Would a Royal Elect form of government function?

Betonhaus

Betonhaus

Irrefutable Rationality
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 30, 2023
The rules would be that any of the members of the Royal family, either by blood or by marriage, could be elected as king or queen. The members can belong to a close branch family but only if the bloodline is fully traced to royalty. The king or queen can choose to step down, but any removed by a recall vote will be executed.

such a system would ensure that the rulers are well known to the people and connected to the nation and it's history and culture, but still be committed to working towards being good leaders who are invested in the nation's future.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Lunacy
  • Disagree
Reactions: Kane Lives, Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL and Joe Swanson
This is how it worked in East Asia. Even if you were the eldest son of the Emperor's leading wife, you didn't have any automatic right to become the next Emperor. You had to wait years and years, potentially until adulthood, to be named a crown prince and sometimes even had to work your way up through the ranks of princes (both countries had a few ranks of princes). But plenty of times there was no clear candidate because the only sons were from second-rank concubines, so the inevitable result was people sticking knives in each others back or occasionally total fucking civil war. The Ming Dynasty had a lot of really good revolts like that.

Electoral monarchies suck and are how you get a government totally subverted by interest groups with a ruler unworthy of ruling. It's like the worst parts of monarchy and democracy combined. There's a reason every electoral monarchy in Europe moved toward getting rid of the idea of elections as soon as they could.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lobster Cult High Priest and Kane Lives
Betonhaus said:
such a system would ensure that the rulers are well known to the people and connected to the nation and it's history and culture, but still be committed to working towards being good leaders who are invested in the nation's future.
Click to expand...
Having royal blood doesn't ensure shit.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Lobster Cult High Priest, Karen of Human Resources and Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL
There is no gurantee a royal would be any more or less accountable than any politician now. Royals don't have a tie to the land. Most royal families are related to other royal houses and tend not to have much in actual nationalistic ties. The Hanoverians may have been Kings and Queens of Britian, but all of them were fluent German speakers first and the first two didn't even speak English. The Monarchy of Greece was more Danish than Greek, the Swedish Royal family are ethnically French, many of the later Czars were closer to their German Princling families than their own people and the Emperor of Mexico was an Austrian.

Just because you are King of X, in actual practice you probably have more loyalty to your house which could well be based elsewhere. This is all before you get onto shared problems with elected officials like personal greed and putting oneself before the common good.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bloudwulf and Lobster Cult High Priest
Betonhaus said:
The rules would be that any of the members of the Royal family, either by blood or by marriage, could be elected as king or queen. The members can belong to a close branch family but only if the bloodline is fully traced to royalty. The king or queen can choose to step down, but any removed by a recall vote will be executed.
Click to expand...
Elected by whom? Recall vote made by whom?

If you have a system in place whereby the standing "king" (supreme leader) can be summarily executed by someone because "the people" supposedly voted for it, then the king doesn't really hold any power and that someone that has the right to execute him is the one truly in control. The king at that point will be a figurehead or a puppet.

It just sounds like absolute monarchy, with a facade of "democratic" monarchy in front of it.
 
Pixy said:
By a Council of Kings/Rulers, if Malaysia's electoral monarchy is anything to go off as an example. They (the council) can even amend their constitution.
Click to expand...
Why elect a king at all, if your "small council" actually holds all the power?

Sounds like the king is just a figurehead, see above.
 
VargReallyDidNothingWrong said:
Why elect a king at all, if your "small council" actually holds all the power?

Sounds like the king is just a figurehead, see above.
Click to expand...
There's 9 separate royal families, Malaysia as nation-state is a relatively new construct compared to its history as several individual sultanates prior to colonisation, one of which still has its own private army. It's a 5-year turn for each king, presumably to limit jostling for power and placate each individual dynasty's demands for 'equality' in ruling.
 
Betonhaus said:
The rules would be that any of the members of the Royal family, either by blood or by marriage, could be elected as king or queen. The members can belong to a close branch family but only if the bloodline is fully traced to royalty. The king or queen can choose to step down, but any removed by a recall vote will be executed.

such a system would ensure that the rulers are well known to the people and connected to the nation and it's history and culture, but still be committed to working towards being good leaders who are invested in the nation's future.
Click to expand...

No, because it sounds like your government is still accountable to women. So you'll get policies based on, "look at the crying, brown child!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back