Government

Discussions about constructed worlds, cultures and any topics related to constructed societies.
User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Government

Post by GamerGeek » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 08:00

What kind of government is used in your conculture? How does the government work?
Last edited by GamerGeek on Mon 05 Jun 2017, 00:15, edited 2 times in total.
Playing the biggest game of Chinese telephone is fun.
User avatar
Threr
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2014, 20:10

Re: Government

Post by Threr » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 08:29

During the godlike time, most of the universe was rules by the ikian empire.

This empire is divided into little empires (arséran) which are governed by their respective leaders (arséritahas). Each of the little empires can actually be of any type of government. It's up to the locals. This, as long as they recognize they belong to a small region (rédozoya). Each of these also have their own government choices. This "region-ception" thing has a depth of six. Basically : an arséran belongs to a rédozoya which belongs to a ryèdoza (big region) which belongs to a rayéédza (super region) which belongs to a dyéndozoya (ikian zone) which belongs to the ikian empire. Sometimes these different level will have organized themselves to have even more divisions but this is not global. Each level must obey to the higher ones.
Each of these level has an obligation in their way of working. They must have specialist on each field of expertise relevant to their situation elected inside of a counsel. These consels will create regular report on their situations and transmit them to the counsels of the higher level. The informations will be treated as locally as possible. If there are choices between decisions than can't be decided by the counsel itself, the ruler has to decide. The power a counsel has will depend on the situation of the level. There is no ruler in the god counsel, if such decisions goes that far, the one responsible for judging what has to be done is the leader of the royal family (Dikwama). The counsel of the emperor is also quite different. There are only six counselors in this one : The leader of the army, the health, social, art and science representatives and the counselor on exterior relationship.
The size of the regions and all are decided by war. The ikian empire is an empire that is almost constantly facing intern war (which is entirely done in purpose, but that's out of the topic).

To give an exemple on how the balance of power in this government use to work over time : before the ekto-dista (the first war the implied the entire universe), the counsel of the emperor was the most powerful institution by far. When the conflict began (not the war itself), the emperor was given the right to take decision on his own even without problems needing to be answered. When the war started, the counsel became merely an information network and the emperor had all the powers.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2828
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Government

Post by elemtilas » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 14:11

GamerGeek wrote:What kind of government is used in your conculture?
Spoiler:
Perhaps it's an open democracy? Open democracies involve everyone.
Perhaps it's a republic? Republics involve voted-in representatives.
Perhaps it's a meritocracy? Meritocracies only have the people most capable of ruling the country.
Perhaps it's a monarchy? Monarchies are when one person has power over anything.
Perhaps it's a dictatorship? Dictatoeships are monarchies, but the leader is closer to the military.
How does the government work?
Auntimoany is a staunch parliamentary monarchy. On the surface, Auntimoanian government works much like you'd find in any Commonwealth country *here*, and definitely with all the bells & whistles you find in England itself. Although the co-Monarchs have very many important ritual and ceremonial roles, they do also have several key functional roles. The Monarch, as you might expect, forms a government by naming individuals to the chief posts in the Magistracy; he calls for elections to those parliamentary houses with elective natures; he opens and closes their Sessions; he assents to & occasionally withdraws assent from or even openly vetoes bills of legislation; he is also the court of last appeal wherein he may exercise, for particular cases only, the imperial Mercy or may inflict the imperial Ire depending. There's a lot of this goes on. Sometimes this.

Harathalliê (Westmarche) and Darirenalliê, the two great Daine queendoms of Narutanea, are collegial & nodal communitarian monarchies. Daine government can, in some respects, be likened to the cells of a body or the nodes in a neural net. At centre is the community with its queen who leads & directs all the people of the community. Scale up to the national level where the Greatqueen leads & directs the People as a whole; scale down to the thridings (large geographical provinces), queenholds, commons and clanholds (smaller geographical regions); and even further down to an individual family, the basic structure is the same. Government is not hierarchical per se. Daine don't kowtow to a queen simply because she's a queen or because there's soldiers and gaolers who enforce lese majeste laws. Daine bow to a queen because she embodies the sacred Law and is the physical and spiritual revelation of its rightness and justice. She, along with her consort if she's married, is the revealed personification of Enca-Nico, the "primordial couple", the quintessence of what it is to be Daine. Men often scratch their heads and wonder how it is Daine govern themselves, because the governments of Men are so fractured, so volatile, so schismatic and so self-destructive in nature. They can't comprehend a government that does not make laws; they can't comprehend a Queen that does not rule; they can't comprehend judges that do not dispense justice; they can't comprehend a just & orderly society that has no obvious machinery of justice or orderliness: no gaols, no churches, no temples, no parliament buildings, no distinct civil servants, no police, no rubbish collectors even.

