Government

[trentonian7]

The main kingdom I'm focusing on lays on the coast, the biggest cities former colonies of the city states across the gulf. The lands previously were mostly ungoverned, a collection of loosely bound villages and towns without any central government. The capital, a large fortified and planned city, was founded roughly three hundred years ago, though the colony only gained independent autonomy in the past century. There is a king, however, in eastern fashion, the monarchy is not hereditary. Immediately beneath the King is the High Council, a small group of advisers and ministers who oversee the King's ministries and offer advice. A part of the council is elected and a smaller part appointed by the king; these men serve for as long as the king does, and it is they who appoint his successor. A member of the High Council may resign at any time, though the council may also dismiss one of their own through a majority vote, the king voting only on ties. The king, while very powerful, may not without cause punish any of his citizens, at least in theory. Because the title of monarch is not hereditary, the King's children will have no titles upon birth. That being said, they will likely have opportunities greater than most, especially in government. The lords who serve beneath the King are also appointed, either by the king or in his name, and their titles are not hereditary. Seem workable?

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Yes, this does seem workable. But, how are successors chosen? One of the primary facets of government is its longevity. If the process whereby a new king is chosen isn't clearly set by either practice or document the government will fail or will become a de facto hereditary monarchy.

The other question I have is concerning your colonies across the body of water. How does the central government control them? Another facet of a true government is that they have a monopoly of force (or violence) over their controlled territory. The more difficult the transport and communication the less likely they will have that monopoly.

 

[FifthView]

Seems to me that the king in your scenario becomes essentially the head councilor; or, that the most influential councilor on the High Council eventually becomes the king. Even if over half of the High Council is elected, the king can appoint some to tip the balance in his favor — assuming that some who are elected are on the side of the monarchy — so that he always has a majority. Which then gets to appoint his successor. So it can easily become something like a hereditary process or else perhaps an oligarchy that can maintain control.

Even if the members of the High Council only "serve for as long as the king does," I'm assuming that their appointment of a successor will be repaid in kind by the new king when he chooses those who appointed him to rejoin the High Council. Quid pro quo. So there seems to be entrenchment. Any majority could also dismiss dissenters from the High Council, until it becomes quite stacked, potentially effectively eliminating the popular vote. Perhaps if the vote/appointment ratio of High Council members was 3:1 or greater, this effect could be softened.

The interesting dynamic I see would be in the large class of lords, perhaps, since any lords appointed by previous kings would remain lords even when kings change. They could serve as a counter balance for a weighted monarch/Council faction.

Edit: Incidentally, without some mechanism for legitimately removing the king (impeachment), a king appointed at a young age who managed to live a long life could have even more influence over stacking the High Council and appointing lords to stack the class of lords, if many members of both were older at the time of his selection as king. I.e., they'd die off, and he'd have more chances for appointments that suited him.

 

[trentonian7]

Yes, this does seem workable. But, how are successors chosen? One of the primary facets of government is its longevity. If the process whereby a new king is chosen isn't clearly set by either practice or document the government will fail or will become a de facto hereditary monarchy.

The other question I have is concerning your colonies across the body of water. How does the central government control them? Another facet of a true government is that they have a monopoly of force (or violence) over their controlled territory. The more difficult the transport and communication the less likely they will have that monopoly.

One of the most important functions of the council is naming a successor; this is decided through discussion and majority vote. The successor may not be in the immediate family of the king and he must be over 30.

To your second bit; I must have confused you. The kingdom I speak of is the former colony; the colonies rebelled against the city states who ruled them from across the gulf and formed their own kingdoms.

 

[trentonian7]

Seems to me that the king in your scenario becomes essentially the head councilor; or, that the most influential councilor on the High Council eventually becomes the king. Even if over half of the High Council is elected, the king can appoint some to tip the balance in his favor — assuming that some who are elected are on the side of the monarchy — so that he always has a majority. Which then gets to appoint his successor. So it can easily become something like a hereditary process or else perhaps an oligarchy that can maintain control.

Even if the members of the High Council only "serve for as long as the king does," I'm assuming that their appointment of a successor will be repaid in kind by the new king when he chooses those who appointed him to rejoin the High Council. Quid pro quo. So there seems to be entrenchment. Any majority could also dismiss dissenters from the High Council, until it becomes quite stacked, potentially effectively eliminating the popular vote. Perhaps if the vote/appointment ratio of High Council members was 3:1 or greater, this effect could be softened.

