# How to handle Governments in a story



## srebak (Mar 29, 2015)

I'll be blunt and just say it, I'm not sure how i want to handle the politics of a certain story. After watching the fourth season of "Legend of Korra", I'm not sure where i stand on monarchies anymore. Mainly because the points LoK made on them were legitimate.

The story i'm currently trying to write is a fanfic where the main character is a monarch of a nation. In my opinion, this character comes off as a progressive thinker who would likely consider settling a dispute democratically, but i really don't want his family's royal line to end with him, maybe somewhere down the line with his distant descendants, but not with him. I've discussed this issue with a few people online and they all agreed that absolute monarchies were inefficient and outdated, what can be done?


----------



## Saigonnus (Mar 29, 2015)

Even among a monarchy, it wouldn't necessarily be "the king's rule is law" anyway. The king could have a panel of advisors that he placed in charge of different aspects of the kingdom and gives them a fairly light hand when overseeing them. Sure, ultimately he controls who is in what position, and his. Son or daughter will inherit the position, but such a government could easily be shifted to a counsel state or oligarchy by having the king give his advisors more and more power, with him serving as their chairman rather than king. They could vote on the important issues, and perhaps he reserves a veto on certain things, but ultimately, it could be a progression from a monarchy to something else that could happen in a fairly short amount of time.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 29, 2015)

I don't buy that absolute monarchies were inefficient. Almost by definition they cannot be outdated, since they arose out of ordinary socio-political processes. Also, most people are terribly fuzzy about what they mean by "absolute monarchy".

But all that's irrelevant. It's your story. You certainly can have an absolute monarch who is progressive (whatever you might mean by that word). In fact, an absolute monarch is rather freer to go down that road than would, say, a 12thc European monarch who was strongly bound by customary law. 

I submit it's a great premise. The monarch, whom everyone *thinks* will be just like daddy, turns over apple carts left and right upon taking power. For reference, take a look at what happened when Louis XIV of France (poster child for absolute monarchs) decided he had reached the age of majority and took over power directly. A dramatic scene like that one would set the table nicely.

How does one settle a dispute democratically? I'm not sure what you mean there.

-= Skip =-


----------



## srebak (Mar 30, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> How does one settle a dispute democratically? I'm not sure what you mean there.



I mean settle it by voting


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 30, 2015)

If you're going to write about government and politics, I'd say do a bit research about how various forms of government work. And I'd also say don't use TV as a primary source of information. 



srebak said:


> I mean settle it by voting



I think you might have to think about this a bit more. Disputes should be settled based on the weighing of evidence and strength of argument, not a popularity vote. Just because a majority agrees on something doesn't make them right.

I'm no legal expert, far from it, but I have an inkling that in western democracy most court cases are decided by a single judge.


----------



## Terry Greer (Mar 30, 2015)

Might not be relevent - but if you'be not heard of the ancient Egyptian king /ruler Akhenaten - he might be worth a look.

Akhenaten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A progressive thinker - later vilified and almost expunged from history.

A fascinating character.


----------



## X Equestris (Mar 30, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> If you're going to write about government and politics, I'd say do a bit research about how various forms of government work. And I'd also say don't use TV as a primary source of information.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed, in western democracy it's often either a single judge or a unanimous vote of a jury that decides cases.  Historically there have been three primary means of settling disputes: trial by arbitration, trial by ordeal, and trial by combat.  So yeah, popularity votes haven't ever really happened, and I doubt they would be very just if they did,


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 30, 2015)

Although, in the US, there is a strong sentiment that serving in a jury is a manifestation of being part of a free and equal society. In fact, there was a case that arose under the 14th Amendment (which gave the rights protected by the US constitution to every citizen of the United States. The reasons why this is so is a bit too complicated to get into now though) that ruled a law barring African Americans from serving on juries to be unconstitutional. So, a jury could be considered a manifestation of democratic principles, I would love it if a story made mention of that.

Also, absolute monarchies can be very efficient. Which is one of their biggest problems. A monarch has the absolute sovereign power and often leaves his people holding the bag. If you want a real world comparison that shows the ever eroding power of the absolute monarch look at England's history. It's really interesting that their monarchs slowly lost or gave power up in order to avoid losing a few inches off the top, if you know what I mean.


----------



## srebak (Mar 30, 2015)

I think a lot of you misunderstood me: what i meant was one of those scenarios where someone in a group wants to handle a situation one way while the others want to handle it in other ways. So they settle it by voting to decide who's idea is the best course of action. I hope that clears everything up.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 30, 2015)

Terry Greer said:


> Might not be relevent - but if you'be not heard of the ancient Egyptian king /ruler Akhenaten - he might be worth a look.  Akhenaten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  A progressive thinker - later vilified and almost expunged from history.  A fascinating character.


