-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Democracy.
- Thread starter Jungly
- Start date
Dreamersashamerideth
Maester
There are quite a few other forms of government used, maybe you just need to read more. There's a thread somewhere on this forum that discusses other forms of government to use.
Monarchies were fairly common in the history period that typical fantasy seems to dwell in. The countries were less defined than today, with kings covering nowhere near the size of a country today. I can't go into detail right now but it was really quite different to today. Add to that, fantasy will sometimes idealize the systems so they seem simple. I don't want to spend time on a political fantasy, not my thing.
Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner
Monarchies were fairly common in the history period that typical fantasy seems to dwell in. The countries were less defined than today, with kings covering nowhere near the size of a country today. I can't go into detail right now but it was really quite different to today. Add to that, fantasy will sometimes idealize the systems so they seem simple. I don't want to spend time on a political fantasy, not my thing.
Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner
TWErvin2
Auror
Really, it all depends on the setting of the novel. For fantasy, a monarchy or feudal system tends to work well enough, although in my novels there is one country that has a blended form of parliamentary democracy and theocracy.
A democracy--a true democracy, as possibly hinted at in the OP title/subject, is probably unworkable as a form of government in modern times (the world today) as it would be in a fantasy setting. Actually, as true democracy is basically 'mob rule' as laws are based on majority rule/vote and minorities or minority view have no standing (unless they're voted in and maintined by the majorities over time), I would think it'd be a very unstable form of government, and at least one I would not care to live under. That, of course, might made it good fodder for a novel.
That's my two cents.
A democracy--a true democracy, as possibly hinted at in the OP title/subject, is probably unworkable as a form of government in modern times (the world today) as it would be in a fantasy setting. Actually, as true democracy is basically 'mob rule' as laws are based on majority rule/vote and minorities or minority view have no standing (unless they're voted in and maintined by the majorities over time), I would think it'd be a very unstable form of government, and at least one I would not care to live under. That, of course, might made it good fodder for a novel.
That's my two cents.
Even the handful of Democracies that existed in history were constantly going back and forth between monarch and democracy. They just didn't last, and I would argue that a relatively large democracy probably couldn't last long before the printing press made it possible to educate and mobilize the population in a meaningful way.
Of course, we're writing fantasy, so that only goes so far. But a corrupt king is more fun to write about than a corrupt democracy, which just starts to feel like political commentary. It resonates with readers in a different and harsher way that I think most fantasy writers probably want to avoid.
Of course, we're writing fantasy, so that only goes so far. But a corrupt king is more fun to write about than a corrupt democracy, which just starts to feel like political commentary. It resonates with readers in a different and harsher way that I think most fantasy writers probably want to avoid.
Aidan of the tavern
Auror
In my draft there are a bunch of big towns all bound together in a mutually beneficial trade treaty. I get the impression monarchys are much easier to work with.
Yeah, monarchies are just simpler to write about. Plus, the ideas of Kings and Queens and such have been heavily romanticized in modern culture.
The important thing to remember about democracy is that no country has ever had universal suffrage. Restrictions always exist based on age, wealth, gender, race, etc. Ancient Athens was a democracy, but I think it was only the free male landowners who voted. Probably a relatively small portion of their population. Which restrictions are imposed on who can vote can make for some very interesting commentary on the society.
Other governmental forms I use a lot are oligarchies of various sorts (rule by a council of powerful nobles is common in my stories) and joint theocracy-anything else. Much of medieval Europe was in fact partially governed by the Church in addition to whatever local temporal prince they had.
The important thing to remember about democracy is that no country has ever had universal suffrage. Restrictions always exist based on age, wealth, gender, race, etc. Ancient Athens was a democracy, but I think it was only the free male landowners who voted. Probably a relatively small portion of their population. Which restrictions are imposed on who can vote can make for some very interesting commentary on the society.
Other governmental forms I use a lot are oligarchies of various sorts (rule by a council of powerful nobles is common in my stories) and joint theocracy-anything else. Much of medieval Europe was in fact partially governed by the Church in addition to whatever local temporal prince they had.
mirrorrorrim
Minstrel
In addition to what everyone else has said, democracies have a lot of inherent disadvantages in relation to national security, so they are much more susceptible to invasion and conquest from neighboring powers. Some of the early Federalist Papers go into this rather extensively, or you can just look at the histories of city-state confederations like ancient Greece.
Furthermore, for anything bigger than a city, democracies have all sorts of hurdles to overcome, voting being far from the least of these. How can you cast ballots in a largely illiterate population? How can you assure fair elections? How do you stop the losing party from raising an army and forming their own nation? How do you stop military commanders from seizing control? How do you stop the majority from oppressing the minority?