Old Hoopelle, and its modern descendant state, Harunn (Hanohehano Onohelana Nibuko, the ancient name that means Kingdom of Divine Nibuk) is a unitary and absolute monarchy in the best tradition of the now long vanished archaic empires of Men. No parliament, no high court. Just the Archon who is legislator, executive and chief justice. His diwan may counsel but is primarily charged with enacting & enforcing his decrees.

Telleran is a kind of confederation of qeštan, which are fairly independant provinces, and cramyan, which are cities. Each qeštar is made up of family or clan holdings, which are themselves agglomerations of family homesteads, that largely govern their own affairs as they see fit. Clans, or alliances of clans, elect pâtišâs, or leaders, that speak and vote at the Alqeštanar or Provincial government. The Maxaffalalâmtan (lit. "those who yell loudest") are the chief speakers who are chosen to speak and vote at the Ponhwwar, or diwan, which is the national government. The Ponhwwar is presided over by the emperor, the maxapâtišas, who is the mayor of the capital city (currently and for a long time now, Illenere). The emperor's power extends really only to the City and the lands about; and only with the consent of the Ponhwwar does he rule the whole country. If an emperor should become too much of a problem, the capital can simply be moved to a different city, whose mayor would then become emperor. Each clan is expected to provide warriors for the army and an annual tribute to the imperial government. The emperor ensures the smooth running of government, a stable currency, law enforcement, maintenance of the peace, the highways, defense and foreign policy.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Re: Government

Post by GamerGeek » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 18:36

In the late Hyperion era, hundreds of years after the martian war, Humans rule the Human Intrastellar Imperial Republic (HIIR), usually called Hireas or the Hirean Empire (HE).
How is Hireas ran? The Executive ruler and Military leader of the Hirean Empire, or Emperor rules over the 7(?) sectors of Hireas, however the Hirean Council of Senators (The senate) has legislative power of Hireas, meaning they make all most of the laws.
Each planet has a president, and the president of the sectors' capitals are typically the sector prince, but there are exceptions. Further, there are the kings of the Hirean kingdoms. But finally, each city is an open democracy, meaning the people actually have a say. Of course, the sector princes, presidents, kings, and people have less power than the senate (they can't be compared to the emperor), and each has less power than the next step up.
However, before the HE, and before the Martian war, there was the Martian empire.
After the "soap crisis" (period of isolation; back to stone age), Martian culture and language started to diverge. The Martians much later started to conquer other countries, their moons, then Earth's moon; they planned to take over the entire solar system. Of course, it's never a good idea to declare war on Earth, and thus started the Martian war, not too long after the fourth war. During their existence, the Martian empire was a fascist dictatorship.
Playing the biggest game of Chinese telephone is fun.
User avatar
Foolster41
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012, 06:45
Location: pacific Northwest, USA
Contact:

Re: Government

Post by Foolster41 » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 22:10

In Saltha (A land of desert dwelling lizaardfolk), The country was ruled by separate clan chiefs of city-states. They later unified under a single king Sapa in 447 KG as a single nation. Then the great revolution which started in 3 NG overthrew Kakel. He was the worst and most corrupt of kings, causing a war that was becoming more and more unpopular. One of the breaking points of this revolution was the public exposure and flogging of a man, a woman and her child. The people withdrew from the war immediately and sued for peace, and then established a representative republic.

There are lower senates for each district, as well as a greater senate representing the entire nation. The greater senate consists of around 369 senators, the number of senators from each of the five districts depending on the number of people. A little over half of the senators represent the central district, where the capital is located.

In addition there is for the greater and each of the lower senates an Daradsletheke (Lit. "Voice's head") who is elected.

There are over a dozen political parties, of vastly varying influence.
User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Re: Government

Post by GamerGeek » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 22:41

Foolster41 wrote:... in 447 KG ... in 3 NG ...
What year system do they use?
Playing the biggest game of Chinese telephone is fun.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: Government

Post by Salmoneus » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 23:03

GamerGeek wrote: Perhaps it's an open democracy? Open democracies involve everyone.
Perhaps it's a republic? Republics involve voted-in representatives.
Perhaps it's a meritocracy? Meritocracies only have the people most capable of ruling the country.
Perhaps it's a monarchy? Monarchies are when one person has power over anything.
Perhaps it's a dictatorship? Dictatoeships are monarchies, but the leader is closer to the military.
How does the government work?
I feel someone should comment here.

First, dictatorship and monarchy aren't the same thing, and it's nothing to do with the military. A monarchy has two key features: the position of head of state is hereditary and unelected, and the head of state is generally a single person (there may be exceptions in strange situations, like a woman ruling alongside her husband when there are no male heirs, but if there's generally more than one person ruling then it isn't a monarchy anymore).