I dunno, everything I've read about him recently has shown that he almost single-handedly sent his dynasty tumbling down. His subjects appear to have suffered under his reign, as shown by osteological studies on their remains. But then this was a highly unequal society to begin with.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 30, 2015)

srebak said:


> I think a lot of you misunderstood me: what i meant was one of those scenarios where someone in a group wants to handle a situation one way while the others want to handle it in other ways. So they settle it by voting to decide who's idea is the best course of action. I hope that clears everything up.



Ah, that makes sense now. Although, I'm not sure I would classify that as democratic, but at the point it's just splitting hairs. In any event that seems to have happened all the time in absolute monarchies. However, the sovereign still had power to override the vote if he or she saw fit.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 30, 2015)

To me, "efficiency" would evaluate how well the system works relative to its intended agenda. We say Marxist Communism failed because it set out to create an egalitarian society, yet in practice it always led to an authoritarian condition with the government owning everything like a corporate monopoly put on steroids. What are the goals of your absolute monarchy? If all your monarchs care about is self-enrichment at the expense of the peasantry, they might have a different idea of what's efficient from those who feel they have a moral obligation to lead their people.


----------



## Devor (Mar 30, 2015)

If you want to keep a monarchy, but move away from totalitarianism, a good place to start might be the system supporting the lords they set in charge of each region.  Since the king gets his power from them, any changes there will ripple upwards.

It's also the hardest to figure out because he would need a lot of support from the lords to be successful at taking away their power.  Since each lord is responsible for raising their portion of an army, you would need their support to enforce anything.  So, the first thing I would look at is taking away the army from the lords, and setting up a chain of command that goes straight to the king.

The first step to a democracy would be giving the king an army.  *sigh*


----------



## Russ (Apr 1, 2015)

Monarchy's can really vary, and historically in Europe very few of them were absolute.

There were often parliament's, diet's, local laws and obligations going both ways up and down the social chain.

And they could be complicated carefully balanced arrangements.  One scholar tried to write down the entire Imperial constitution with all its agreements around the time of the 30 years war and bailed in exhaustion after 80 volumes or so...


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Apr 4, 2015)

Some ideas-

Enlightened despotism- basically, king has near absolute power over government- examples include Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine (also the Great), and Napoleon. They don't believe in divine right absolutism, but instead believe the reason they are in charge are because they are the best thing for the country- definitely a reasonable assumption when most republics at the time involved plutocracy or lots of bloodshed. Problem is, this kind of ruler doesn't often come along-- they essentially need to be dedicated to their subjects while having lived a life of power and privilege. 

Constitutionalism- NOT democracy. See England after 1688. Basically, only wealthy landed interests/ nobility votes. Monarch is still powerful, but has to share power with others. As more and more people are able to vote, it gradually transitions to a democracy. Unfortunately, you don't get a lot of successful kings doing this-- why give up power unless you have to?

The leap from a monarchy to republic is absurdly large, especially without a bloody revolution like the French or Russian. Almost always, history has a slow trek towards democracy, with periods of radical change and conservative reaction. For a peaceful transition, you need generations of time to accomplish it.


----------



## Addison (Apr 14, 2015)

To me the government of a story isn't a big factor unless the character works in a Government job or Politics is important to the story. Or part of the conflict, if the story entails warring parties, is if each party has a different government system. Aside from that the government takes a back seat, just a little sticky note in the back of your head that you see in the corner of your mind to keep the world's structure.


----------



## spectre (Apr 14, 2015)

Well really 'handling' a government is itself referring to political change. Even before that you have type and stability. You have to decide what state your government is in, and that means whether it is the protagonist, whether it remains the superpower, and what sort of threat it faces like a military force or a political coup. 

Think of a pirate ship, you have a Captain and a First Mate and the rest of the crew. You're all looking for land, and heading your ship hopefully in that direction. The question is whether or not there will be treasure, mutiny, or some other governments ship or pirates will come along to blast the Black Pearl out of the water.


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Apr 19, 2015)

A ruling counsel of some sort seem to be what you want. Ancient Rome had a monarch- A Caesar and a senate. The powers of each varied at different times. Caesar could also name his successor, which could be a son or someone else. Another idea is a monarchy where the king/queen had full authority but no official successors. When the monarch dies new candidates compete/run for election. Whomever wins rules until they die.


----------



## God-Of-Toasters (Apr 25, 2015)

In my story, I have different realms existing without the knowledge of each other. This makes for a variety of different systems of government. For the first part of my story, I decided to have an empire take over other parts of a land, and install different technology and a system of belief with it. In the second part, there will be city-states, ruled over by biolords, and it will be more of a matriarchal system. The third part will have a sort of federated states, united under one banner, worshipping one god in a variety of different forms. That place will also justify slavery by using a sort of robot. I haven't thought too much about how the justice system works, but my recommendation would be to have diversity in political philosophies and systems of government.


----------