The interesting dynamic I see would be in the large class of lords, perhaps, since any lords appointed by previous kings would remain lords even when kings change. They could serve as a counter balance for a weighted monarch/Council faction.

Edit: Incidentally, without some mechanism for legitimately removing the king (impeachment), a king appointed at a young age who managed to live a long life could have even more influence over stacking the High Council and appointing lords to stack the class of lords, if many members of both were older at the time of his selection as king. I.e., they'd die off, and he'd have more chances for appointments that suited him.

You raise very valid points; fortunately, the king's successor cannot be appointed from the king's family or from within the High Council. Furthermore, the king's successor may not be appointed to the High Council. A candidate for succession must be over the age of 30, a legal citizen, and have served as a lord.

I agree with you; there must surely be a higher ratio of elected councilman to appointed and I'd already been toying with a 3:1 ratio.

My original intent was to avoid the mess that often accompanies birthright while maintaining a fairly monarchical structure, however, as you noticed, the current plan reads more like an absolute monarchy.

 

[FifthView]

There's nothing wrong with using an absolute monarchy, despotism, etc., for a world, or any novel set of principles for a government that can lead to versions of those. So most of my earlier comments were just observations (without all the data) of possible results of your framework. Everything depends on what you want for world.

Incidentally, I'm curious: Is the form of government for this kingdom modeled in any way on the formerly controlling city states across the gulf, or is it relatively new? If it's new for this side of the gulf, then has it only been around for the 100 years since the separation from those city-states? That's a fairly short time, so I'd bet that the people of this kingdom may not have experienced, yet, all the possible repercussions of such a structure of governance. The limits and potential of their system of government might be something they are still testing.

 

[trentonian7]

There's nothing wrong with using an absolute monarchy, despotism, etc., for a world, or any novel set of principles for a government that can lead to versions of those. So most of my earlier comments were just observations (without all the data) of possible results of your framework. Everything depends on what you want for world.

Incidentally, I'm curious: Is the form of government for this kingdom modeled in any way on the formerly controlling city states across the gulf, or is it relatively new? If it's new for this side of the gulf, then has it only been around for the 100 years since the separation from those city-states? That's a fairly short time, so I'd bet that the people of this kingdom may not have experienced, yet, all the possible repercussions of such a structure of governance. The limits and potential of their system of government might be something they are still testing.

It is influenced by the eastern city states, but as you noted, this is a relatively new nation. It is not exact by any means and they may still be working out the kinks, as you said.

While I agree that there isn't anything wrong neccesarily with despotism, despotism was never my goal. I was aiming for a monarchical meritocracy, but in doing so I've perhaps given the king too much power. Even in traditional absolute monarchies, the kings were often rivaled by powerful nobles and lords.

 

[FifthView]

There are other factors in a society that can greatly influence the ultimate expression of a system of government: economics, religion, culture/tradition, technology, institutions of learning, international relations, being cosmopolitan or rather ethnically monolithic, etc. These can have varying effects, lead to vying interests and different valuations of "merit," possibly limiting a king's power.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

What you've got is what we'd call a Clayton's Monarchy. It isn't really a monarchy at all - it just carries the name. (Clayton's in case anyone was wondering was fake whiskey - the whiskey you had when you weren't having whiskey!)

My thought would be that you've gone half way between a democracy and a large village council or hierarchy of councils. No problem with that. But I would be concerned that you've separated your wealth - which is the traditional way in which lords lorded it over the peasants - from power. If a lord's son etc can inherit the family estate and inessence rule as a landowner / owner of the means of making capital for those thinking communism, but not end up a lord then somewhere down the line you end up with a wealthy elite who are not part of the ruling elite. This will lead to instability. Think how you would feel if your castles and endless farms were suddenly taxed at thirty percent because some jumped up peasant who is really just popular but has no breeding, decided some people were just too rich!

True democracy can get around this, because everyone has a vote so a lord's vote counts the same as a peasants, and so you can have lord's that are paupers and millionaires who aren't lords, but I don't think that this is what you've got.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[skip.knox]

In the cases I can think of--specifically, the doge in Venice, and the Holy Roman Emperor--the head guy had comparatively limited powers. This is because the select few who did the electing were very concerned the chief executive not trod on their own privileges. So they tended either to choose someone who was weak (little land, few allies) or to limit the period of service (e.g., six months) so the fellow could not build up a power base. For me, and I readily admit I'm probably in a small minority, a powerful elected king doesn't ring true.

Since this is fantasy, can you think of ways in which magic might change the equation?