A dictatorship is when the head of government has absolute power. Note, this does not relate to either of the key features of a monarchy, so it's an unrelated axis. For instance:
- a monarch need not have absolute power. English monarchs, for instance, have always had their powers limited both legally and politically by the constitution and by parliament - the power to levy taxes, for instance, was reserved to parliament;
- a monarch need not be the head of government. Monarchs often have a 'prime minister' or 'chief minister' who serves at the pleasure of the monarch and takes on the role of head of government. This can be on an ad hoc basis, but can also be a fixed institution - England has had a prime minister since at least the Restoration;
- a dictator possibly need not be head of state. Dictators have operated with figurehead presidents and kings. I say 'possibly' because strictly speaking the authority of the head of state does limit the dictator's power, so it's not perfectly absolute; but it can be close enough to absolute to count as dictatorship, I think. Franco and Mussolini both ruled under figurehead monarchs, and Hitler ruled for a year under a figurehead (but elected) President. Stalin likewise ruled under a figurehead Chairman of the Praesidium; Stalin wasn't even officially head of government until 1941, although in a de facto sense his power was greater than that of the Premier, of course.
- a dictator need not be singular. Military juntas are a well-established form of collective dictatorship.
- a dictatorship need not be hereditary.
- a dictatorship can even be elected. In some cases they can even continue to be elected throughout their dictatorship - it's rare (because a dictator can do away with elections if they feel like it) but it doesn't stop the dictator being a dictator.

Regarding your criterion: dictators don't need to have any particular ties to the military, beyond, of course, being in ultimate control of it. Soviet dictators, for instance, emerged out of the party structure, and the military was often seen as a dangerous rival; likewise, Hitler and Mussolini had no connexion to the military and the military (particularly in Germany) opposed them. Franco came from the military (he was a general)... but Salazar was a reclusive professor of economics with an academical image who used his independence from the military as part of his pitch (when force was required he relied on his secret police rather than the armed forces).
Conversely, monarchies very often ARE closely associated with the military. Aside from being the official supreme commander of the armed forces, historical monarchs were very often real military commanders, or at least presented military command as part of their image.


-----

The second issue I have here is that that's not what 'republic' means in politics.
There are two main meanings of 'republic'. One is simply 'not a monarchy'.

When talking about systems of government, however, its often the older sense that is meant, and in this sense the 'republic' is the opposite of the 'democracy'.

Essentially, the democracy is unifying and totalising, subordinating as much as possible to a single logic of power: the logic of accountability to the people (principally through election).

The republic, by contrast, is divisive and particular by design, spreading power not only between different bodies but between bodies operating with different, incommensurable, logics of power. So Republics tend to try to combine elements of monarchy, aristocracy, meritocracy, self-selecting bodies, direct election, direct democracy and so on, and tried actively to prevent the centralisation of power in any institution. So the Roman Republic had its committees and councils (of patricians, and plebeians, and soldiers), its consuls and tribunes and praetors and quaestors and aediles, and censors, and senators, and its temporary dictators, and other than dictators it generally had at least two of everything just in case. Or the Venetian Republic, with its Doge and its Ten, and its Signoria, and its Major Council and Minor Council and its Senate and its Inquisitors.

[To the extent that the old "America is a Republic, not a Democracy!" is meaningful at all, it's because not because of representative government - that was what the Founders would have thought of as 'democracy'. It's because they purposely gave different positions different electorates (Presidents for the whole country, Senators for the state as a whole, Congressmen for districts), and particularly because of their relatively independent judiciary.]
User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Re: Government

Post by GamerGeek » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 23:05

Fair enough.
Playing the biggest game of Chinese telephone is fun.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Government

Post by Creyeditor » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 00:11

Salmoneus wrote:
Spoiler:
GamerGeek wrote: Perhaps it's an open democracy? Open democracies involve everyone.
Perhaps it's a republic? Republics involve voted-in representatives.
Perhaps it's a meritocracy? Meritocracies only have the people most capable of ruling the country.
Perhaps it's a monarchy? Monarchies are when one person has power over anything.
Perhaps it's a dictatorship? Dictatoeships are monarchies, but the leader is closer to the military.
How does the government work?
I feel someone should comment here.

First, dictatorship and monarchy aren't the same thing, and it's nothing to do with the military. A monarchy has two key features: the position of head of state is hereditary and unelected, and the head of state is generally a single person (there may be exceptions in strange situations, like a woman ruling alongside her husband when there are no male heirs, but if there's generally more than one person ruling then it isn't a monarchy anymore).

