Remove ads

Paths of Civilization II: Paths of Industrialization

Reader mode
FortTell said:
But nothing stops you from having democracy and feedback while also having a monarchy.
Also, all law codes have loopholes and small injustices in them. Catherine II the Great said: "Apart from law, justice also should exist." If everybody in the country is bound by the laws of said country, nobody has the legal power to fix an injustice or inefficiency fast enough. So there should be somebody that could fix this?

Such a person should have the power to override the lower-level laws to deliver justice (like a jury trial). Of course, such power is dangerous in wrong hands. And a position of the monarch comes into play here. A monarch is the person with interests (usually) aligned with the long-term prosperity of his country. This lessens the chance his powers could be used for evil. In addition, a monarch changes less often then a new person is chosen for an elected position. Which means less people have access to the potentially harmful power. Finally, monarchy is a familial endeavour. Do you want to risk yourself and your family by abusing your power? Doubtful.

Applying that power to circumvent the usual bureaucratic slog to do what the masses may want is why I think a monarch can coexist well with democratic systems on the lower levels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Sorry, but what?
The good law code has a possibility of fixing the bugs, and putting an option to bypass it into someone's hands is troublesome.

Second bolded point: literally Nicholas the Second. Yeah, I can totally imagine monarchs being idiots who think that their pride/heredity/whatnot is more important than anything and then be surprised by reality in most unwelcome fashion.


Fundamentally, you are suggesting not only giving somebody power to sidestep the justice system, but to limit it to non-controlled by professionals family of people whose only claim to deserving such power is...heredity.

It's literally Inquisition from 40K (with lesser powers, but I could not recall anything resembling it and popular off the top of my head), but without meritocracy.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Problem is, masses always define the will of rulers; or rather, if ruler does ignore them too much, things will explode so he really shouldn't.
That's the point of democracy: ensuring that people do not have to use violence to be heard. Everything else is gravvy, possibility of non-violent avenue for influence is core.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which I admit myself.

It becomes a problem when a populist agenda is nigh-on mandatory to keep power.

And the best-intentioned won't be able to do a thing without power.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Problem: monarchy is...

Like, have you heard tragedy of Nicholas the Second? Good familtyman, devout Christian, affable person...and an idiot who set Russia on track that led it to USSR via sheer incompetence.

Hereditary monarchy inevitably leads to such; and, while democracies can, too, elect incompetent moron (looking at news, yeeeah), the short term limit, the deep bureaucracy and bunch of institutions running around doing their things prevent the worst from occuring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Continued following of populism and people who have gotten in control enough to direct populism can cause democracies to do incredibly idiotic things, repeatedly, and in the interests of someone(s) who can make things look far better than they actually are. Just as the answer there is not to switch to a completely different type of government and throw out the baby with the bath water, the answer to the problems that monarchies face is not to just switch to a completely different form of government because it doesn't have that particular disadvantage.

You have pointed out one very real problem with a monarchy that we have to deal with, just as has been pointed out a very real problem with democracies that has to be dealt with even in modern times.

I'd propose either expanding the royal family and gaining a new type of passing down of who the heir is to something that helps ensure that the most talented and fit person for the job gets said job, or perhaps slowly transitioning into something like a mericratic monarchy. Perhaps we could have some sort of system where the top students at a Royal Academy meant specifically to train up the next generation of leaders (and make sure said academy has field trips to other places so they can understand the woes of the common person a bit more easily in its curriculum) and then have a nationwide election to determine which one of them will become the next heir at a certain time. (Vote for me! I was the president of the most prestigious generation of the Academy in recent years!). We might be able to pull from an expanded royal family, various noble families, or even anyone who could pass the entrance exam.

My point is much more, thinking that the governmental problems will be solved rather than be changed by switching government types completely is not something I believe. We are going through changing times and all governments will have to evolve one way or another. All governments, even the newly formed republics will need to evolve.
 
ctulhuslp said:
Sorry, but what?
The good law code has a possibility of fixing the bugs, and putting an option to bypass it into someone's hands is troublesome.

Second bolded point: literally Nicholas the Second. Yeah, I can totally imagine monarchs being idiots who think that their pride/heredity/whatnot is more important than anything and then be surprised by reality in most unwelcome fashion.

Fundamentally, you are suggesting not only giving somebody power to sidestep the justice system, but to limit it to non-controlled by professionals family of people whose only claim to deserving such power is...heredity.

It's literally Inquisition from 40K (with lesser powers, but I could not recall anything resembling it and popular off the top of my head), but without meritocracy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

  1. I understand such power is dangerous, this is why I do not want to give it to some populist dude on a 4-year term.
  2. All this is supposed to work ONLY in a constitutional monarchy, and you cannot bypass the constitution.
  3. We can add a check on this power, say, royal decrees may be vetoed by joint majority vote of the parliament houses. (or something)
  4. Funny thing, Russian rulers who were educated in rulership less ruled better. Peter I? Self-taught, now known as "the Great". Peter III? Taught from 10yo, killed in 1/2 a year. Catherine II? Never learnt about rulership before becoming Empress, now known as "the Great". Pavel I? Taught by best tutors, killed in 6 years.
  5. As if a monarch could not marry off some undeserving children so they cannot inherit.
 
