children and grand children are forbidden to become king/queen. Though for my stories the rulers usually only have a minor role if any at all.


----------



## ThinkerX (Oct 5, 2015)

Sprague De Camp's 'the unbeheaded king' leaps to mind.  Every five years there is a festival of sorts.  High point of the festival is the beheading of the old king.  Head then gets tossed into the crowd.  The person who catches this grizzly object becomes the next king.  The royal bodyguard is very good at tracking down escaping monarchs.  Mention was made that much of the day to day stuff was done by a very low profile council, though the type of king at the time could make a real difference - like the incompetent drunkard who let the realm get overrun by bandits.


----------



## X Equestris (Oct 6, 2015)

I've got an oligarchic republic (made up of representatives of the one hundred richest families, all of which are mages) with an elected diarchy. It's modeled on the Roman and Carthaginian republics.


----------



## Gryphos (Oct 6, 2015)

In my steampunk world I use a variety of parliamentary systems, perhaps the most unusual being that of the country of Lancille. Lancille uses a tricameral system whereby there are three chambers or 'Houses', the House of Cattle, the House of Bees, and the House of Doves. Each constituency elects three representatives, one for each House. Hence, there will also be three elected leaders, the Cattle Minister, the Bee Minister and the Dove Minister.

The reason for this is that the Houses are theoretically supposed to each be concerned with different things — Cattle handles social affairs, Bees does economic, and Doves deals with foreign policy. However, seeing as a piece of legislation has to go through all three Houses in order to be passed (in order: Cattle, Bees, Doves), these boundaries mean little, and this is only made more interesting by the way that the three House leaders, due to the separate House system, don't have to be from the same party.

And at the top there's the Count of Lancille, the hereditary head of state who stamps any piece of legislation which passed through all three houses.

Yes, this is intentionally inefficient and ridiculous.


----------



## WooHooMan (Oct 7, 2015)

I have multiple governments existing in one city-state.  Some governments co-exist and share powers, others are independent, and some have powers in one branch of government but not in another.
The nations are defined by their citizens and their laws rather than their borders and are united through economic interest and, to a much lesser extent, religious beliefs.  This all ties into my story's themes of questionable allegiance, loyalty to people over ideals and the pursuit of wealth.  
The most powerful of the governments is a military dictatorship by virtue of having the greatest capacity to enforce their laws.  However, they have a strong allegiance towards the theocratic republic government and to a tribal monarchy.

I'm having a hard time with this system because there aren't really any real world examples that I can use as reference.  I'm mostly using elements from the European Union, China/Taiwan/Tibet, Civil War-era Spain and Ghana.


----------



## Stephyn Blackwood (Oct 7, 2015)

One of the main forms of government I use quite often is a very autocratic monarchy, but with a troop of elected advisors. 

There are 2 Marshals elected from among the elite officers in the army. In times of war, one marshal is sent into the field, the other is kept back to manage the Homefront. 

There are also 2 admirals, again for the same reasons.

There is one Minister of Justice who runs the whole law system and is elected from among the Earls of the surrounding countryside.

There is also a Minister of the Vault, who manages the economy and the crowns finances. He/She is elected from among the banking unions and guilds.

Then there's a Minister of the Flag, who manages all the foreign relations, and tries to maintain peace. They are elected from among the police force/county sheriff style things (not got an official name yet).

And finally we have the Minister of the Interior, who manages all the internal affairs of the country, deals with quarrels among the nobles and such. He is elected from among the Earls.

Note that none of these men/women have any real governmental power, they are all just advisory roles, and the King/Queen has the final say in all matters, which leads to many problems and makes from some pretty inefficient decision. (Don't worry, it's meant to be like that.)

Not that the government system features a lot in my WIP, it's just that I felt I had to come up with something, cause God-knows were my story is taking me... Might end up with my protagonist as Marshal or something... Who knows?!


----------



## WooHooMan (Oct 7, 2015)

I know I did a post earlier today but I have two government systems I'd like to expand upon a little.