A dictatorship is when the head of government has absolute power. Note, this does not relate to either of the key features of a monarchy, so it's an unrelated axis. For instance:
- a monarch need not have absolute power. English monarchs, for instance, have always had their powers limited both legally and politically by the constitution and by parliament - the power to levy taxes, for instance, was reserved to parliament;
- a monarch need not be the head of government. Monarchs often have a 'prime minister' or 'chief minister' who serves at the pleasure of the monarch and takes on the role of head of government. This can be on an ad hoc basis, but can also be a fixed institution - England has had a prime minister since at least the Restoration;
- a dictator possibly need not be head of state. Dictators have operated with figurehead presidents and kings. I say 'possibly' because strictly speaking the authority of the head of state does limit the dictator's power, so it's not perfectly absolute; but it can be close enough to absolute to count as dictatorship, I think. Franco and Mussolini both ruled under figurehead monarchs, and Hitler ruled for a year under a figurehead (but elected) President. Stalin likewise ruled under a figurehead Chairman of the Praesidium; Stalin wasn't even officially head of government until 1941, although in a de facto sense his power was greater than that of the Premier, of course.
- a dictator need not be singular. Military juntas are a well-established form of collective dictatorship.
- a dictatorship need not be hereditary.
- a dictatorship can even be elected. In some cases they can even continue to be elected throughout their dictatorship - it's rare (because a dictator can do away with elections if they feel like it) but it doesn't stop the dictator being a dictator.

Regarding your criterion: dictators don't need to have any particular ties to the military, beyond, of course, being in ultimate control of it. Soviet dictators, for instance, emerged out of the party structure, and the military was often seen as a dangerous rival; likewise, Hitler and Mussolini had no connexion to the military and the military (particularly in Germany) opposed them. Franco came from the military (he was a general)... but Salazar was a reclusive professor of economics with an academical image who used his independence from the military as part of his pitch (when force was required he relied on his secret police rather than the armed forces).
Conversely, monarchies very often ARE closely associated with the military. Aside from being the official supreme commander of the armed forces, historical monarchs were very often real military commanders, or at least presented military command as part of their image.


-----

The second issue I have here is that that's not what 'republic' means in politics.
There are two main meanings of 'republic'. One is simply 'not a monarchy'.

When talking about systems of government, however, its often the older sense that is meant, and in this sense the 'republic' is the opposite of the 'democracy'.

Essentially, the democracy is unifying and totalising, subordinating as much as possible to a single logic of power: the logic of accountability to the people (principally through election).

The republic, by contrast, is divisive and particular by design, spreading power not only between different bodies but between bodies operating with different, incommensurable, logics of power. So Republics tend to try to combine elements of monarchy, aristocracy, meritocracy, self-selecting bodies, direct election, direct democracy and so on, and tried actively to prevent the centralisation of power in any institution. So the Roman Republic had its committees and councils (of patricians, and plebeians, and soldiers), its consuls and tribunes and praetors and quaestors and aediles, and censors, and senators, and its temporary dictators, and other than dictators it generally had at least two of everything just in case. Or the Venetian Republic, with its Doge and its Ten, and its Signoria, and its Major Council and Minor Council and its Senate and its Inquisitors.

[To the extent that the old "America is a Republic, not a Democracy!" is meaningful at all, it's because not because of representative government - that was what the Founders would have thought of as 'democracy'. It's because they purposely gave different positions different electorates (Presidents for the whole country, Senators for the state as a whole, Congressmen for districts), and particularly because of their relatively independent judiciary.]
Thanks for your qualified comment [:)] I was about to comment, but I felt someone else was more qualified. Glad you came along.
I know you already said/implied this, but I wanted to state it explicitly:
A king can be a dictator. A king does not have to be a dictator.
A dictator can be a king. A dictator does not have to be a king.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Government

Post by qwed117 » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 00:29

Another comment along the "America isn't a Democracy" chain: America wasn't born a Republic or Democracy. The Constitution actually doesn't give suffrage to all people, much less all white landowners. States have the rights to make any restrictions they want. This meant that in the early 1800s, from 1789~1820, the people who voted were actually mainly rich white landowners, with some states requiring a voter to have a property worth over $100 (something of the sort). As a result, America really was more of an oligarchy than anything. America really only became a democracy in the 1960s with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the (now-defunct) Voting Rights Act.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2828
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Government

Post by elemtilas » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 02:58

Salmoneus wrote:
GamerGeek wrote: Perhaps it's an open democracy? Open democracies involve everyone.
Perhaps it's a republic? Republics involve voted-in representatives.
Perhaps it's a meritocracy? Meritocracies only have the people most capable of ruling the country.
Perhaps it's a monarchy? Monarchies are when one person has power over anything.
Perhaps it's a dictatorship? Dictatoeships are monarchies, but the leader is closer to the military.
How does the government work?
I feel someone should comment here.