Last edited:
I agree there needs to be a escape valve for stupidity.

An equalitarian system where the most competent, instead of oldest or male, heir amongst the royal family is chosen could go quite a ways towards helping.

The ruler is a bloody idiot? Institute a vote-of-no-confidence system so the crown is passed to the next heir.

And this is all in the context of a constitutional monarchy, with even a two-house parliament.
 
Last edited:
TotallyNotEvil said:
Which I admit myself.

It becomes a problem when a populist agenda is nigh-on mandatory to keep power.

And the best-intentioned won't be able to do a thing without power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If populism is mandatory to keep power, than denying populist forces an outlet via political process results in things like Gaius Marius or other populist autocrats using those suppressed voices to take power via force. Support of masses is hell of an engine for revolution.

In such cases pulling a Bismark is called for and actually addressing those of their concerns which are not idiocy. UHC, increase suffrage, progressive taxation, workplace safety, and so on.
Plus education; the better is education, the less of problem populism presents - in theory, with populace of people each having at leastBSc in PolSci/Economics/some hard science/Philosophy or whatnot direct democracy would work too.
It's just that some countries first make education expensive and then 30 years later wonder why the populace votes against their own interests.


TL;DR: High quality mass education is, long-term, a better way to address populism that trying to deny masses access to leverages of power. In the meantime, passing useful things masses want works well enough.


bluefur87 said:
Continued following of populism and people who have gotten in control enough to direct populism can cause democracies to do incredibly idiotic things, repeatedly, and in the interests of someone(s) who can make things look far better than they actually are. Just as the answer there is not to switch to a completely different type of government and throw out the baby with the bath water, the answer to the problems that monarchies face is not to just switch to a completely different form of government because it doesn't have that particular disadvantage.

You have pointed out one very real problem with a monarchy that we have to deal with, just as has been pointed out a very real problem with democracies that has to be dealt with even in modern times.

I'd propose either expanding the royal family and gaining a new type of passing down of who the heir is to something that helps ensure that the most talented and fit person for the job gets said job, or perhaps slowly transitioning into something like a mericratic monarchy. Perhaps we could have some sort of system where the top students at a Royal Academy meant specifically to train up the next generation of leaders (and make sure said academy has field trips to other places so they can understand the woes of the common person a bit more easily in its curriculum) and then have a nationwide election to determine which one of them will become the next heir at a certain time. (Vote for me! I was the president of the most prestigious generation of the Academy in recent years!). We might be able to pull from an expanded royal family, various noble families, or even anyone who could pass the entrance exam.

My point is much more, thinking that the governmental problems will be solved rather than be changed by switching government types completely is not something I believe. We are going through changing times and all governments will have to evolve one way or another. All governments, even the newly formed republics will need to evolve.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1. How is hypothetical "Meritocratic monarchy" different from democracy with lack of limit of term count?
2. If the monarch is not elected, then who controls the definition of "merit" and how they are selected?

FortTell said:
  1. I understand such power is dangerous, this is why I do not want to give it to some populist dude on a 4-year term.
  2. All this is supposed to work ONLY in a constitutional monarchy, and you cannot bypass the constitution.
  3. We can add a check on this power, say, royal decrees may be vetoed by joint majority vote of the parliament houses. (or something)
  4. Funny thing, Russian rulers who were educated in rulership less ruled better. Peter I? Self-taught, now known as "the Great". Peter III? Taught from 10yo, killed in 1/2 a year. Catherine II? Never learnt about rulership before becoming Empress, now known as "the Great". Pavel I? Taught by best tutors, killed in 6 years.
  5. As if a monarch could not marry off some undeserving children so they cannot inherit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1. You could make a separate profession out of it and do it via merit. Call such people, oh, attorneys, or something. Why tie it to monarchy at all?
2. What if constitution is old and unjust itself though?
3. That's...just the definition of executive branch which can be vetoed by another one. Again, why monarchy? You do not need a monarch here.
4. Well, I am not sure "killed" thing is a point against rulers' competence in ruling.
5. Well they could, but...


All in all, overwhelming question I have is "What does monarchy has to do with it?".
 
