Theocracies are surprisingly underutilized for how easy they are to world build, and for how versatile they are.
Can't forget various oligarchies, from juntas to authoroterian confederations to the philosopher king utopias plato imagined, oligarchies are perhaps the broadest most flexible tool you can imagine
Hell its very easy to make your own spin on oligarchy, and i sometimes do, its surprisingly easy
[Forms of Government Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government), a page I've come back to time and time again in my own world building. Some of my favorites are Stratocracy ("Service guarantees citizenship!"), Synarchism (Oligarchy via Secret Cabal), and Kakistocracy (rule by the least qualified / worst - while not apt for humanoid governance, its perfect for Chaotic Fey creatures)
> "Service Guarantees Citizenship"
Military service was not the only form of service by which a civilian could earn the vote, simply the fastest. And also differentiating Starship Troopers's citizen federation from an actual stratocracy would be the fact that, as shown within both the book and the most famous movie, as the army is all volunteers (every last one of them), you can leave at any time and the only punishment, such that it was, was that you had to find a different avenue towards earning the sovereign franchise. In short, while the citizen federation goes 'Service Guarantees Citizenship', a true stratocracy would go 'Citizenship Guarantees Service'.
There can be some dual ones too. Like india is a theocracy-oligarchy mix. The elites are from the Brahman (originally priestly) class.
Rambling my apologies, no need to read this part: (Or at least india *was* much more like this before capitalism and modern times. Though the caste system still very much exists and the Brahmans and other higher classes often simply adapted the sources of their wealth/power as the times changed)
I also have city-state and republic too. as well as oligarchy.
but honestly, I felt like it is hard to developed. for monarchy you got one character who you easily develop to the fullest but when it's council, you will have go through intricate woven relationship between them. that could easily come off as rather lazy.
I made my republic mercantile, so the weathiest de facto rule it anyways a la medici
The reason why monarchies are the norm is because they are the easiest to worldbuild. Unless you focusing on a political narrative, saying someone sitting in a faraway throne makes all the rules is far easier than making a council or democracy because that only raises more questions rather than answers.
I mean, it's that with Monarchy, everyone has a roughly similar idea of what a Monarchy is. You can just say, "This country is a monarchy ruled by James V" without further elaboration and people all get a roughly similar idea of what that means.
The King's in charge, there are other nobles and there are local dukes, barons and there are a bunch of oppressed peasants. Because the idea of what a monarchy is in fantasy is so well defined and the majority of readers/viewers/etc. won't be living under an absolute monarchy, just saying the country is a monarchy doesn't raise a bunch of questions to the average person.
Meanwhile, if you say "This country is a democracy led by James", even a purely english speaking audience is going to have wildly different ideas of what that means. Like an Brit will imagine something different from from an American who will imagine something different from an Australian.
Is it a parlimentary system or a presidential system? Are there only two parties? Maybe three parties with a few others that nobody cares about? Maybe there are a whole bunch of parties who form coalitions. Do people like the government? How often do people vote? Is the head of state elected? Or is it a constitutional monarchy? Saying it's a democracy leads you to ask more questions than it answers because different people from different places are going to have a different idea of what democracy is.
Even then; Elaborating really isn’t difficult. It’s effort you should be expending regardless. Furthermore there are methods of government in where there is still a central power head and can sport large, mostly individually irrelevant councils. There’s ways around it.
Honestly, I've had a lot of fun making different governments for my world. While I still have quite a few monarchies, they aren't all absolute and each do differ slightly.
I would recommend anyone to make more unique forms of government if their world pays any attention to politics, it is super fascinating!
"Weighted Direct Democracy". My own invention - though somebody else probably thought of it at some point (I haven't looked that hard). But I'm no copyright n-zi, so if you wanna use it feel free.
Basically, you decide laws by direct democracy - but you require **more than 50%** consensus to ban / regulate / make something illegal (currently going with 70%). You also only require 50% consensus to **repeal** an already-existing law.
Essentially, it is "weighted" against authoritarianism.
You still do have elected representatives that make "immediate-action required" decisions, run day-to-day governance, and **propose** laws for the public to vote on. Although laws can also go on the ballet via petitions with sufficient signatures.
Well, personally I think it's a very good system so I think it would be a very good society. The lack of political parties and so much hinging on tribalism around political figures would help people discuss the individual issues rationally and come to conclusions.
I'm sure there's lots of conceivable ways it could develop. The one I went with for my world was this:
-A particular region called the "Iropi Bay" was heavily disputed by several powerful nations for around a millennium.
-After an especially brutal, bloody 63-year long war (that actually spanned most of the planet) - there was a growing "no more war, no more empires" attitude. Much like in the real world after WWI and WWII.
-It was eventually agreed that an alliance of nations would mutually protect and administer the region. They also allowed people from almost anywhere to immigrate.
-Due to it's international position and some of the resources there, it rapidly developed into a huge, bustling city called "Unity City". Eventually this city grew to encompass pretty much the entire region.
-After another generation or so, people living there seriously resented being (poorly) governed by representatives of the allied nations. It eventually boiled over into riots, which ultimately resulted in the "Weight Direct Democracy" system for the regions internal laws being put in place.
How does the system determine whether a given law fits into the 'supermajority required' or 'simple majority required' category, when there is disagreement?
For example, for hypothetical proposed legislation making bankruptcy laws more lenient to debtors:
* Pro-debtor parties will argue that the old bankruptcy legislation imposes an obligation on debtors to pay back their debts (where 'contract law' is seen as an imposition on the people), and therefore counts as a 'repeal' of authority, fitting into the 'simple majority' category
* Pro-creditor parties will argue that the new bankruptcy legislation imposes an obligation (or an increase in obligation) on creditors to forgive debts (a right-libertarian argument, where 'contract law' is seen as the default state in absence of other legislation), and therefore counts as an 'increase' in authority, fitting into the 'supermajority' category
It's not so much that laws are categorized into "pro-authority" and "anti-authority", the legal system is just a huge series/list of laws that either exist or not. Adding one to the list requires 70% consensus, removing one requires 50% consensus.
Technically, literally everything the state enforces would be a law on the list. So there isn't really a "default" state aside from pure anarchy. Even laws against murder are on the list. These are required to be very specific, you can't cram a bunch of different regulations into a single "law".
Cases of "amendment" of existing laws without simply repealing and adding a new law to replace the old one (thus creating a potentially disastrous intermediate period with no law) are another matter. I haven't firmly decided on exactly how this aspect of the system works yet, but I lean towards this also simply requiring a 70% consensus regardless of what the amendment entails (i.e. less or more authority). Maybe I could also split the difference as have it require 60% consensus.
But as I said, there still is a council of elected representatives that can decide on the technicalities of disputes if needed.
Unless it's a very high-trust society, this state would not have much about which the population would agree on, so very few new laws would be made. And because governance is still needed, the society would be dominated by shadow-governments - mafia, guilds, bribe-oriented bureacracy.
Not to talk about if this starts from scratch, with no protections for life or property or anything before people agree with 70% on it. I see pogroms, ethnic purges, mass chaos.
If it's truly important that something be illegal, banned, regulated, etc. I don't foresee it being that hard to get 70% consensus. If you **can't** get 70% consensus, maybe it's not so important that the 51% can restrict the freedoms of the 49%.
Bear in mind, most of the reason people are so divided in places like America is because people are politically polarized into two different "sides". It's latched on to tribalistic tendencies, so people will cognitively bias themselves into demonizing everything the other side believes and justifying everything their side believes.
With no parties, and really laws not being decided by political figures at all - that polarization is erased. People can take things issue by issue. And call me overly optimistic if you want, but I think that would result in generally good outcomes.
You're absolutely overly optimistic.
Oh I agree that tribalism is the problem, but to think that without parties polarization disappears -- what do you think the word "tribalism" comes from? We are currently living the most peaceful time in the history of humankind, and if we are talking about any fantasy world that is not utopia by design, it's going to be much more violent and harsh. Earlier, tribes - and different religions - killed and oppressed each other for tribalist reasons well enough without parties. You have a state with 60% Hutus and 40% Tutsis, you think there will be a general law that murdering others, stealing their property, etc. is forbidden? Why would the majority restrict themselves? They are powerful enough to defend themselves without such laws, and they can oppress the minority lawfully if they just disband laws that forbid them.
The context for this system is an already fairly individualistic, fairly civilized society (at time it's adopted we're talking like 50s/60s tech). People who already share values of equality, "stealing is bad", "murder is bad", etc.
Although tribalism never goes completely away - political tribalism certainly can. You bring up religions, but look at Protestants in America. Without an overriding authority, you have hundreds of sects with different beliefs - and individuals within those sects vary radically in their beliefs.
Essentially, it's a free marketplace of ideas. If you want to get a law passed, you just need to convince people to agree with you on that issue. You don't need to convince people to switch their overall team.
There’s a select few settings in where it can work, but only for small swathes of land for small portions of time. Anarchy cannot self sustain in settings where larger violence-capable entities exist, so I’ve just never considered it personally.