First, dictatorship and monarchy aren't the same thing, and it's nothing to do with the military. A monarchy has two key features: the position of head of state is hereditary and unelected, and the head of state is generally a single person (there may be exceptions in strange situations, like a woman ruling alongside her husband when there are no male heirs, but if there's generally more than one person ruling then it isn't a monarchy anymore).
Except for all those monarchies that have not been / are not hereditary a/o unelected. One can argue that at some points in history the Roman emperors were elected. By the army --- nothing wrong with election by acclamation. And before that, the kings were elected by assembly. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected as well (all from the Hapsburg dynasty, though). Other European & African kingdoms were also elected and not hereditary. Some kings of England have been elected. Irregular in general, to be sure, but there we are. Even now, in the last absolute monarchy in Europe, the Popes of Rome are elected. And for obvious reasons the position is non-hereditary.

Some might argue the current North Korean emperor (Jong "Dough Boy" Kim) was "elected", though his position is also hereditary, so an hereditary elected kingship that.
The second issue I have here is that that's not what 'republic' means in politics.
There are two main meanings of 'republic'. One is simply 'not a monarchy'.
The other, of course, is simply "because We say it is". A "republic" can be anything from the divisive multi-function government as you describe to a totalitarian dictatorship. Consider that the US, North Korea, China and Haiti under Duvalier are all "republics".

Will the real Republic --- the Thing of the People --- please stand up and be recognised!

Otherwise, all very excellent points!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
spanick
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu 11 May 2017, 00:47
Location: California

Re: Government

Post by spanick » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 17:14

I've been devising a government for the Gutisk, a Germanic speaking people who are settled in the Balkans in what is now Serbia and Montenegro. In this alt-world they are able to establish a kingdom where Montenegro is now, called Rič Svartsbergs ("Kingdom of Svartsberg", or simply Svartsberg or Montenegro if you prefer haha).

The kingdom itself is a dual, elective monarchy. One monarch, who is elected for life from among the Aþlos (Nobles) by the Ričmot (Parliament) the second is the Patriarch of the Gothic-Greek Catholic Church who is elected from amongst the bishops. The Ričmot itself is composed of 118 members whose votes are weighted and thus there are a total of 261 votes. The vote breakdown is as follows:
7 bishops with 6 votes each for a total of 42
33 nobles with various votes each for a total of 102
23 counties with 1 vote each for a total of 23
10 chartered cities with 1 vote each for a total of 10
12 large guilds with 2 votes each for a total of 24
60 small guilds with 1 vote each for a total of 60

Both monarchs have veto power which can only be overturned with an absolute majority of the Ričmot. The monarchs also sit as the high judges of the kingdom and the nobles and bishops vote as a jury (each with only one vote in this case). The rest of the Ričmot cannot sit in judgement of others. In this way, there is a de facto upper house.

Each delagate to the Ričmot must cast all his votes the same way (no vote splitting). Nobles are seated for life and their seats are hereditary. Bishops are chosen from amongst the priests by the other bishops are also seated for life. The counties are represented by royal appointees for life, the position is not inherited. The cities are represented by their mayors who are elected from amongst the citizens of that city. The guilds may choose their delegates however they like. Their status as voting guilds is dependent on a royal charter which can be revoked. In practice, they are not revoked often but it has been known to happen.

The kings can issue and revoke royal charters on their own prerogative and they have a handful of other privileges. Regular legislation is voted on by the Ričmot, which in particular retains the right to vote on new taxes, finances, and budget.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2828
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Government

Post by elemtilas » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 17:41

spanick wrote:Bishops are chosen from amongst the priests by the other bishops are also seated for life.
I'm not sure I quite understand this --- are you saying these "other bishops" chose certain priests to be elevated to the episcopate in order to sit in the Ričmot? Or should it be that ecclesiastics who will sit in the Ričmot are already bishops but chosen from among all the bishops of Svartberg?

For what it's worth, I don't think the local hierarchy can just create new bishops that way. While it is true that a patriarchal eastern rite Catholic church (Jerusalem is the only such) can install new bishops on their own authority, generally bishops are elevated from among the (eligible) priesthood through a period of investigation by the Roman Curia.

While I don't see any reason why bishops couldn't sit in the Ričmot (as lords spiritual), I kind of think Rome would frown on creating a whole bunch of bishops for purely political reasons!

How frequently have the monarchs denied passage of bills?