As modern Westerners, most of us just assume that democracy (or more accurately, republicanism) is inherently better than other forms of government. Today, I would agree. Two thousand years ago, though, the greater relative stability of a monarchy may have actually made it a more effective form of government. That doesn't, of course, mean it was a good one–evil or insane rulers caused immeasurable death and hardship for both their own people and the people of the nations they warred with. It just made the most sense in relation to a lot of bad alternatives.
And I don't think monarchies are the only system fantasy uses. In addition to the occasional republic or democracy, you'll often see theocratic states ruled by some religious leader, tribal systems, anarchy, military dictatorships, and more.
Even when you do have a monarchy, you can find a wide range of governments there, too, from the exteme of an absolute monarch who controls everything, to the other extreme of a symbolic leader that is no more than a figurehead, and every shade between.
And, while monarchies may inherently be the most stable and likely option for the period, one great thing about fantasy is that it doesn't have to be realistic. Through magical voting, for example, you could eliminate some of the shortcomings of a democracy, and I'm sure there are ways to compensate for all the others, as well. So, if you want to have a democracy, there's no reason not to.
Furthermore, for anything bigger than a city, democracies have all sorts of hurdles to overcome, voting being far from the least of these. How can you cast ballots in a largely illiterate population? How can you assure fair elections? How do you stop the losing party from raising an army and forming their own nation? How do you stop military commanders from seizing control? How do you stop the majority from oppressing the minority?
As modern Westerners, most of us just assume that democracy (or more accurately, republicanism) is inherently better than other forms of government. Today, I would agree. Two thousand years ago, though, the greater relative stability of a monarchy may have actually made it a more effective form of government. That doesn't, of course, mean it was a good one–evil or insane rulers caused immeasurable death and hardship for both their own people and the people of the nations they warred with. It just made the most sense in relation to a lot of bad alternatives.
And I don't think monarchies are the only system fantasy uses. In addition to the occasional republic or democracy, you'll often see theocratic states ruled by some religious leader, tribal systems, anarchy, military dictatorships, and more.
Even when you do have a monarchy, you can find a wide range of governments there, too, from the exteme of an absolute monarch who controls everything, to the other extreme of a symbolic leader that is no more than a figurehead, and every shade between.
And, while monarchies may inherently be the most stable and likely option for the period, one great thing about fantasy is that it doesn't have to be realistic. Through magical voting, for example, you could eliminate some of the shortcomings of a democracy, and I'm sure there are ways to compensate for all the others, as well. So, if you want to have a democracy, there's no reason not to.
Last edited:
Another good example of democracy would be the Norsemen, who gathered at a thing to vote about pretty much everything. Each thing sent representatives to the allthing which appointed a king. The king had control of the military but not over much else, and this was pretty much how things worked in several of the Norse territories until the end of the Viking Age. I'm not sure if anybody knows how far back it goes.
Even as I'm typing this I'm realizing how familiar that system is.
One of the stories I have on the backburner at the moment involves three different forms of government - monarchy, oligarchy and meritocracy - fighting for control following a catastrophic event. At the time I started writing it, I was thinking much as you are - where are these other forms of government?
At least six forms of government were known in Classical Greece - Aristotle lists them in pairs: Monarchy and tyranny, oligarchy and aristocracy, and democracy and polity. For Aristotle, monarchy was superior to tyranny because the monarch rules for the people while the tyrant rules for himself; aristocracy was the rule of the best men while oligarchy the rule of the few (or, in reality, the richest), so aristocracy was superior; and democracy was the rule of everyone (who was an adult male citizen) while polity was the rule of a select number of those, a far wider group than oligarchy or aristocracy, but more select than democracy, which Aristotle thought superior to democracy because, well, you can't just let everyone have power - think what the ignorant moneyless oiks who happen to be citizens would do with that power?
But there are other forms of government. The Spartan government was unique - there were at any time two kings, who mostly had military and religious power, and a council of either 28 or 30 Ephors, old men with voting rights on other issues. To become an Ephor, a man had to be a Spartan citizen over 60; candidates for Ephorship were voted for in a rudimentary way - adult male citizens would gather in a gathering place, possibly a theatre or similarly shaped space. The candidates would be in little rooms where they couldn't see the gathering place, and one by one, in an order none of them know, they'd be led out in front of the gathered citizens, who would cheer if they supported that candidate. The candidate with the loudest cheers would become an Ephor. The kings were said to be descended from two sons of Heracles, and the idea of there being two was to make sure there was always a king in Sparta when one king had to leave on military or diplomatic matters, so if for example Sparta was attacked, there was a king to lead the army in its defence.