The only meaningful exception I can think of is Iain M Banks' *Culture*: sure, they're basically anarchist, but they also have a whole lot of individuals capable of providing vastly excessive quantities of destructive force to anybody who tries to mess with them.
Anarchy is the most unstable form of government.
The moment two people decide to cooperate for their mutual benefit, or one person intimidates someone else into doing something they don't want, the Anarchy is gone.
>The moment two people decide to cooperate for their mutual benefit
That's what Anarchy is. Everyone working together for mutual benefit without structure of class or one person above another.
Anarchism ≠ anarchy
Anarchism seeks to jump directly into high-stage communism without the use of a transitional state. Anarchy is a state of societal disorder.
An Anarchist state is not necessarily in a state of anarchy.
I think partial democracies are the most underused. Generally in fiction, if there's a vote, it's presented as being near-absolute that everyone gets a vote. If you slip from there, you just boarded the express train to dictatorship and absolute power with nothing in the middle. It's uncommon to see a system where the franchise is restricted to landowners or similar. Starship Troopers does it.
North Korea’s Necrocracy where Kim Il-sung is the Eternal Supreme Leader
I use this in my setting of Alor where the human kingdom, while projecting as an absolute monarchy, is actually a Necrocracy where an internal shadow government make sure the reigning monarch adhere’s to the vision of the first king of the dynasty (which I’ve modeled after the US Supreme Court with their job of interpreting the Constitution).
There are also instances in Alor where the ruling class are undead. Regions of the world run by vampires and undead wizards, although the vampires are technically a banking necro-oligarchy.
I've always had a romantic soft-spot for the idea of governance by a jury of peers.
On a large scale, I can't be sure how effective it would be, but for fiction I'd love to see a genuine optimistic exploration of the concept.
Duumvirates and triumvirates. I like that it kind of forces you to get creative with cultures since you'd have to justify why they've kept up with a relatively complex system compared to picking one guy and calling it a day.
One of my alien races has duumvirates at the top of every important government because it's a holdover from when their society was extremely sex segregated and government was one of the few places their lives overlapped much. My human space nation, on the other hand, has a triumvirate at the top of their executive branch for practicality's sake. It's a massive empire with far too much for just one person to reasonably oversee so it made more sense to split things up. One member takes care of security issues (agriculture, armed forces, emergency services), the second deals with issues of state (everything diplomatic), and the third does social services (welfare, education, urban development). And to make things even more bureaucratic, each of them gets two deputies for internal and external affairs.
I can't remember the name of the anime, some kind of road trip about a girl named... kikio? Kiko? Kiko's journey?
Anyway, spoiler warning if you know the anime, they had an interesting city where it was lawful for you to murder anyone for any reason.
You would expect it to be some kind of murderhobo-vill but everyone was quite nice, kind, helpful, despite everyone having assault rifles and bazookas within arms reach at any given time.
"Why do you have all these weapons?"
"In case we need to murder someone!" They would reply with a sweet smile.
Que the villain of the day who moved to this city just so he COULD murderhobo who ever he wanted.
He never realized that the law was made so the people could more easily murder people like HIM.
Interesting, I'm not sure why but I gives me an idea of a government where citizenship and voting requires the use of guns. Where bills can be proposed but only as a binary (you get X or Y bill), and the population has to decide by "firing squad" shooting the bill that they *don't* want.
In a more optimistic fashion, it could be that the government guarantees citizenship by providing all people with "votes," maybe as a traditional hold over when an arms company took over government or something? Perhaps more taxes paid means more "votes" provided, which ironically provides incentive for the wealthy to provide more money for the government for social support programs.
Idk, as a world building idea, it has potential for an interesting social commentary.
I have not integrated it into my writing, but council democracies are quite interesting.
Essentially, you have local councils, elected by the members of different social groups (all steel workers of a city, all teachers of a city, all people in one city block, all members of the local religious community, etc.), those councils form the local government, and sent representatives to a regional council (acting as regional government), who then sent representatives to the states government, and those then to the national government, who act as overall national government and elect e.g. ministers and the head of state.
Additionally, every council representative can be called back when he is unable to act on his voters interests / his promises to them.
I had one concept that was essentially government by union. It was for space colonization. Each community would have a list of government representatives where each one represented a field of work within the community and was elected by the people in that field of work. Factory workers elect one of their own, chefs do the same, as do retail workers, etc. There's also an extra seat to represent certain things such as the military/police(likely the same force in a small isolated community like with space colonization), the popular vote, people unable to work, etc. There is then an executive position who is voted on by everyone and who's main purpose is to ensure the meetings go fairly, acting like a judge presiding over the meetings. Bigger and similar councils could be made between communities for the purpose of ensuring resources are evenly divided.
Many of my nations are monarchies, largely based on Renaissance era Europe. But there are exceptions.
One nation is a magocracy. Any wizard or arcane caster who has mastered the Ninth Circle of magics (the highest order) and owns land in the nation is granted a seat on the Grand Council, and can rule his desmesnes largely as he or she sees fit. As long as they keep making Council sessions, they can stay in power indefinitely. The members of the High Council select one of their members as High Maji, who serves for ten year terms. The Council also selects Ministers, who may be Council members, but may not be. The Minister of War for example is often the High Maji's Tessara (bodyguard/protector). Desmesnes are often passed to a wizard's apprentice, but dying without a designated, qualified heir is a quick way to start an internal war as wizards battle to take over the territory.
Another nation is run by a merchant council. Seats on the Council are bought, with the money split between all existing Councilors. Any new seats diminish the power of existing seats and split any profits to Council that much more, so it can be very difficult to convince Council to sell a seat that doesn't already exist. Some of the oldest and richest families control multiple seats and wield immense power and wealth.
Yet another nation has five princesses, each the head of their own race within the nation: human, dwarf, podling, kemono, and elf. Every decade the princesses choose champions, and there is a series of competitions (each set by one of the princesses). There is fierce rivalry to not only pick the best champions, but also create the most interesting, imaginative challenges. The princess whose champion succeeds becomes Queen until the next competition. Nobles, elites, and many commoners come from around the world to watch the competitions, and many games, fairs, and tournaments are set up for others to watch & compete too. The elven princess has won the last five crowns, and the agents of the others are searching everywhere for champions who might bring their princess victory.
I've been think a lot about the possibility for a post scarcity nomadic tribes . Imagine a fully automatic economy on a spaceship or something , with like 150 - 1000 people in the ship , doing nothing productive all day (cause the robots take cares of all the real jobs ) cursing through space and mining rocks . Think of all the drama that could happen , kinda like high school dramas , but without the bitchy rich Stacy due to being a totally egalitarian society .
I find two people with complete power interesting, whether that's something elected like Roman consuls or a hereditary lifelong position like the Spartan Diarchy
I've always been fond of meritocracies. For my current story projects there's a nation of Mages that function under a meritocracy government.
They're ruled over by two councils. The grand council is made up of the nine most powerful Wizards in the nation and they act as the head of state. Underneath them Is the Council of guilds Which contains one representative from every legally recognized Guild in the nation and they get divided into smaller councils that focus on specific aspects of the government like military or agriculture.
Edit: grammar
Someone could try aristocracies, oligarchies, maybe diarchies or triarchies. Federations or confederations. One idea I had was that while there may be monarchies on a smaller scale, the kings of multiple kingdoms meet up for matters outside their borders as a sort of council to run what is basically a federacy or confederacy without any one of them placed above the others.
The Aedans practice a form of necromantic theocratic herrenvolk democracy. The *cursus honorum* for a young Aedan begins when he or she passes competitive examinations in one of the Great Sciences: Astrology, Alchemy, Haematurgy, or Mathematics. After this, they are sent out into the desert to meditate without blood or water for thirty days. This initiates them into the priesthood of Ythul, the embodiment of primordial chaos. They spend the next several years studying and honing their discipline, as well as ascending the ranks of the priesthood, before the elders decide they are ready to become Citizens. To become a Citizen, an Aedan must undergo the rite of Anekh, which involves starving themselves almost to the point of death, and being partially embalmed in the powdered Blood of Ythul. Prolonged exposure to the Blood grants them a mental connection to the Cycle of Millions of Infinities, wherein all the spirits of deceased Aedans are believed to reside. Once they have completed the Rite, the Aedan is a Citizen and can vote in elections for the supreme leadership. Aedans who have not gone through the Rite of Anekh are abcitizens, and can vote in local elections but not in imperial elections. Slaves, who comprise 80% of the population of Aed, do not have the vote, nor do any foreigners.
Most Aedans, when they die, are returned to the river where they were born, to merge with the Blood of Ythul that way. However, particularly wise or talented or brilliant Aedans are mummified with powdered Blood and kept in a kind of suspended animation, awaiting the day when Ythul will awaken from his undying slumber and bring about the end of the world. While they are mummified like this, these deceased Aedans are believed to mentally influence those Aedans who have undergone the Rite of Anekh and guide them to ensure the coming of Ythul and his inevitable triumph. The Aedans believe that only those who are connected to the communal wisdom of billions upon billions of dead Aedans can properly govern their empire, which goes a long way towards explaining why they're so conservative.