The Blackguard Marches are a collection of settlements/towns that have sworn allegiance to the Blackguard bandit group.  It's basically feudalism mixed with kleptocracy.  Towns will pay tribute and obey the laws of the Blackguards in exchange for protection.  Meanwhile, as the citizens are taking care of themselves and producing the tribute, the Blackguards raid/plunder/pillage their neighbors or non-allied settlements.  They do this to acquire further wealth which is usually put into public works like building roads but is sometimes divided among the bandits themselves.

The Arkadian Nation has a tribe, the Arkadians, as the government.  The tribe is divided into castes that act as the branches of government.  So, some Arkadians are born warriors, some are born judges, some are born policy-makers and so on.  As you can probably guess, the chief of the Arkadians is the head of state.  Non-Arkadians are the citizens who are not allowed to participate in government.


----------



## trentonian7 (Oct 7, 2015)

In one of my kingdoms, the lands are divided into three provinces, each under the jurisdiction of a Governor. Why there are three provinces, the country's largest two cities, the Capital and another city nearby, are independent of the provinces. These cities began as city states and to this day, despite the more agrarian society of natives in the countryside, are the focal point of the country's power and elites. Each province can elect two representatives to the High Council, the country's executive and to some degree, legislative and judicial branch. The chief cities can each elect three representatives, a disproportionate number. In other words, the High Council numbers 12,  though the Lower Council is larger. The members of the Lower Council are appointed by the High Council and will typically serve until dismissed or until their resignation; the Lower Council handles the day to day affairs. Governors are also appointed by the High Council, where they serve 4 year terms. High Councilman serve 3 year terms.


----------



## Gurkhal (Oct 9, 2015)

I have come to prefer systems that centers power on individuals and not institutions. That allows the use of power to be used according to personal relations and motives and thus, at least I think so, make it feel closer and be more useful in a plot than having commissions do drafts for policies that are then moved through endless bureacrats before a few hundred in a parlament will debate it and so on.


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Oct 10, 2015)

I have pretty typical governments, with a few exceptions. A big pet peeve of mine in fantasy is writers creating some elaborate, nonsense system that inexplicably works perfectly well (bonus points for extreme idealism and representation). What's worse is when they don't even explain why their world would allow such nice and happy governments.

One of my favorite is a radical democratic representative system where families each send a representative (generally the matriarch) to vote in an assembly. This society is also cannibalistic and extremely militaristic-- a bit of French Revolution flavoring.


----------



## Gryphos (Oct 10, 2015)

One of my stories focuses on a society in which there is no government, and it's all post-scarcity anarcho-communism, made possible through advanced alchemical agriculture and a completely automated system of production. It was an interesting exercise in thought.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 11, 2015)

This post is a bleed over from another thread, but is still pertinent to the question at hand. I posted my two general rules of creating a believable government elsewhere. However, I also do a post hoc analysis where I look at my government with the eyes of a bad man. I look at what the bad man would consider in a cost-benefit analysis of whether or not he should commit an action that may be against the law. So he would ask himself, "Were I to steal this object what would be price? If it is a small fine and jail time I may certainly steal this object." (This is not my own idea but comes from this famous article.) I would search for ambiguities where I could achieve whatever goal I wanted without being affected by the law. In short I would do my utmost to figure out how I could screw the law rather than have the law screw me.

In the case of a region with multiple co-equal sovereigns I would try my level best to play between the joints of these sovereigns' laws. So, to make sure that there aren't so glaring holes in your system that it would not devolve into chaos at the slightest provocation, try this bad man experiment. It can actually be pretty revealing and it may even give you an idea for another story. It's happened to me before.

Hope this helps.


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Oct 11, 2015)

@Brian Scott Allen That's really good advice! I also like thinking about other "bad man" examples, like famine, invaders, etc. Its easy to think about how well everything will work when there's a bumper harvest, peace, etc. More important is how the government does under pressure.


----------



## WaffleSingSong (Oct 12, 2015)

I might as well post this here.