Writing monarchies is simple; readers understand them, and you don't need to explain them. Different forms of government - even slight changes to the standard monarchy - generally do need some form of explanation, tend to involve more characters for readers to keep track of, and can be complicated and confusing, especially if the way the government works is key to the plot. Thus sticking with a monarchy gives a writer more time to work on other aspects of the plot without having to think of politics.
At least six forms of government were known in Classical Greece - Aristotle lists them in pairs: Monarchy and tyranny, oligarchy and aristocracy, and democracy and polity. For Aristotle, monarchy was superior to tyranny because the monarch rules for the people while the tyrant rules for himself; aristocracy was the rule of the best men while oligarchy the rule of the few (or, in reality, the richest), so aristocracy was superior; and democracy was the rule of everyone (who was an adult male citizen) while polity was the rule of a select number of those, a far wider group than oligarchy or aristocracy, but more select than democracy, which Aristotle thought superior to democracy because, well, you can't just let everyone have power - think what the ignorant moneyless oiks who happen to be citizens would do with that power?
But there are other forms of government. The Spartan government was unique - there were at any time two kings, who mostly had military and religious power, and a council of either 28 or 30 Ephors, old men with voting rights on other issues. To become an Ephor, a man had to be a Spartan citizen over 60; candidates for Ephorship were voted for in a rudimentary way - adult male citizens would gather in a gathering place, possibly a theatre or similarly shaped space. The candidates would be in little rooms where they couldn't see the gathering place, and one by one, in an order none of them know, they'd be led out in front of the gathered citizens, who would cheer if they supported that candidate. The candidate with the loudest cheers would become an Ephor. The kings were said to be descended from two sons of Heracles, and the idea of there being two was to make sure there was always a king in Sparta when one king had to leave on military or diplomatic matters, so if for example Sparta was attacked, there was a king to lead the army in its defence.
Writing monarchies is simple; readers understand them, and you don't need to explain them. Different forms of government - even slight changes to the standard monarchy - generally do need some form of explanation, tend to involve more characters for readers to keep track of, and can be complicated and confusing, especially if the way the government works is key to the plot. Thus sticking with a monarchy gives a writer more time to work on other aspects of the plot without having to think of politics.
- Thread starter
- #10
sashamerideth
Maester
Jungly said:
As long as the politics fit the story it should be OK. If the story is about the politics, even more so. Sometimes though the government system isn't actually that important to the story, so it can be glossed over.
Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner
Leif GS Notae
Closed Account
Well, if you want to create a political structure like Greece, you will have a lot of stories to tell. You will also have to put up with the chaos and some fine details about the set up.
Monarchies are easier to adjust for since it is a one focal point for decisions to be made. You don't have to account for how groups of people/senators/representatives will think or vote unless you have a program to generate things like this. A wave of the scepter and it is done, as it were.
I wish you luck on it, I know it can be a challenge but I am sure there is a market out there for it.
EDIT: Thanks for the idea, I am tinkering with an automatic voting box for senators/representatives in Excel to help with the heavy lifting. Sometimes it is good to know what the senators think when you are writing, yes?
Monarchies are easier to adjust for since it is a one focal point for decisions to be made. You don't have to account for how groups of people/senators/representatives will think or vote unless you have a program to generate things like this. A wave of the scepter and it is done, as it were.
I wish you luck on it, I know it can be a challenge but I am sure there is a market out there for it.
EDIT: Thanks for the idea, I am tinkering with an automatic voting box for senators/representatives in Excel to help with the heavy lifting. Sometimes it is good to know what the senators think when you are writing, yes?
Last edited:
Honestly I just think it's because people associate Monarchies with the medieval era and there is generally no compelling reason to diverge from that. But there's nothing to say that you could not write a fantasy story of a culture with some other form of governance (and people have, they're just not the "norm" for a medieval setting). I mean, Harry Potter immeadiately comes to mind as an example. It is a fantasy book, but set in the modern era and so there is not a "King" but a "Minister", not a "court" but a "ministry". Then something like Tolkein, which is loosely based on medieval western Europe is all Kings, Queens, Lords, Ladies, etc. And yes Monarchies have been romanticized and are very popular.
Plenty of sci-fi books on the other hand delve right into politics, and there's no real reason that a fantasy book could not do the same.
Plenty of sci-fi books on the other hand delve right into politics, and there's no real reason that a fantasy book could not do the same.
A good point. No need to complicate forms of governance if your story doesn't really touch on them. In every fantasy story I write that doesn't involve politics, I default to monarchy (if it is ever mentioned at all) because it is simple enough for the reader to understand, more or less, with the mere mention of the word King.