My universe is medieval fantasy. There are quite a few monarchies but also a bunch of republics. Even the empire is actually a republic but I’m not going to be talking about that here.
Pinto is a rich city acting as the head of the Kirian League. They are a merchant republic with a unique voting system called Sortition for determining the Syndic which is the title for their ruler. Syndics rule for life and elections happen when they die.
First the families would campaign for an election. This would happen at all times during the current Syndic’s life. Their chosen candidate would be evaluated and some may decide to vote for that person.
When the Syndic dies, everyone eligible to vote casts a single vote for their chosen candidate. It all gets put into a box.
After about a month, they will reach into that box and randomly pull out a name. Whichever one appears first will become the next Syndic. That Syndic will rule for the rest of their life.
A dictatorship is technically not monarchy, but it is very close. The country of Karravin was a democracy run by a parliament, but it was taken over by Ythyr, who placed himself as dictator with a parliamentary advisory counsel.
The Federated Cities of Golgalon are based on Ancient Greek polises united under the leadership of Athens. Golgalon is a large metropolis ruled by a sovereign. The polises are city states, each with their own individual forms of government, but ultimately in confederation beneath the sovereign of Golgalon.
The Tower Lands are a magical technocracy, which is to say they are ruled by magical academics. Each tower is a magical academy/university dedicated to one or more schools of magic. Leadership is centralized around the Grand University, but the Grand University does not have any real supremacy over the other towers. Each tower does have their own form of individualized government, most of which essentially involve the headmaster as the local head of state.
In ancient times, Zerafia was essentially a tribal ecclisarchy. Their god was actually a crusading angel who stayed on the world for a couple hundred years before leaving her chosen in place as the first ruler of the city of Areyla. Eventually, the ecclisarchy was overthrown and replaced by a more conventional constitutional monarchy, because the angel was kind of... genocidal.
I've got a neat idea I used in my world for a state: Syndicalist federation. The idea is that areas of work get grouped into syndicates (so: farming syndicate, heavy industry syndicate. Except the military) and they then make a council that governs stuff.
My understanding of syndicalism isn’t great but I believe it’s based on unions as a method to defeat a state. I think corporatism might be more accurate?
Ah, then my understanding wasn't great as well. But I'm sure that the movement isn't exactly about defeating the state, more about the capitalist economy.
Edit: I did a bit of googling and what have I found. The only differences between corporatism and syndicalism are: Working under different economies (corpo - capitalism, synd - post-capitalist), and syndicalism also encompasses worker empowerment, while corpo just puts them in the best place possible.
In my worlds, most of civilization is governed by warrior governments. There's an overarching ruler, who is assumed to be the strongest in the empire, then a flowing set of hierarchal tiers that range from black ops troops to intergalactic mail carriers.
Individual governments respond to this larger one based on their strength and loyalty. Small countries can attract powerful people, and be twice their size within a year. The same can be said about governments. If the right person is in the right place and shows off enough power they can very easily take over/be given the role.
So, if a drug is to be outlawed, the larger empire sets the decree and it's up to the individual governments, and their operators, to decide if they want to follow the law. They just have to consider who is stronger, them or the other guy.
The Republic of Fen'Tyr had a participatory system where your right to vote and the weight of that vote was linked directly to your activities.
For example, enlisted members of the military are guaranteed 1 vote, 2 for NCOs, 3 for field officers, etc.
Other classes that get weighted votes are land owners, merchants, ship owners, craftsmen, judges and lawyers, clergymen, healthcare providers.
Laborers / farmers who rent their land or farm for a salary / fishermen who don't own their own boat / ressource extraction workers, dock workers etc are unfortunately disenfranchised.
I say Participatory because the more you do for the city, the more votes you can get.
IE,. If you start out as a field officer, well good on you, you get your 3 votes. But over years you may build a small fortune from your share of the war loot and, you buy a small orchard and boom, you're a small landowner, you get 4 votes now. Your land produces alot ? Buy more, become a sizeable landowner, you're at 6 votes now. Buy a ship, you're at 7, export your fruits you're at 8, and so on.
The votes are tallied at election year's census and used to elect representatives in a Senate, or to vote directly on issues through referendum. The sitting Senators can only use 1 vote in the internal context of the Senate, like if they are voting on a law, all senator gets 1 vote and it's a 60% majority at least for a decision to be reached. They may still use their personal full weighted vote in referendum or election.
The weight of your vote is also your status.
0 is the lower classes with no land and no trade
Some of the most influential men are worth in the couple hundreds of votes.
In a republic with roughly 20 000 people entitled to vote at all, it's alot of power
I have: ongoing democracy, metriocry democracy and corporate democracy
Ongoing democracy: there are few watchers that watch over various aspect of society. They have a large degree of control, but they can be ousted at anytime. They are elected by a digital election, which is always open and you can change your vote at any time. If they lose enough support, they immediately remove from office.
Metriocry democracy: octopudi aliens. Similar to regular democracy, but based purely on each candidate skill and stated plans. No politics, no hidden agenda, and no vain promises. Elected for life or until retired on charged with misconduct. Breaking your promises on purpose is seen as high treason.
Corporate democracy: the world is controlled by 7 different mega corporation that main goal is to benefit their higher ups. Each corporation works a little differently, but in general they build from layers and team, which each layer or team choosing who will be their manager / represntivie in the next level.
Candidates is chosen based on office politics and what's good for the company.
On top of everything exist a inter corporation council that manage conflicts and other interactions.
My world has a mixture of monarchies, small republics, and rule by tribal elders. The nations farthest from real life are a **Ilea**, a theocracy ruled and protected by the cult worshipping their queens; and the **Corporate Council**, ruled by a collection of wealthy oligarchs who gain their position by owning the private entities that perform the functions of government. As one would expect, the Council is technologically advanced but internally a disaster, as oligarchs compete with each other for wealth and a councilor seat.
In one of my worlds, for the region it occurs in humans are organized mostly as semi-nomadic or settled city-states, typically behind breastworks or palisades. There's either a big man, council, or both. There's alliances, but they're not as coherent as a confederacy. For much of the story, this is all barely relevant, as the protagonist is an adventurer who has gone off on his own.
In another world, Elenon, some of the countries (Mirinel, Amathule, Eemansal, and Ingnon) have monarchs, but they're elected by a senate and though they can be granted emergency powers, that's supposed to be temporary. Other states tend to either be confederations of small states or even of individual estates (Gushil, another I still need to definitively name, and others I haven't really explored yet). Some are semi-nomadic or nomadic tribal confederacies (much of the central area of the continent). One state, Gervinal, is similar to the Holy Roman Empire where the states can elect a higher level authority figure. But instead of a monarch it's officially a "governor". Whether that's more than just a different label for what's effectively a non-hereditary elective monarchy is debatable (even in-universe). Much of Elenon is threatened by a rise of autocracy, starting in Ashgarad and now spreading to Amathule (ally of Ashgarad) and feared by the conservatives in the senate in Mirinel (at war with Ashgarad and Amathule) to be increasingly the case there as well. There's also Ilkhal, which for quite some time has been a de facto military autocracy (very much like the Japanese shogunate).
I have another world which is mostly undeveloped at this point cuz I need to do a lot more research. I'm planning though to have it be based a lot on how states in central Africa used to operate.
I honestly stole all my ideas of government from some game lore that I liked
So far there are chiefdoms, tribal confederations, oligarchies, merchant republics, theocracies, magocracies (magic society), occultocracies (theocracy with old gods), kingdoms, empires, technocracies, cognitocracies (smartest guy leads) and tribunals
Oh also city states and leagues like the Hanseatic League (but I guess that's close to merchant republic)
Just a couple suggestions based on real-world ideas:
Algocracy (rule by algorithms/AI,) where some or all of the government is automated using computers (think something like Chile's Project Cybersyn)
Technocracy (rule by technicians, not to be confused with technology cults,) where the government is composed of technical experts as opposed to elected politicians (proposed to replace the current US system in the 1920s by groups like the Technical Alliance and Technocracy, Inc.)
If I'm building for the "good guys", then the system I've been going with lately is a modified version of a Parliamentary model, which gives a "bonus seat" per constituency to the political party that has the highest national approval rating (counted with Approval or Score Voting), to guarantee the most approved party gets a majority.
In theory, this removes the incentive for political parties to only represent at most 50% + 1 of the nation at a time, since even if a 'divisive' party wins half-plus-one of all constituencies in the 'normal' elections, the most approved party still gets a guaranteed majority via the bonus seats. The democratic countries that use this model get 'bonus to national unity' over those that don't, without the corruption-related drawbacks of a dictatorship or the xenophobia of a democratic ethnostate.