Nice system you've got there, by the way!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
spanick
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu 11 May 2017, 00:47
Location: California

Re: Government

Post by spanick » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 19:24

elemtilas wrote:
spanick wrote:Bishops are chosen from amongst the priests by the other bishops are also seated for life.
I'm not sure I quite understand this --- are you saying these "other bishops" chose certain priests to be elevated to the episcopate in order to sit in the Ričmot? Or should it be that ecclesiastics who will sit in the Ričmot are already bishops but chosen from among all the bishops of Svartberg?

For what it's worth, I don't think the local hierarchy can just create new bishops that way. While it is true that a patriarchal eastern rite Catholic church (Jerusalem is the only such) can install new bishops on their own authority, generally bishops are elevated from among the (eligible) priesthood through a period of investigation by the Roman Curia.
You're right. I had forgotten about the way bishops are actually chosen haha. There are seven bishops total (including the patriarch but not including any auxiliary bishops there may be) they are the ones who draw up the short list of candidates which Rome then investigates and approves up. Also, I should point out that he is not officially a patriarch. Rome considers him an archbishop but his church calls him patriarch (not too different than the Ukrainian-Greek Catholic Church).
While I don't see any reason why bishops couldn't sit in the Ričmot (as lords spiritual), I kind of think Rome would frown on creating a whole bunch of bishops for purely political reasons!
Another excellent point! I'm still trying to determine their role more clearly. They likely would either not have votes and function nearly the same as the Lords Spiritual or they would have nominal control of their votes but traditionally would not vote on purely political matters and would be expected to be apolitical.

That bring s up a point about the Kings I forgot to mention. They are in theory co-equal but in practice, the noble-king excercises most of the actual executive power while the patriarch-king is mostly advisory in function.
How frequently have the monarchs denied passage of bills?
Not often. Since they are elected from amongst the other nobles they are generally wel liked (initially at least) and hold some sway. They would act much like a prime minister and propose legislation for the Ričmot. They Also tend to ingratiate themselves to the nobility. Considering they also have the power to appoint county delegates and revoke guild/city charters, no one is keen on presenting legislation they think would be vetoed.
Nice system you've got there, by the way!
Thank you! I appreciate the input.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2828
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Government

Post by elemtilas » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 20:06

spanick wrote:
elemtilas wrote:While I don't see any reason why bishops couldn't sit in the Ričmot (as lords spiritual), I kind of think Rome would frown on creating a whole bunch of bishops for purely political reasons!
Another excellent point! I'm still trying to determine their role more clearly. They likely would either not have votes and function nearly the same as the Lords Spiritual or they would have nominal control of their votes but traditionally would not vote on purely political matters and would be expected to be apolitical.
That, I think, might be a véry modern interpretation of their role! And, perhaps, a little too American in basis!

I'm sure they would at least be involved in debate, if not voting.
That bring s up a point about the Kings I forgot to mention. They are in theory co-equal but in practice, the noble-king excercises most of the actual executive power while the patriarch-king is mostly advisory in function.
Makes sense.

Have you thought at all about how this situation could have arisen among the historical Goths?
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2828
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Government

Post by elemtilas » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 23:42

I do have an excerpt of an article on Auntimoanian government here

As far as the judiciary is concerned, there is actually a pretty good description of the law courts and the administration of justice in Auntimoanye here.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
alynnidalar
roman
roman
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun 17 Aug 2014, 02:22
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Government

Post by alynnidalar » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 01:30

elemtilas wrote:The Maxaffalalâmtan (lit. "those who yell loudest")
[xD] I'm dying.

I've actually been altering some aspects of government lately, so this is a good question.

Sanmra: The Sanmran government has two main pieces: the nuoda, the legislature, and the sarda, the heads of state. (by tradition there are two sarda, a man and a woman) The legislature is democratically elected by all Sanmran citizens, while the sarda is elected by (a supermajority of) the legislature. It's a lifetime position, and theoretically speaking, the sarda have, or could have, all the power. In practice, the sarda don't like getting overthrown, so they leave most things to the legislature. The sarda remain in control of foreign relations and exert significant influence on the general direction of policies, as well as being the heads of the judicial branch and the final court of appeals; they also occasionally exercise the power of veto on legislation they deem particularly damaging to the nation. Most other powers fall under the purview of the legislature.

So it's something of a parliamentary system, but where the head of state retains real power. It developed out of a sort of monarchical system and went through a century or so of the legislature overthrowing the sarda and vice versa, culminating in a civil war, before settling down into the modern system. (and that's why the sarda usually doesn't try to seize too much power anymore!)