Locking in as these choices:

[X][Advisors] Yes - Gain +3 Prestige immediately, gain another iteration of the Sending Advisors effect (-1 Armies, +1 SoL, prestige transfers)

[X][Exile] Khemetri (0.8x)
[X][Exile] Volitarn (0.8x)
[X][Exile] UPM (0.9x)
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
An equalitarian system where the most competent, instead of oldest or male, heir amongst the royal family is chosen could go quite a ways towards helping.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Who gets to define what counts as "most competent"?
TotallyNotEvil said:
The ruler is a bloody idiot? Institute a vote-of-no-confidence system so the crown is passed to the next heir.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Such a vote-of-no-confidence can also be abused by the exact same populist forces to replace a decent king with one who shares their stupid views.
 
The obvious problem with a monarch looking out for the long-term interests of their country is that they may have a wildly inaccurate idea of what those interests are. Some obvious examples are Peter III of Russia deciding that Germany was awesome and Russia should do everything possible to cozy up to it. Or President-for-life Simon Bolivar being so dedicated to revolution throughout South America that he ended up utterly devastating the places he was actually President of.

That's not to mention that any kind of hereditary monarchy gives you a lot of incentive to put your interests and those of your family above those of your country.
 
Inserted tally
Adhoc vote count started by HanEmpire on Mar 18, 2018 at 1:35 PM, finished with 4737 posts and 67 votes.
Click to expand...
 
ctulhuslp said:
1. How is hypothetical "Meritocratic monarchy" different from democracy with lack of limit of term count?
2. If the monarch is not elected, then who controls the definition of "merit" and how they are selected?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
  1. What?!? they aren't even remotely similar. A democracy is where you get people to vote on laws and such to determine what gets done and what doesn't get done. I'm proposing combining an Elective Monarchy with using a meritocratic formula to limit who gets nominated in the first place. If you're thinking of a republic, where people represent other people in the government, then I shall let you call it a republic if it makes you feel better. It really isn't though since it's the King's job to look run a country more so than represent the people. Granted, a huge portion of that is helping the people.
  2. That's a good question. It might be the former Monarch selects their heir as it used to be done, it might be the nobles decide among themselves, perhaps the test is designed by representatives of the people (A weird combination of aspects of a republic and monarchy with the republic controlling what they think needs to be known by the current monarch? Could be good, could be a nightmare, would have to think on it more and the devil would likely be in the details). There are lots of possibilities, some could work, some would be horrible, but choosing the heir based solely on age and gender is only really important for maintaining alliances and merging various groups of people together under one house. That diplomacy has some promise, definitely, but we are slowly moving away from that being needed.
 
We already have a commoner parliament. No one here is proposing an absolute, totalitarian monarchy.

The entire point is that we ought to manage populist demands enough that concerns are properly addressed, without handing every scrap of power to the whims of the masses.

The monarch comes in as someone that's actually qualified as ruler, instead of an accomplished politician, that's not concern with passing fads and how to achieve just enough that there's more he can easily promise, or how to structure his government for maximum short-term popularity, or try to fit everything in 3-odd years (considering the transfer of power and concerns with future elections). Especially as they'd have to make do with the scraps of a previous ruler.
 
Last edited:
bluefur87 said:
What?!? they aren't even remotely similar. A democracy is where you get people to vote on laws and such to determine what gets done and what doesn't get done. I'm proposing combining an Elective Monarchy with using a meritocratic formula to limit who gets nominated in the first place. If you're thinking of a republic, where people represent other people in the government, then I shall let you call it a republic if it makes you feel better. It really isn't though since it's the King's job to look run a country more so than represent the people. Granted, a huge portion of that is helping the people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Does this mean you want the monarch to head both the legislative and executive branches of government?

If so you must really hate monarchies. The poor sods will die of old age at 50 at that rate.
 
ctulhuslp said:
All in all, overwhelming question I have is "What does monarchy has to do with it?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
  • You are not voted to be a monarch, which means you do not need populist agenda to get in.
  • Your position is naturally suited to be over the law, meaning this power will be accepted easier.
  • You can do long-term projects and not worry about being voted out in a year or four.
  • You can be tested long before assuming direct control to see how good is your aptitude for rulership.
 
HanEmpire said:
Does this mean you want the monarch to head both the legislative and executive branches of government?

If so you must really hate monarchies. The poor sods will die of old age at 50 at that rate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
:p
I was thinking the Monarch could oversee various houses rather than run them. Be able to step in and change things or put things forward on the agenda that need to be done. Perhaps have a royal part of the executive branch.

Of course both branches would be notably easier to handle without it being a constant pissing contest as everyone tries to show how they are the best to their voters and the others are evil, just being a singular person trying to listen and act on what is needed.
 
Random Member said:
You know, some major human rights were once considered nothing more than "passing fads".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Cool, and fortunately, Ymaryn has a historical record of electing the most able/competent person as heir and then ruler.

Presumably, one can test for "a good grasp of tactics/economy/diplomacy". We have the best scholars in the world, the Royal scions would have the best education in the world.

You can try to snidely poke at it, but I'm not seeing you propose a better system.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top