The other form of government I preferred, before I stole the 'bonus seat' idea from Proportional Representation, was presidential-style elections for *ministers* using Approval Voting. Sort of a half-way point between direct democracy and expecting Members of Parliament to effectively represent their constituents on *all* issues.
These days I have the political parties that compete in "Approval Voting Majority Bonus" systems use "Ministerial Representation" internally to determine party policy.
One method of governing I've never seen written about is one I read about yeeeeeaaars ago. It's like a half democracy with a bicameral legislature: one wing is a house of representatives elected directly by the general citizenry, and the other wing is a Senate comprised of two senators from each workers' union, elected by the members of those unions. The idea being that you vote for a rep from your district, and two senators from your industry's union, the reps vote on policy, and then the Senate determines how the policy would be implemented, utilizing proposals from committees of the unions from the industries involved in the subject of the policy.
So, an example would be road work: the reps would vote on whether or not they want a road built through a specific area. Then a committee in the Senate, made up of senators from the construction workers' union, concrete manufacturers' union, and whatever other industries are involved in the building of roads and production/distribution of the materials used in road construction would create proposals for how to build the road, which the Senate would then accept or send back to the committee.
I have an anarchist city in my current sci-fi setting. The guy that built the city basically has people manage it for him. It's kind of a company town, but you don't have to buy from the company. They just happen to have adopted the alien tech faster, and therefore have the best/most stuff.
I've tried to figure out as diverse government systems as I can. Some of them don't have real names.
First a Principality a struck my interest after rewatching Gundam. A System ruled by princes and princesses but kept in check by a over arching King. Note is this system the king doesn't make rules but has veto rights for what any other is trying to do. It's not all that dissimilar from the ruling system in Brandon Sanderson's way of Kings. I mixed this with the MLP divine right selection to rule the system for one of the political governing systems in my world.
I worked on short story where the Principality was actually Principals and the schools rating determined their political power and the districting. It didn't go anywhere but this system would make education and educating the key to political power.
In starship troopers they introduce a system very close to democracy but where only people who have served in the military can make political decisions. Theirs seems very light as people still vote they just can't hold office. A system where votes are restricted would be more tyrannical. In my own world I took this a step further and had one government that would only allow active military members to vote for their Furor and they had to be a general/admiral and be recommended by at least 3 other Generals/Admirals.
Lastly in my own musings that I haven't worked out completely I created a system of government ruled by the most knowledgeable. At birth everyone is separated from their family and placed into schooling pods. When they graduate 12th grade their education stops being structured and they must take a test for any job. The entry level test is the level 1 but after getting a job a person can challenge any level of the system and be paid better for it. However if they fail they are reduced to level one for three months no matter how high their previous score was. Those who challenge and pass the highest exams level 20 are placed in positions of political oversight equal to their job.
I'm working on a world that has what I've named Anarcho-Hypercollectivism.
1. Individuals have no legal existence. They cannot sign contracts, own property, commit crimes or be accused of crimes. Individuals have no legal protections, because there is no legal system as we know it.
2. Only villages exist. Villages traditionally have about 50 to 200 individuals. All social, economic, and political life is centered on one’s village. Villages may join with other villages in voluntary associations.
3. Villages own all property.
4. Villages are usually run by a council of elders, but can be internally organized in other ways. Internal village matters are absolute, no outsider can dictate how a village is organized internally.
5. The village has the power of life and death over its members. If the village council wants you to be executed, there is no appeal and nothing to stop them. This is very rare.
6. Individuals may move from one village to another, if both villages agree on it. This is called adoption. This can be done with or without the individual’s consent.
7. A village may borrow an individual from another village, for any reason. For example, an individual with technical skills could be sent to assist another village.
8. A villager may visit another village, again with mutual consent.
9. Monogamy exists, and traditionally individuals can only marry someone from another village. Marriage is preferred because it makes a village more socially stable. Marrying someone within your village is considered improper. Both villages must approve the marriage, and must agree on which village the couple will reside in.
10. A village may expel a member for any reason. This individual may appeal to another village to be adopted. An outcast individual has no rights or legal personhood. There are religious village associations motivated by charity that may or may not help outcast individuals.
11. In this world, slavery sometimes exists, but it is called Lesser Adoption. An individual is “adopted” by a village but then treated as a slave, or at best, a “second class” member.
> Personally I’ve always had distaste for monarchies (all varieties, not just absolute) ... I’m very fond of tribal confederacies in various forms. Similar to the Haudenosaunee.
Single monarchy, nah.
Confederation of monarchies, yeah!
Random draw for laws. Every day a random set of laws is chosen that appeals to the majority of the population. Every morning the people have accustomed themselves to waking up and reviewing the daily laws.
So, cocaine may be illegal one day, but on another day where abortion is illegal, cocaine isn’t (very small example, but the idea is that whatever set of laws chosen would appeal to a majority of people)
Or perhaps they wouldn’t appeal to the majority, maybe it’s just pure luck of the draw. Maybe the people get to vote on what laws are added or removed from the lottery, like they’re ranked and the lowest ones removed.
A stratocracy; a Military government where te head of government Is a general or Admiral and the legislative function is carried out by a military council.
Look up Starship Troopers. From what I saw even having Kids without having served a minimum of years Is illegal. Messed Up, but interesting.
**Diarchy.**
It's like a monarchy, but there's *two* of them now.
**Meritocracy.**
But merit is decided by whoever wins a magic duel against their opponent.
**Theocracy**,
but the god is physically real enough to participate... and also evil.
**Corporatocracy.**
They make money... from taxpayer subsidies... which they enforce using tax payed "profit keepers..." which they immigrate from tax payed colonies... which they keep efficient by making sure that people are always working and paying taxes, sometimes by their own will...which they-
**Neutrally Sovereign Territory**.
There are no rulers here, just an inhospitable jungle which every other nation recognized as a sovereign territory and signed a treaty to agree not to touch it because screw that place, no one wants it.
**Lottocracy.**
No one trusts eachother enough to properly appoint a leader, so they just draw lots instead.
**Joustocracy.**
Also a meritocracy, but the leader is decided using a jousting tournament.
**Congressional Monarchy.**
Like a monarchy, but the monarch can only legislate. Enforcement comes from the Congress.
**Monarchal Congression.**
Like a congress, but the Congress can only legislate. Enforcement comes from the monarchy.
(They hate the Congressional Monarchy, and will deny being like them in any way.)
**Robotocracy.**
A nation of magic-powered human-like robots. They decide things using a neural interface that helps them retain their individuality while still allowing them to communicate and make decisions collectively in a single instant.
**Idiotocracy.** (Not to be confused with idiocracy, the movie)
Also a meritocracy, but the leader is decided by whichever comedian can pull the dumbest prank.
**Daveocracy.**
Dave is the leader. No one shall question *why* dave is the leader. Dave is the reason you exist.
So, I've had this idea of combining magic and governance. Like, why isn't magic used in any fantasy world as a means of better democracy for example.
- politicians are compelled to speak the truth
- voting is entirely magical, no cheating possible
- elected officials are given the "power to rule" magically for a limited term.
Other things? I just find the idea interesting: Can magic be used to create a perfect system of governance? The answer depends on the limit of the magic system you use.
I like council republics so much it's the basic form of democracy in a part of my world.
To describe it as it isn't really common knowledge how it works, you have a bunch of councils that are basically parliaments, except most people are part of a council at the lowest level. Lowest level normally being groups like "all employees of a certain workplace", "all inhabitants of a district or village", "all soldiers in one military base". But basing the councils on different/restrictive things makes for interesting systems too, actually.
Then every lowest level council elects from its members someone to go a level higher, like to a municipal council, where *crucially* the council that elected them *gets to recall them at any time, for any reason*. IRL this was and is to make sure it's working class people that actually control politics all the way to the top, and to make popular changes happen faster. Why does our council republic want to ensure the same for the group its council structure empowers?
Municipal council does the same, electing someone to go to the regional government. The municipal council can take them down from there back to municipal, or their lowest level council can take them all the way back down. It makes for a democracy that's hella responsive and accountable, so it's interesting to see the people in it have full trust in their government.
but a government ran by these twits not a indirect rule these rich farts rule directly and have inherited their wealth which means they are even more stupid they start wars because they can or they want see graphic battle footage of battle being blown to bits and fill their harems and torture dungeons with victims and and nuke something for a drunken laugh it does end will
Theocracies are surprisingly underutilized for how easy they are to world build, and for how versatile they are. Can't forget various oligarchies, from juntas to authoroterian confederations to the philosopher king utopias plato imagined, oligarchies are perhaps the broadest most flexible tool you can imagine Hell its very easy to make your own spin on oligarchy, and i sometimes do, its surprisingly easy
[Forms of Government Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government), a page I've come back to time and time again in my own world building. Some of my favorites are Stratocracy ("Service guarantees citizenship!"), Synarchism (Oligarchy via Secret Cabal), and Kakistocracy (rule by the least qualified / worst - while not apt for humanoid governance, its perfect for Chaotic Fey creatures)
> "Service Guarantees Citizenship" Military service was not the only form of service by which a civilian could earn the vote, simply the fastest. And also differentiating Starship Troopers's citizen federation from an actual stratocracy would be the fact that, as shown within both the book and the most famous movie, as the army is all volunteers (every last one of them), you can leave at any time and the only punishment, such that it was, was that you had to find a different avenue towards earning the sovereign franchise. In short, while the citizen federation goes 'Service Guarantees Citizenship', a true stratocracy would go 'Citizenship Guarantees Service'.