Tuanmali: "a very squabbly democracy", as I like to describe it. I don't have a ton of details sorted out yet, but I've pictured it as being somewhat decentralized, with each enclave making a lot of independent decisions. There would be a parliament with a prime minister, and perhaps a president, but the exact division of power, I'm unsure on. Very much still a work in progress!

Lorhan: Even less details here. They're a proper monarchy, ruled by a queen. That's all I know!
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7148
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48

Re: Government

Post by Micamo » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 07:16

I've been sketching on a new setting so why not.

The Great Kirinthi Imperium is a hereditary monarchy led by the First Executor, Kirinthiax Wian Bianande IX, and her heir the Second Executor, Kininthiax Maxi Welal VII. The two executors rule conjointly, with the Second being promoted to the First upon the death of the First (life extension technology means this has not happened in quite a while, however). By tradition, the First focuses on domestic policy and the Second on foreign policy, but the First has the ability to overrule the Second.

How their government works is an executor announces a policy goal, for example "increase the output of our solar panel network by 10% in the next 5 years." The imperium's advisory body, the Grand University of Olos, consisting of the imperium's most educated scholars in every field, work out plans and bring them forth to the executor. The executor chooses the plan that she likes best and implements it. If the plan meets the policy goal, the scholar who proposed the plan is showered with riches. If not, the scholar and their entire family are executed. The scholars of Olos are very careful not to waste the Executor's time with plans they are not 100% certain will work.

In the past, the Imperium had a feudalistic structure with lesser noble families serving under the Executor, but in the 57th year of the Reign of Ten Suns, all hereditary titles not related to the royal family itself were stripped and the feudalism system was replaced with a random lottery system: A "winner" of the lottery would be appointed to a governor position for life, and would be saddled with implementing the Executor's policy goals for the region. Success means rewards, but failure means execution. Governors are usually appointed and replaced very rapidly before the random lottery picks someone competent enough to stick around for a while.

The system survives however in conquered states: Long experience has taught the Kirinthi that it's suboptimal at best to send in Kirinthi governors to administrate a conquered people directly. Instead the current rulers of a conquered state are coerced into signing a disarmament agreement and are given policy goals to be met by the conquered state in any way they wish. The conquered states are much more docile and willing to cooperate if they keep their old traditions and systems of rule. It is for similar reasons that enslavement of conquered peoples has been banned.

The message the Kirinthi government wants to send to the rest of the galaxy is that they are a benevolent force, interested only in increasing efficiency through the application of empirically proven, rationalistic methods. While it's true that the Kirinthi citizens enjoy the highest living standards and have a very high degree of personal freedoms and rights, the Executors only see living standards and personal rights as a means to their ends of an abstract "rationalistic efficiency." If and when those things are an obstacle rather than a benefit to their policy goals, they do not hesitate to end them.

--------

The Sirugg Scourge have a system of government based on a firm belief in genetic destiny. They are ruled by an oligarchic body called the Council of Superiors, made up of those individuals that have been judged to have the best breeding. In the past the Council was maintained through careful inbreeding, but in modern times the council is made up of clones, with new clones kept on ice and ready to replace a council member should they suddenly die.

The council operates on the principle of consensus government: Nothing may be decided unless the entire council agrees, and debates can take months or years or even decades. Exceptions for situations where immediate decision making is required allows for the council to deputize one of its own (by unanimous vote) to be able to make decisions in a limited domain for a limited period of time, at the end of which the council reviews the appointment. One such deputy and the de facto leader of the council is the High Executioner, charged with the task of operating the systematic purges of those with bloodlines the council has determined unworthy of continued existence. (As this includes all non-Sirugg peoples, the High Executioner is the effective leader of the army as well.)
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2828
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Government

