- 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.
- 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.
1. What? You are describing a direct democracy basically; in a normal one, a
lot of positions, including entirety of judicial branch, is unelected. Laws are passed via vote, but vote of only elected representatives, each (mostly) with education and whatnot. Some are assholes, but you cannot really make an exam of non-assholishness because it's hard to find
less vague criteria.
2. But, again, why not just add position of Chancellor/President for executive power with very long term and give power of impeachment to High House? What monarchy adds to it?
Make the Houses elect said Chancellor to introduce a degree of removal from popular vote.
- 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.
That's....called a sane system of State Department?
Bureaucrats are not elected, and are naturally more meritocratic than monarchs.
In sane countries judges or lawyers are not elected.
Like, my problem is that you lot basically take a job of non-elected official, which normally is promoted through mostly meritocratic internals of state, and for some unfathomable reason add monarchy to it. It's, in the
best case, not an impediment to the "non-elected official" part, but it's not really a boon.
Supreme Court, Attorney General, so on: there are literal thousands of non-elected positions of extremely serious power in any democratic country. Adding heredity to one or more of them is just...pointless if "avoiding harmful populism" is your goal, because those systems already do it without mixing the perverse incentives wrt family and heredity into it.