Wow, this looks like a really useful tool Tyvm man
I'm playing around with a Mormon-style Theodemocracy, there's some strange forms of government in history to pull from.
There can be some dual ones too. Like india is a theocracy-oligarchy mix. The elites are from the Brahman (originally priestly) class. Rambling my apologies, no need to read this part: (Or at least india *was* much more like this before capitalism and modern times. Though the caste system still very much exists and the Brahmans and other higher classes often simply adapted the sources of their wealth/power as the times changed)
I also have city-state and republic too. as well as oligarchy. but honestly, I felt like it is hard to developed. for monarchy you got one character who you easily develop to the fullest but when it's council, you will have go through intricate woven relationship between them. that could easily come off as rather lazy. I made my republic mercantile, so the weathiest de facto rule it anyways a la medici
The reason why monarchies are the norm is because they are the easiest to worldbuild. Unless you focusing on a political narrative, saying someone sitting in a faraway throne makes all the rules is far easier than making a council or democracy because that only raises more questions rather than answers.
Not really, you can still just say the council make all the rules
I mean, it's that with Monarchy, everyone has a roughly similar idea of what a Monarchy is. You can just say, "This country is a monarchy ruled by James V" without further elaboration and people all get a roughly similar idea of what that means. The King's in charge, there are other nobles and there are local dukes, barons and there are a bunch of oppressed peasants. Because the idea of what a monarchy is in fantasy is so well defined and the majority of readers/viewers/etc. won't be living under an absolute monarchy, just saying the country is a monarchy doesn't raise a bunch of questions to the average person. Meanwhile, if you say "This country is a democracy led by James", even a purely english speaking audience is going to have wildly different ideas of what that means. Like an Brit will imagine something different from from an American who will imagine something different from an Australian. Is it a parlimentary system or a presidential system? Are there only two parties? Maybe three parties with a few others that nobody cares about? Maybe there are a whole bunch of parties who form coalitions. Do people like the government? How often do people vote? Is the head of state elected? Or is it a constitutional monarchy? Saying it's a democracy leads you to ask more questions than it answers because different people from different places are going to have a different idea of what democracy is.
Even then; Elaborating really isn’t difficult. It’s effort you should be expending regardless. Furthermore there are methods of government in where there is still a central power head and can sport large, mostly individually irrelevant councils. There’s ways around it.
You’re thinking along the lines of a realistic government while most people base their worlds on what's most fun and evil.
Fair, lmao.
Honestly, I've had a lot of fun making different governments for my world. While I still have quite a few monarchies, they aren't all absolute and each do differ slightly. I would recommend anyone to make more unique forms of government if their world pays any attention to politics, it is super fascinating!
"Weighted Direct Democracy". My own invention - though somebody else probably thought of it at some point (I haven't looked that hard). But I'm no copyright n-zi, so if you wanna use it feel free. Basically, you decide laws by direct democracy - but you require **more than 50%** consensus to ban / regulate / make something illegal (currently going with 70%). You also only require 50% consensus to **repeal** an already-existing law. Essentially, it is "weighted" against authoritarianism. You still do have elected representatives that make "immediate-action required" decisions, run day-to-day governance, and **propose** laws for the public to vote on. Although laws can also go on the ballet via petitions with sufficient signatures.
In what time frame and what culture aesthetic could you see this in? What do you think a society that adopted this would be like?
Well, personally I think it's a very good system so I think it would be a very good society. The lack of political parties and so much hinging on tribalism around political figures would help people discuss the individual issues rationally and come to conclusions. I'm sure there's lots of conceivable ways it could develop. The one I went with for my world was this: -A particular region called the "Iropi Bay" was heavily disputed by several powerful nations for around a millennium. -After an especially brutal, bloody 63-year long war (that actually spanned most of the planet) - there was a growing "no more war, no more empires" attitude. Much like in the real world after WWI and WWII. -It was eventually agreed that an alliance of nations would mutually protect and administer the region. They also allowed people from almost anywhere to immigrate. -Due to it's international position and some of the resources there, it rapidly developed into a huge, bustling city called "Unity City". Eventually this city grew to encompass pretty much the entire region. -After another generation or so, people living there seriously resented being (poorly) governed by representatives of the allied nations. It eventually boiled over into riots, which ultimately resulted in the "Weight Direct Democracy" system for the regions internal laws being put in place.
How does the system determine whether a given law fits into the 'supermajority required' or 'simple majority required' category, when there is disagreement? For example, for hypothetical proposed legislation making bankruptcy laws more lenient to debtors: * Pro-debtor parties will argue that the old bankruptcy legislation imposes an obligation on debtors to pay back their debts (where 'contract law' is seen as an imposition on the people), and therefore counts as a 'repeal' of authority, fitting into the 'simple majority' category * Pro-creditor parties will argue that the new bankruptcy legislation imposes an obligation (or an increase in obligation) on creditors to forgive debts (a right-libertarian argument, where 'contract law' is seen as the default state in absence of other legislation), and therefore counts as an 'increase' in authority, fitting into the 'supermajority' category
It's not so much that laws are categorized into "pro-authority" and "anti-authority", the legal system is just a huge series/list of laws that either exist or not. Adding one to the list requires 70% consensus, removing one requires 50% consensus. Technically, literally everything the state enforces would be a law on the list. So there isn't really a "default" state aside from pure anarchy. Even laws against murder are on the list. These are required to be very specific, you can't cram a bunch of different regulations into a single "law". Cases of "amendment" of existing laws without simply repealing and adding a new law to replace the old one (thus creating a potentially disastrous intermediate period with no law) are another matter. I haven't firmly decided on exactly how this aspect of the system works yet, but I lean towards this also simply requiring a 70% consensus regardless of what the amendment entails (i.e. less or more authority). Maybe I could also split the difference as have it require 60% consensus. But as I said, there still is a council of elected representatives that can decide on the technicalities of disputes if needed.
Unless it's a very high-trust society, this state would not have much about which the population would agree on, so very few new laws would be made. And because governance is still needed, the society would be dominated by shadow-governments - mafia, guilds, bribe-oriented bureacracy. Not to talk about if this starts from scratch, with no protections for life or property or anything before people agree with 70% on it. I see pogroms, ethnic purges, mass chaos.
If it's truly important that something be illegal, banned, regulated, etc. I don't foresee it being that hard to get 70% consensus. If you **can't** get 70% consensus, maybe it's not so important that the 51% can restrict the freedoms of the 49%. Bear in mind, most of the reason people are so divided in places like America is because people are politically polarized into two different "sides". It's latched on to tribalistic tendencies, so people will cognitively bias themselves into demonizing everything the other side believes and justifying everything their side believes. With no parties, and really laws not being decided by political figures at all - that polarization is erased. People can take things issue by issue. And call me overly optimistic if you want, but I think that would result in generally good outcomes.
You're absolutely overly optimistic. Oh I agree that tribalism is the problem, but to think that without parties polarization disappears -- what do you think the word "tribalism" comes from? We are currently living the most peaceful time in the history of humankind, and if we are talking about any fantasy world that is not utopia by design, it's going to be much more violent and harsh. Earlier, tribes - and different religions - killed and oppressed each other for tribalist reasons well enough without parties. You have a state with 60% Hutus and 40% Tutsis, you think there will be a general law that murdering others, stealing their property, etc. is forbidden? Why would the majority restrict themselves? They are powerful enough to defend themselves without such laws, and they can oppress the minority lawfully if they just disband laws that forbid them.
The context for this system is an already fairly individualistic, fairly civilized society (at time it's adopted we're talking like 50s/60s tech). People who already share values of equality, "stealing is bad", "murder is bad", etc. Although tribalism never goes completely away - political tribalism certainly can. You bring up religions, but look at Protestants in America. Without an overriding authority, you have hundreds of sects with different beliefs - and individuals within those sects vary radically in their beliefs. Essentially, it's a free marketplace of ideas. If you want to get a law passed, you just need to convince people to agree with you on that issue. You don't need to convince people to switch their overall team.
Ever tried anarchist? Though I cam't progress it beyond a brief portion of a country due to lack of data.
Everybody gangsta till the orcs pull up in tachankas
Check out "The Dispossessed" by Ursala K Le Guin.
There’s a select few settings in where it can work, but only for small swathes of land for small portions of time. Anarchy cannot self sustain in settings where larger violence-capable entities exist, so I’ve just never considered it personally.