Post by elemtilas » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 11:31

Micamo wrote:I've been sketching on a new setting so why not.
Yay!
The Great Kirinthi Imperium is a hereditary monarchy led by the First Executor, Kirinthiax Wian Bianande IX, and her heir the Second Executor, Kininthiax Maxi Welal VII. The two executors rule conjointly, with the Second being promoted to the First upon the death of the First (life extension technology means this has not happened in quite a while, however).
The Second Executor has no access to life abbreviation technology?
By tradition, the First focuses on domestic policy and the Second on foreign policy, but the First has the ability to overrule the Second.
The Second must, then, develop a strong personality in order to not be used as a tool of the First! Are there any checks the Second has over the First?
How their government works is an executor announces a policy goal, for example "increase the output of our solar panel network by 10% in the next 5 years." The imperium's advisory body, the Grand University of Olos, consisting of the imperium's most educated scholars in every field, work out plans and bring them forth to the executor. The executor chooses the plan that she likes best and implements it. If the plan meets the policy goal, the scholar who proposed the plan is showered with riches. If not, the scholar and their entire family are executed. The scholars of Olos are very careful not to waste the Executor's time with plans they are not 100% certain will work.
Ah. Incentivised scholarship!
In the past, the Imperium had a feudalistic structure with lesser noble families serving under the Executor, but in the 57th year of the Reign of Ten Suns, all hereditary titles not related to the royal family itself were stripped and the feudalism system was replaced with a random lottery system: A "winner" of the lottery would be appointed to a governor position for life, and would be saddled with implementing the Executor's policy goals for the region. Success means rewards, but failure means execution. Governors are usually appointed and replaced very rapidly before the random lottery picks someone competent enough to stick around for a while.
I sense a distinct pattern in the Kirinthian system of government!
The system survives however in conquered states: Long experience has taught the Kirinthi that it's suboptimal at best to send in Kirinthi governors to administrate a conquered people directly. Instead the current rulers of a conquered state are coerced into signing a disarmament agreement and are given policy goals to be met by the conquered state in any way they wish. The conquered states are much more docile and willing to cooperate if they keep their old traditions and systems of rule. It is for similar reasons that enslavement of conquered peoples has been banned.
Sensible. Do the Kirinthian conquerors impose the same scheme of civil service advancement among subordinate territories?
The message the Kirinthi government wants to send to the rest of the galaxy is that they are a benevolent force, interested only in increasing efficiency through the application of empirically proven, rationalistic methods. While it's true that the Kirinthi citizens enjoy the highest living standards and have a very high degree of personal freedoms and rights, the Executors only see living standards and personal rights as a means to their ends of an abstract "rationalistic efficiency." If and when those things are an obstacle rather than a benefit to their policy goals, they do not hesitate to end them.
Do either of the Executors fall under the same Produce or Die imperative? Is the Heir / Second Executor necessarily a child of the First? Does the executorship pass naturally to a designated child, or does the First choose the Second?

The Sirugg Scourge have a system of government based on a firm belief in genetic destiny. They are ruled by an oligarchic body called the Council of Superiors, made up of those individuals that have been judged to have the best breeding. In the past the Council was maintained through careful inbreeding, but in modern times the council is made up of clones, with new clones kept on ice and ready to replace a council member should they suddenly die.
Convenient. Saves on board of elections expenses and time wasted on political campaigns.
The council operates on the principle of consensus government: Nothing may be decided unless the entire council agrees, and debates can take months or years or even decades. Exceptions for situations where immediate decision making is required allows for the council to deputize one of its own (by unanimous vote) to be able to make decisions in a limited domain for a limited period of time, at the end of which the council reviews the appointment. One such deputy and the de facto leader of the council is the High Executioner, charged with the task of operating the systematic purges of those with bloodlines the council has determined unworthy of continued existence. (As this includes all non-Sirugg peoples, the High Executioner is the effective leader of the army as well.)
You seem to be in favor of roots in the domain of EXECUT- in this setting!

I think you've got two interesting systems going here. Some parallels, what with government being the great deathmonger, but also with great differences in political philosophy and practice!

[<3] [<3] [<3]
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7148
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48

Re: Government

Post by Micamo » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 13:37

elemtilas wrote:The Second Executor has no access to life abbreviation technology?
They do, but a Second assassinating a First has not happened in centuries. That's part of the reason why the First and Second share so much power, to give the Second as little incentive for assassination as possible. It's actually the Second who's most in danger of assassination, if an heir decides they don't want to wait around any longer to be in power.
The Second must, then, develop a strong personality in order to not be used as a tool of the First! Are there any checks the Second has over the First?
No, the purpose of the system is not to provide checks and balances but to make sure the transition between rulers is as smooth as possible.
Sensible. Do the Kirinthian conquerors impose the same scheme of civil service advancement among subordinate territories?
Only at the highest levels. The Kirinthi execute leaders of the conquered states who fail to meet the goals that are put in place for the whole nation, but then those leaders are replaced in the usual way by whatever system the conquered state used before they were conquered.
Do either of the Executors fall under the same Produce or Die imperative? Is the Heir / Second Executor necessarily a child of the First? Does the executorship pass naturally to a designated child, or does the First choose the Second?
No. Blame for policy failures passes to the scholars of Olos who proposed the policy, not to the Executors. Which is a bit of a double standard but I never claimed their philosophy was consistent: The royal family is just fine making exceptions to their own laws in order to preserve their power and status.

As for inheritance, it usually passes to a child but the Second names which child they want to take their place. Said child is groomed and prepared and educated all their life to be ready to take the role when their time comes. A Second *can* name another person, but in the event that this happens said person is adopted into the royal family and is thus legally a child of the Second. A Second can change this designation at any time, however.
Post Reply