Hi guys, for one of my nations, I have decided that I want it to have a Kritarchy/Theocracy/Magocracy/Technocracy hybrid. Essentially, it's ruled by Judge-Priest-Mage-Scientists or Shophets, who interpret and analyze natural law based on the ideas of the religion of the nation, which is Pantheistic in the sense that magic is the spirit of the universe to them. 

Typically there will be a village Shophet who will be elected by the people of that village, whom previously being mage priests of that village. Afterwards, in order to move up, that Shophet would have to be nominated by the other Shophets in it's geopolitical region. Then afterwards they would be nominated again and again to rule higher geopolitical regions until they rule the whole nation and take part in foreign and militaristic affairs of the nation, which the military-police would be consisted of voluntary adventurers and other mage priests as well as mercenaries. Funding would consist of voluntary tithes to the nation and to the universal spirit at a place of worship of a mage priest, which would come to position by however that community of said place of worship wishes to do so.

Any opinions/ideas to make it better?


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Oct 15, 2015)

The evil empire that preceded the current threat to my setting was a mixture of corporatism and feudalism. Everyone one was an asset(property) of the Empire, from lowest Dreg all the way up to Emperor/Empress. Entitlement could be granted or bought and the nobility played the role of manager/owner in the empire.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 15, 2015)

WaffleSingSong said:


> I might as well post this here.
> 
> Hi guys, for one of my nations, I have decided that I want it to have a Kritarchy/Theocracy/Magocracy/Technocracy hybrid. Essentially, it's ruled by Judge-Priest-Mage-Scientists or Shophets, who interpret and analyze natural law based on the ideas of the religion of the nation, which is Pantheistic in the sense that magic is the spirit of the universe to them.
> 
> ...



Let's look at this as a bad man or group of men would do and ask ourselves where is the potential for corruption. Well, consider the problem with local governments first. It is more prone to prejudice and, especially in smaller communities, would be dominated by a single family. Whereas in larger communities the politics would follow the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Which means, in actuality, that the political system would be dominated by a few people. And, in many respects, would also be prone to cronyism and nepotism. 

Now, unless there is a large cultural reason, a voluntary tithe would only rake in money from a few people. People, at least in this world, do not like parting with things that they feel like they have earned. This is usually expressed in money. And they will cheat the system where they can to keep what they earned. In this instance, since the tithe is voluntary, they wouldn't pay anything. Now, the tithe could be "voluntary" where if you wanted any upward mobility you would have to pay a tithe. Which means, since the human brain is terrible at math, that the people who gave the most gross would be more admired than the widow giving her mites. This would thereby exasperate a problem mentioned above.

Now, turning to the mercenaries, this is a hot bed for corruption. Mercenaries care about one thing, gold. They will turn tail and run when the venture becomes "unprofitable" that is the problem with mercenaries. Machiavelli pointed out as much. Now, we have a system that is prone to cronyism and nepotism. A smart mercenary would use that to his advantage. He'd hitch his horse to a Shophet that would give him a cushy position. He'd do so by "donations" and by appearing to be an "honorable" mercenary. The Merc and his crew along with the Shophet would have an understanding that the Shophet would make the merc police in a rich city or are where there is little crime, or would send them to an outpost along the borders with a friendly or semi-friendly nation.

To correct these problems you would need some kind of laws to change things. But even these laws will have problems. It's a constant fact that in US election law, every time a law tries to limit an action the limited persons or organizations will find ways to work around it. There is no getting around it. This will happen no matter how harsh the laws are. So try creating a law (not a statute) but a law that tries to limit the problems and then say, "How would a bad man try to get around this law?" Then try to fix that loophole. Do that once or twice more with the last time leaving it open for the bad man to work and that should be sufficient for the story.


----------



## WaffleSingSong (Oct 16, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> post



I was actually thinking of a clan system to fix that problem with mercenaries, instead of villages there will be clan holdings, with elected chiefs being the highest ranking of legislative authority, even though that authority is confined to the holding. Of course, these clans would also double as armed forces as well as any clerics (mage-priests) and voluntary adventurers.