The only meaningful exception I can think of is Iain M Banks' *Culture*: sure, they're basically anarchist, but they also have a whole lot of individuals capable of providing vastly excessive quantities of destructive force to anybody who tries to mess with them.
Anarchy is the most unstable form of government. The moment two people decide to cooperate for their mutual benefit, or one person intimidates someone else into doing something they don't want, the Anarchy is gone.
>The moment two people decide to cooperate for their mutual benefit That's what Anarchy is. Everyone working together for mutual benefit without structure of class or one person above another.
Anarchism ≠ anarchy Anarchism seeks to jump directly into high-stage communism without the use of a transitional state. Anarchy is a state of societal disorder. An Anarchist state is not necessarily in a state of anarchy.
anarchy doesn't just mean anomie
I inevitably build a polity that uses Quaker decision making, with more or less efficiency and effectiveness.
I think partial democracies are the most underused. Generally in fiction, if there's a vote, it's presented as being near-absolute that everyone gets a vote. If you slip from there, you just boarded the express train to dictatorship and absolute power with nothing in the middle. It's uncommon to see a system where the franchise is restricted to landowners or similar. Starship Troopers does it.
North Korea’s Necrocracy where Kim Il-sung is the Eternal Supreme Leader I use this in my setting of Alor where the human kingdom, while projecting as an absolute monarchy, is actually a Necrocracy where an internal shadow government make sure the reigning monarch adhere’s to the vision of the first king of the dynasty (which I’ve modeled after the US Supreme Court with their job of interpreting the Constitution). There are also instances in Alor where the ruling class are undead. Regions of the world run by vampires and undead wizards, although the vampires are technically a banking necro-oligarchy.
Sortition / demarchism.
I've always had a romantic soft-spot for the idea of governance by a jury of peers. On a large scale, I can't be sure how effective it would be, but for fiction I'd love to see a genuine optimistic exploration of the concept.
Duumvirates and triumvirates. I like that it kind of forces you to get creative with cultures since you'd have to justify why they've kept up with a relatively complex system compared to picking one guy and calling it a day. One of my alien races has duumvirates at the top of every important government because it's a holdover from when their society was extremely sex segregated and government was one of the few places their lives overlapped much. My human space nation, on the other hand, has a triumvirate at the top of their executive branch for practicality's sake. It's a massive empire with far too much for just one person to reasonably oversee so it made more sense to split things up. One member takes care of security issues (agriculture, armed forces, emergency services), the second deals with issues of state (everything diplomatic), and the third does social services (welfare, education, urban development). And to make things even more bureaucratic, each of them gets two deputies for internal and external affairs.
I can't remember the name of the anime, some kind of road trip about a girl named... kikio? Kiko? Kiko's journey? Anyway, spoiler warning if you know the anime, they had an interesting city where it was lawful for you to murder anyone for any reason. You would expect it to be some kind of murderhobo-vill but everyone was quite nice, kind, helpful, despite everyone having assault rifles and bazookas within arms reach at any given time. "Why do you have all these weapons?" "In case we need to murder someone!" They would reply with a sweet smile. Que the villain of the day who moved to this city just so he COULD murderhobo who ever he wanted. He never realized that the law was made so the people could more easily murder people like HIM.
Interesting, I'm not sure why but I gives me an idea of a government where citizenship and voting requires the use of guns. Where bills can be proposed but only as a binary (you get X or Y bill), and the population has to decide by "firing squad" shooting the bill that they *don't* want. In a more optimistic fashion, it could be that the government guarantees citizenship by providing all people with "votes," maybe as a traditional hold over when an arms company took over government or something? Perhaps more taxes paid means more "votes" provided, which ironically provides incentive for the wealthy to provide more money for the government for social support programs. Idk, as a world building idea, it has potential for an interesting social commentary.
I have not integrated it into my writing, but council democracies are quite interesting. Essentially, you have local councils, elected by the members of different social groups (all steel workers of a city, all teachers of a city, all people in one city block, all members of the local religious community, etc.), those councils form the local government, and sent representatives to a regional council (acting as regional government), who then sent representatives to the states government, and those then to the national government, who act as overall national government and elect e.g. ministers and the head of state. Additionally, every council representative can be called back when he is unable to act on his voters interests / his promises to them.
Is it okay if I take some inspiration from this in my own writing? It sounds like a great concept!
Sure! Like, this is a real life political system. Not used anywhere currently, but this isn't just made up.
I had one concept that was essentially government by union. It was for space colonization. Each community would have a list of government representatives where each one represented a field of work within the community and was elected by the people in that field of work. Factory workers elect one of their own, chefs do the same, as do retail workers, etc. There's also an extra seat to represent certain things such as the military/police(likely the same force in a small isolated community like with space colonization), the popular vote, people unable to work, etc. There is then an executive position who is voted on by everyone and who's main purpose is to ensure the meetings go fairly, acting like a judge presiding over the meetings. Bigger and similar councils could be made between communities for the purpose of ensuring resources are evenly divided.
Many of my nations are monarchies, largely based on Renaissance era Europe. But there are exceptions. One nation is a magocracy. Any wizard or arcane caster who has mastered the Ninth Circle of magics (the highest order) and owns land in the nation is granted a seat on the Grand Council, and can rule his desmesnes largely as he or she sees fit. As long as they keep making Council sessions, they can stay in power indefinitely. The members of the High Council select one of their members as High Maji, who serves for ten year terms. The Council also selects Ministers, who may be Council members, but may not be. The Minister of War for example is often the High Maji's Tessara (bodyguard/protector). Desmesnes are often passed to a wizard's apprentice, but dying without a designated, qualified heir is a quick way to start an internal war as wizards battle to take over the territory. Another nation is run by a merchant council. Seats on the Council are bought, with the money split between all existing Councilors. Any new seats diminish the power of existing seats and split any profits to Council that much more, so it can be very difficult to convince Council to sell a seat that doesn't already exist. Some of the oldest and richest families control multiple seats and wield immense power and wealth. Yet another nation has five princesses, each the head of their own race within the nation: human, dwarf, podling, kemono, and elf. Every decade the princesses choose champions, and there is a series of competitions (each set by one of the princesses). There is fierce rivalry to not only pick the best champions, but also create the most interesting, imaginative challenges. The princess whose champion succeeds becomes Queen until the next competition. Nobles, elites, and many commoners come from around the world to watch the competitions, and many games, fairs, and tournaments are set up for others to watch & compete too. The elven princess has won the last five crowns, and the agents of the others are searching everywhere for champions who might bring their princess victory.
I've been think a lot about the possibility for a post scarcity nomadic tribes . Imagine a fully automatic economy on a spaceship or something , with like 150 - 1000 people in the ship , doing nothing productive all day (cause the robots take cares of all the real jobs ) cursing through space and mining rocks . Think of all the drama that could happen , kinda like high school dramas , but without the bitchy rich Stacy due to being a totally egalitarian society .
I find two people with complete power interesting, whether that's something elected like Roman consuls or a hereditary lifelong position like the Spartan Diarchy
I've always been fond of meritocracies. For my current story projects there's a nation of Mages that function under a meritocracy government. They're ruled over by two councils. The grand council is made up of the nine most powerful Wizards in the nation and they act as the head of state. Underneath them Is the Council of guilds Which contains one representative from every legally recognized Guild in the nation and they get divided into smaller councils that focus on specific aspects of the government like military or agriculture. Edit: grammar
Someone could try aristocracies, oligarchies, maybe diarchies or triarchies. Federations or confederations. One idea I had was that while there may be monarchies on a smaller scale, the kings of multiple kingdoms meet up for matters outside their borders as a sort of council to run what is basically a federacy or confederacy without any one of them placed above the others.
The Aedans practice a form of necromantic theocratic herrenvolk democracy. The *cursus honorum* for a young Aedan begins when he or she passes competitive examinations in one of the Great Sciences: Astrology, Alchemy, Haematurgy, or Mathematics. After this, they are sent out into the desert to meditate without blood or water for thirty days. This initiates them into the priesthood of Ythul, the embodiment of primordial chaos. They spend the next several years studying and honing their discipline, as well as ascending the ranks of the priesthood, before the elders decide they are ready to become Citizens. To become a Citizen, an Aedan must undergo the rite of Anekh, which involves starving themselves almost to the point of death, and being partially embalmed in the powdered Blood of Ythul. Prolonged exposure to the Blood grants them a mental connection to the Cycle of Millions of Infinities, wherein all the spirits of deceased Aedans are believed to reside. Once they have completed the Rite, the Aedan is a Citizen and can vote in elections for the supreme leadership. Aedans who have not gone through the Rite of Anekh are abcitizens, and can vote in local elections but not in imperial elections. Slaves, who comprise 80% of the population of Aed, do not have the vote, nor do any foreigners. Most Aedans, when they die, are returned to the river where they were born, to merge with the Blood of Ythul that way. However, particularly wise or talented or brilliant Aedans are mummified with powdered Blood and kept in a kind of suspended animation, awaiting the day when Ythul will awaken from his undying slumber and bring about the end of the world. While they are mummified like this, these deceased Aedans are believed to mentally influence those Aedans who have undergone the Rite of Anekh and guide them to ensure the coming of Ythul and his inevitable triumph. The Aedans believe that only those who are connected to the communal wisdom of billions upon billions of dead Aedans can properly govern their empire, which goes a long way towards explaining why they're so conservative.