Amanita
Maester
In fact, things weren't as easy as that for historical kings either. The Pope for example was a highly important factor in medieval European politics and influential nobles had to be taken into account too. If a king did what he wanted without taking into consideration how other important groups would react, he wouldn't be king much longer. Most fantasy kings seem to have more in common with kings in fairytales and myths than with real ones which, given the origin of fantasy isn't that much of a surprise.
Other effects of feudalism such as serfdom are commonly being ignored as well. The subjects of "good" fantasy kings usually enjoy freedoms similar to those of the citizens of modern western democracies, the only difference is, that they can't/don't have to vote. And the good king of course only has the people's best interestes at heart and is free of greed and selfishness.
Writing a democracy that's as realistic as that shouldn't be much of a problem, but for some reason it's not being done. Maybe it's escapism because current politics can be annoying and frustrating at times. Or many people do long for a good leader who's telling them what's write and what's wrong and protects them from the need of being forced to think for themselves. Or it's simply nostalgia for better times that never existed, but "everything's been better in the past" after all.
I'd really be interested in reading stories set in societies losely based on Ancient Greece or Rome. I don't care much for the destined king who has the right bloodline and I'm not interested in books that are about getting the "right" person onto the throne. Revolutions would interest me much more. I wonder why they aren't any fantasy stories set during the French revolution or stories where the peasant revolts did succeed or any similar situation invented for the world at question...
My own stories are set in modern and late 19th/early 20th-century times. Therefore, the govenment systems mostly resemble the ones we're habing today. Parlamentary democracies and a few totalitarian regimes. I'm much more interested in the latter and how they gain and keep power than in monarchies.
Some of my nations have monarchies in the past however, others used to have ancient forms of democracy, aristocracy and tribal leaders.
This in another reason why my stories probably won't get published but for me, magic meeting modern social structures is much more interesting than magic in an idealised medieval setting. The fact that I just don't manage to go along with the idealisation might be a factor as well. Especially if the villain or Dark Lord is acting exactly like kings in the real world have and the good guys share our own values for no reason whatsoever.
Certainly not. The Kings of France for a very long time had little authority beyond a couple days' ride from Paris. I vaguely recall that a few of these Kings were actually kidnapped and held for ransom (though not by that name) by their own Dukes, who nominally owed them fealty. I'm sure it was couched in much nicer terms, though.
I also find it laughable these days that so many fantasy stories have Kingdoms where every citizen is free to do as they please. Commoners (serfs) were all but slaves in many parts of the world.
I do, however, enjoy the concept of 'destined' nobility. I find it romantic. In reality nobility it is at best an illusion and at worst a horrific perversion, but in fantasy such things could exist. Who is to say that there isn't some magical quality in a made-up world that makes the nobility fit to rule? There was an interesting game called Birthright (or rather, it was a game based in some DnD setting I never heard of before or after) where the 'nobility' were in fact blooded with powers because they all bore some of the blood of a bunch of dead gods. Maybe it doesn't make them morally fit to rule, but it certainly does set them apart...
- Thread starter
- #17
Amanita
Maester
This might work in a fantasy novel of course. Marion Zimmer-Bradley's Darkover did it quite well in my opinion and did touch on some of the issues.
Yet, everyone from the modern world who went there wanted to stay despite of the flawed ruling system and the extreme misogyny. In the story about Marguerida this was extremely frustrating. A modern woman gets to a medieval world, is shocked about their treatment of women first, but accepts it as soon as she's allowed to marry the "right" man. (That's rather common in Zimmer-Bradley's works despite of the fact that she's seen as a "feminist" author.) I like natural food and landscape as much as anyone, but I'd still put freedom and equality first.
I like the Darkover books despite of this though, and it's mainly due to the magic system and some characters.
One of my countries has been ruled by a magical aristocracy for roughly thousand years as well, bu they've messed up in the end. I'm considering to write a story set in their glorious time though, and then I'm even going to describe the rebellious people with not inborn magic as evil and the aristocracy as the good side. (At the moment the main characters think differently, but it's always about who you ask.)
Benjamin Clayborne
Auror
I think that's exactly it. If people want to read about politics, they'll read about politics. Realistic politics doesn't make for great storytelling, because it's directionless and purposeless. There's no character growth, through line, or any of the other elements that make for compelling stories. Not unless you cherry-pick certain elements that fit into that mold.
Writing a fantasy story set against a backdrop of democratic politics certainly has been and can be done. But it is fairly traditional for fantasy societies to be non-democratic.
Leif GS Notae
Closed Account
My statement was not meant for historical accuracy, but ease of writing. I am phrasing everything I stated in my previous post as "The writer can do this because it is easier to explain 'The king did this' rather than 'the people gathered together to determine a 2/3rds super majority in the instance of a ratification in which the sub bylaws are...'"
Yes, wave of the scepter it is.