The tithe is considered to be something that you must do in the holding, and will generally be shunned apon accordance to the culture and beliefs there if you did not. A lot of the "rules" in this nation are basically executed by different levels of peer pressure according to the geo-political region in accordance to natural law. If a party wished to press charges, and they did so against another party, the shophet of the appropriate geo-political seat would judge the issue under the case of natural law, and if a party is declared guilty, they would be declared an outlaw and thus natural law can not protect them anymore unless if the prosecuting party wants them to pay up somehow and, again, that shophet would judge the debt in accordance to natural law and precedence with previous rulings.

One more thing though, I would think that it would make sense that having loopholes within a government could help spice up the story even more? I mean, I would love for a protagonist to come across negatively with a clan chieftain who is "friends" with a shophet, and see the consequences for it later in the story. Regardless though, thanks for the critique!


----------



## Addison (Oct 16, 2015)

The most unique form of government I've made for a story has no name. At least none that I can find. Actually it doesn't have a story to hang on it-yet. 

Anyway the government was a conglomerate of sorts. Separate governments working together for the upholding of the country. Every state has agriculture, so every state elects a head of each product to go to meetings and give finalized reports to the elected head of agriculture. This process is the same for education, livestock, finances, environment, wildlife, medicine. The heads of every industry or whatever then have regular meetings with the same heads from all the other states. All the medical heads meet in a different room than agriculture so they can figure out what's how and where. Then when all that stuff is ironed out then all the heads meet, voice what they've found, what they will-pending how the meeting goes- change. 

So in that government there's no one ruler. No one person to say "Screw that idea it doesn't make money" or anything like that. This government follows the phrase "By the people, for the people. For a while I toyed with the idea of breaking the heads and country into regions. Mountain, plains, east etc and those regions have heads.


----------



## trentonian7 (Oct 16, 2015)

Addison said:


> The most unique form of government I've made for a story has no name. At least none that I can find. Actually it doesn't have a story to hang on it-yet.
> 
> Anyway the government was a conglomerate of sorts. Separate governments working together for the upholding of the country. Every state has agriculture, so every state elects a head of each product to go to meetings and give finalized reports to the elected head of agriculture. This process is the same for education, livestock, finances, environment, wildlife, medicine. The heads of every industry or whatever then have regular meetings with the same heads from all the other states. All the medical heads meet in a different room than agriculture so they can figure out what's how and where. Then when all that stuff is ironed out then all the heads meet, voice what they've found, what they will-pending how the meeting goes- change.
> 
> So in that government there's no one ruler. No one person to say "Screw that idea it doesn't make money" or anything like that. This government follows the phrase "By the people, for the people. For a while I toyed with the idea of breaking the heads and country into regions. Mountain, plains, east etc and those regions have heads.



This sounds like bureaucracy


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 17, 2015)

Addison said:


> The most unique form of government I've made for a story has no name. At least none that I can find. Actually it doesn't have a story to hang on it-yet.
> 
> Anyway the government was a conglomerate of sorts. Separate governments working together for the upholding of the country. Every state has agriculture, so every state elects a head of each product to go to meetings and give finalized reports to the elected head of agriculture. This process is the same for education, livestock, finances, environment, wildlife, medicine. The heads of every industry or whatever then have regular meetings with the same heads from all the other states. All the medical heads meet in a different room than agriculture so they can figure out what's how and where. Then when all that stuff is ironed out then all the heads meet, voice what they've found, what they will-pending how the meeting goes- change.
> 
> So in that government there's no one ruler. No one person to say "Screw that idea it doesn't make money" or anything like that. This government follows the phrase "By the people, for the people. For a while I toyed with the idea of breaking the heads and country into regions. Mountain, plains, east etc and those regions have heads.



I'm a little confused about a couple of things. When yo say "natural law" what do you mean? This probably because I am overthinking this but natural law, as I understand it, means that there is an order imprinted on the universe that the judge is trying to divine from logic and what not. However, common law is judge made law that used to use natural law as a justification for their rulings. (Note the above sentences are an extreme watering down of both concepts) 

NExt, I am not saying you should close all loopholes I am saying that you need to cover a few huge loopholes that would make your government function so poorly as to not be a government in name only.


----------