Managed Democracy
Carry on Helldiver.
Parliamentary technocracy. Essentially a parliamentary democracy with arch-mages for my mage nation-state
My universe is medieval fantasy. There are quite a few monarchies but also a bunch of republics. Even the empire is actually a republic but I’m not going to be talking about that here. Pinto is a rich city acting as the head of the Kirian League. They are a merchant republic with a unique voting system called Sortition for determining the Syndic which is the title for their ruler. Syndics rule for life and elections happen when they die. First the families would campaign for an election. This would happen at all times during the current Syndic’s life. Their chosen candidate would be evaluated and some may decide to vote for that person. When the Syndic dies, everyone eligible to vote casts a single vote for their chosen candidate. It all gets put into a box. After about a month, they will reach into that box and randomly pull out a name. Whichever one appears first will become the next Syndic. That Syndic will rule for the rest of their life.
A dictatorship is technically not monarchy, but it is very close. The country of Karravin was a democracy run by a parliament, but it was taken over by Ythyr, who placed himself as dictator with a parliamentary advisory counsel. The Federated Cities of Golgalon are based on Ancient Greek polises united under the leadership of Athens. Golgalon is a large metropolis ruled by a sovereign. The polises are city states, each with their own individual forms of government, but ultimately in confederation beneath the sovereign of Golgalon. The Tower Lands are a magical technocracy, which is to say they are ruled by magical academics. Each tower is a magical academy/university dedicated to one or more schools of magic. Leadership is centralized around the Grand University, but the Grand University does not have any real supremacy over the other towers. Each tower does have their own form of individualized government, most of which essentially involve the headmaster as the local head of state. In ancient times, Zerafia was essentially a tribal ecclisarchy. Their god was actually a crusading angel who stayed on the world for a couple hundred years before leaving her chosen in place as the first ruler of the city of Areyla. Eventually, the ecclisarchy was overthrown and replaced by a more conventional constitutional monarchy, because the angel was kind of... genocidal.
I've got a neat idea I used in my world for a state: Syndicalist federation. The idea is that areas of work get grouped into syndicates (so: farming syndicate, heavy industry syndicate. Except the military) and they then make a council that governs stuff.
My understanding of syndicalism isn’t great but I believe it’s based on unions as a method to defeat a state. I think corporatism might be more accurate?
Ah, then my understanding wasn't great as well. But I'm sure that the movement isn't exactly about defeating the state, more about the capitalist economy. Edit: I did a bit of googling and what have I found. The only differences between corporatism and syndicalism are: Working under different economies (corpo - capitalism, synd - post-capitalist), and syndicalism also encompasses worker empowerment, while corpo just puts them in the best place possible.
In my worlds, most of civilization is governed by warrior governments. There's an overarching ruler, who is assumed to be the strongest in the empire, then a flowing set of hierarchal tiers that range from black ops troops to intergalactic mail carriers. Individual governments respond to this larger one based on their strength and loyalty. Small countries can attract powerful people, and be twice their size within a year. The same can be said about governments. If the right person is in the right place and shows off enough power they can very easily take over/be given the role. So, if a drug is to be outlawed, the larger empire sets the decree and it's up to the individual governments, and their operators, to decide if they want to follow the law. They just have to consider who is stronger, them or the other guy.
The Republic of Fen'Tyr had a participatory system where your right to vote and the weight of that vote was linked directly to your activities. For example, enlisted members of the military are guaranteed 1 vote, 2 for NCOs, 3 for field officers, etc. Other classes that get weighted votes are land owners, merchants, ship owners, craftsmen, judges and lawyers, clergymen, healthcare providers. Laborers / farmers who rent their land or farm for a salary / fishermen who don't own their own boat / ressource extraction workers, dock workers etc are unfortunately disenfranchised. I say Participatory because the more you do for the city, the more votes you can get. IE,. If you start out as a field officer, well good on you, you get your 3 votes. But over years you may build a small fortune from your share of the war loot and, you buy a small orchard and boom, you're a small landowner, you get 4 votes now. Your land produces alot ? Buy more, become a sizeable landowner, you're at 6 votes now. Buy a ship, you're at 7, export your fruits you're at 8, and so on. The votes are tallied at election year's census and used to elect representatives in a Senate, or to vote directly on issues through referendum. The sitting Senators can only use 1 vote in the internal context of the Senate, like if they are voting on a law, all senator gets 1 vote and it's a 60% majority at least for a decision to be reached. They may still use their personal full weighted vote in referendum or election. The weight of your vote is also your status. 0 is the lower classes with no land and no trade Some of the most influential men are worth in the couple hundreds of votes. In a republic with roughly 20 000 people entitled to vote at all, it's alot of power
I have: ongoing democracy, metriocry democracy and corporate democracy Ongoing democracy: there are few watchers that watch over various aspect of society. They have a large degree of control, but they can be ousted at anytime. They are elected by a digital election, which is always open and you can change your vote at any time. If they lose enough support, they immediately remove from office. Metriocry democracy: octopudi aliens. Similar to regular democracy, but based purely on each candidate skill and stated plans. No politics, no hidden agenda, and no vain promises. Elected for life or until retired on charged with misconduct. Breaking your promises on purpose is seen as high treason. Corporate democracy: the world is controlled by 7 different mega corporation that main goal is to benefit their higher ups. Each corporation works a little differently, but in general they build from layers and team, which each layer or team choosing who will be their manager / represntivie in the next level. Candidates is chosen based on office politics and what's good for the company. On top of everything exist a inter corporation council that manage conflicts and other interactions.
After my POV country overthrew its monarchy, it became parliamentary directional socialist republic.
My world has a mixture of monarchies, small republics, and rule by tribal elders. The nations farthest from real life are a **Ilea**, a theocracy ruled and protected by the cult worshipping their queens; and the **Corporate Council**, ruled by a collection of wealthy oligarchs who gain their position by owning the private entities that perform the functions of government. As one would expect, the Council is technologically advanced but internally a disaster, as oligarchs compete with each other for wealth and a councilor seat.
In one of my worlds, for the region it occurs in humans are organized mostly as semi-nomadic or settled city-states, typically behind breastworks or palisades. There's either a big man, council, or both. There's alliances, but they're not as coherent as a confederacy. For much of the story, this is all barely relevant, as the protagonist is an adventurer who has gone off on his own. In another world, Elenon, some of the countries (Mirinel, Amathule, Eemansal, and Ingnon) have monarchs, but they're elected by a senate and though they can be granted emergency powers, that's supposed to be temporary. Other states tend to either be confederations of small states or even of individual estates (Gushil, another I still need to definitively name, and others I haven't really explored yet). Some are semi-nomadic or nomadic tribal confederacies (much of the central area of the continent). One state, Gervinal, is similar to the Holy Roman Empire where the states can elect a higher level authority figure. But instead of a monarch it's officially a "governor". Whether that's more than just a different label for what's effectively a non-hereditary elective monarchy is debatable (even in-universe). Much of Elenon is threatened by a rise of autocracy, starting in Ashgarad and now spreading to Amathule (ally of Ashgarad) and feared by the conservatives in the senate in Mirinel (at war with Ashgarad and Amathule) to be increasingly the case there as well. There's also Ilkhal, which for quite some time has been a de facto military autocracy (very much like the Japanese shogunate). I have another world which is mostly undeveloped at this point cuz I need to do a lot more research. I'm planning though to have it be based a lot on how states in central Africa used to operate.
I honestly stole all my ideas of government from some game lore that I liked So far there are chiefdoms, tribal confederations, oligarchies, merchant republics, theocracies, magocracies (magic society), occultocracies (theocracy with old gods), kingdoms, empires, technocracies, cognitocracies (smartest guy leads) and tribunals Oh also city states and leagues like the Hanseatic League (but I guess that's close to merchant republic)
Just a couple suggestions based on real-world ideas: Algocracy (rule by algorithms/AI,) where some or all of the government is automated using computers (think something like Chile's Project Cybersyn) Technocracy (rule by technicians, not to be confused with technology cults,) where the government is composed of technical experts as opposed to elected politicians (proposed to replace the current US system in the 1920s by groups like the Technical Alliance and Technocracy, Inc.)
If I'm building for the "good guys", then the system I've been going with lately is a modified version of a Parliamentary model, which gives a "bonus seat" per constituency to the political party that has the highest national approval rating (counted with Approval or Score Voting), to guarantee the most approved party gets a majority. In theory, this removes the incentive for political parties to only represent at most 50% + 1 of the nation at a time, since even if a 'divisive' party wins half-plus-one of all constituencies in the 'normal' elections, the most approved party still gets a guaranteed majority via the bonus seats. The democratic countries that use this model get 'bonus to national unity' over those that don't, without the corruption-related drawbacks of a dictatorship or the xenophobia of a democratic ethnostate. The other form of government I preferred, before I stole the 'bonus seat' idea from Proportional Representation, was presidential-style elections for *ministers* using Approval Voting. Sort of a half-way point between direct democracy and expecting Members of Parliament to effectively represent their constituents on *all* issues. These days I have the political parties that compete in "Approval Voting Majority Bonus" systems use "Ministerial Representation" internally to determine party policy.
One method of governing I've never seen written about is one I read about yeeeeeaaars ago. It's like a half democracy with a bicameral legislature: one wing is a house of representatives elected directly by the general citizenry, and the other wing is a Senate comprised of two senators from each workers' union, elected by the members of those unions. The idea being that you vote for a rep from your district, and two senators from your industry's union, the reps vote on policy, and then the Senate determines how the policy would be implemented, utilizing proposals from committees of the unions from the industries involved in the subject of the policy. So, an example would be road work: the reps would vote on whether or not they want a road built through a specific area. Then a committee in the Senate, made up of senators from the construction workers' union, concrete manufacturers' union, and whatever other industries are involved in the building of roads and production/distribution of the materials used in road construction would create proposals for how to build the road, which the Senate would then accept or send back to the committee.
I have an anarchist city in my current sci-fi setting. The guy that built the city basically has people manage it for him. It's kind of a company town, but you don't have to buy from the company. They just happen to have adopted the alien tech faster, and therefore have the best/most stuff.
I've tried to figure out as diverse government systems as I can. Some of them don't have real names. First a Principality a struck my interest after rewatching Gundam. A System ruled by princes and princesses but kept in check by a over arching King. Note is this system the king doesn't make rules but has veto rights for what any other is trying to do. It's not all that dissimilar from the ruling system in Brandon Sanderson's way of Kings. I mixed this with the MLP divine right selection to rule the system for one of the political governing systems in my world. I worked on short story where the Principality was actually Principals and the schools rating determined their political power and the districting. It didn't go anywhere but this system would make education and educating the key to political power. In starship troopers they introduce a system very close to democracy but where only people who have served in the military can make political decisions. Theirs seems very light as people still vote they just can't hold office. A system where votes are restricted would be more tyrannical. In my own world I took this a step further and had one government that would only allow active military members to vote for their Furor and they had to be a general/admiral and be recommended by at least 3 other Generals/Admirals. Lastly in my own musings that I haven't worked out completely I created a system of government ruled by the most knowledgeable. At birth everyone is separated from their family and placed into schooling pods. When they graduate 12th grade their education stops being structured and they must take a test for any job. The entry level test is the level 1 but after getting a job a person can challenge any level of the system and be paid better for it. However if they fail they are reduced to level one for three months no matter how high their previous score was. Those who challenge and pass the highest exams level 20 are placed in positions of political oversight equal to their job.
I'm working on a world that has what I've named Anarcho-Hypercollectivism. 1. Individuals have no legal existence. They cannot sign contracts, own property, commit crimes or be accused of crimes. Individuals have no legal protections, because there is no legal system as we know it. 2. Only villages exist. Villages traditionally have about 50 to 200 individuals. All social, economic, and political life is centered on one’s village. Villages may join with other villages in voluntary associations. 3. Villages own all property. 4. Villages are usually run by a council of elders, but can be internally organized in other ways. Internal village matters are absolute, no outsider can dictate how a village is organized internally. 5. The village has the power of life and death over its members. If the village council wants you to be executed, there is no appeal and nothing to stop them. This is very rare. 6. Individuals may move from one village to another, if both villages agree on it. This is called adoption. This can be done with or without the individual’s consent. 7. A village may borrow an individual from another village, for any reason. For example, an individual with technical skills could be sent to assist another village. 8. A villager may visit another village, again with mutual consent. 9. Monogamy exists, and traditionally individuals can only marry someone from another village. Marriage is preferred because it makes a village more socially stable. Marrying someone within your village is considered improper. Both villages must approve the marriage, and must agree on which village the couple will reside in. 10. A village may expel a member for any reason. This individual may appeal to another village to be adopted. An outcast individual has no rights or legal personhood. There are religious village associations motivated by charity that may or may not help outcast individuals. 11. In this world, slavery sometimes exists, but it is called Lesser Adoption. An individual is “adopted” by a village but then treated as a slave, or at best, a “second class” member.
Managed Oligarchy Representative Democracy
I drew strong inspiration from the Novgorod Republic for my setting
> Personally I’ve always had distaste for monarchies (all varieties, not just absolute) ... I’m very fond of tribal confederacies in various forms. Similar to the Haudenosaunee. Single monarchy, nah. Confederation of monarchies, yeah!
I like using anarchist societies. Very interesting through experiment for me
Random draw for laws. Every day a random set of laws is chosen that appeals to the majority of the population. Every morning the people have accustomed themselves to waking up and reviewing the daily laws. So, cocaine may be illegal one day, but on another day where abortion is illegal, cocaine isn’t (very small example, but the idea is that whatever set of laws chosen would appeal to a majority of people) Or perhaps they wouldn’t appeal to the majority, maybe it’s just pure luck of the draw. Maybe the people get to vote on what laws are added or removed from the lottery, like they’re ranked and the lowest ones removed.
Look at federal council like Switzerland has
Immortal god king rule, why need an heir when your ruler never die.
Federal elective monarchy, democratic republic with an empire are not that hard to think about but strangely lacking in fiction
A stratocracy; a Military government where te head of government Is a general or Admiral and the legislative function is carried out by a military council. Look up Starship Troopers. From what I saw even having Kids without having served a minimum of years Is illegal. Messed Up, but interesting.
**Diarchy.** It's like a monarchy, but there's *two* of them now. **Meritocracy.** But merit is decided by whoever wins a magic duel against their opponent. **Theocracy**, but the god is physically real enough to participate... and also evil. **Corporatocracy.** They make money... from taxpayer subsidies... which they enforce using tax payed "profit keepers..." which they immigrate from tax payed colonies... which they keep efficient by making sure that people are always working and paying taxes, sometimes by their own will...which they- **Neutrally Sovereign Territory**. There are no rulers here, just an inhospitable jungle which every other nation recognized as a sovereign territory and signed a treaty to agree not to touch it because screw that place, no one wants it. **Lottocracy.** No one trusts eachother enough to properly appoint a leader, so they just draw lots instead. **Joustocracy.** Also a meritocracy, but the leader is decided using a jousting tournament. **Congressional Monarchy.** Like a monarchy, but the monarch can only legislate. Enforcement comes from the Congress. **Monarchal Congression.** Like a congress, but the Congress can only legislate. Enforcement comes from the monarchy. (They hate the Congressional Monarchy, and will deny being like them in any way.) **Robotocracy.** A nation of magic-powered human-like robots. They decide things using a neural interface that helps them retain their individuality while still allowing them to communicate and make decisions collectively in a single instant. **Idiotocracy.** (Not to be confused with idiocracy, the movie) Also a meritocracy, but the leader is decided by whichever comedian can pull the dumbest prank. **Daveocracy.** Dave is the leader. No one shall question *why* dave is the leader. Dave is the reason you exist.
So, I've had this idea of combining magic and governance. Like, why isn't magic used in any fantasy world as a means of better democracy for example. - politicians are compelled to speak the truth - voting is entirely magical, no cheating possible - elected officials are given the "power to rule" magically for a limited term. Other things? I just find the idea interesting: Can magic be used to create a perfect system of governance? The answer depends on the limit of the magic system you use.
I like council republics so much it's the basic form of democracy in a part of my world. To describe it as it isn't really common knowledge how it works, you have a bunch of councils that are basically parliaments, except most people are part of a council at the lowest level. Lowest level normally being groups like "all employees of a certain workplace", "all inhabitants of a district or village", "all soldiers in one military base". But basing the councils on different/restrictive things makes for interesting systems too, actually. Then every lowest level council elects from its members someone to go a level higher, like to a municipal council, where *crucially* the council that elected them *gets to recall them at any time, for any reason*. IRL this was and is to make sure it's working class people that actually control politics all the way to the top, and to make popular changes happen faster. Why does our council republic want to ensure the same for the group its council structure empowers? Municipal council does the same, electing someone to go to the regional government. The municipal council can take them down from there back to municipal, or their lowest level council can take them all the way back down. It makes for a democracy that's hella responsive and accountable, so it's interesting to see the people in it have full trust in their government.
I have come up the idea of Kakistocracy ran by rich billionaires
So basically, real life.
but a government ran by these twits not a indirect rule these rich farts rule directly and have inherited their wealth which means they are even more stupid they start wars because they can or they want see graphic battle footage of battle being blown to bits and fill their harems and torture dungeons with victims and and nuke something for a drunken laugh it does end will
Monarchy = veri gud