AHC: Krytocracy becomes a popular form of government

Dorozhand

Banned
Your challenge is to come up with a scenario (PsOD preferably after the fall of Rome) where Krytocracy, as in state in which the head of government is the head of the judiciary, becomes a popular form of government in Europe. Bonus points if you can make it an elected Krytocratic Republic.
 
THat's not an AH, really. At the level of communal government, well into the early modern period the heads or councils of communes served as their chief judges. Judicial function was the core of civic authority. Kings, too, originally sat in judgement, though getting an elected king would be harder than an elected mayor, consul or other civic functionary. At least for a reasonably modern definition of 'elected', the mIddle Ages had creative ways of doing these things.

Keeping it in the face of the professionalisation of law is harder.
 
THat's not an AH, really. At the level of communal government, well into the early modern period the heads or councils of communes served as their chief judges. Judicial function was the core of civic authority. Kings, too, originally sat in judgement, though getting an elected king would be harder than an elected mayor, consul or other civic functionary. At least for a reasonably modern definition of 'elected', the mIddle Ages had creative ways of doing these things.

Keeping it in the face of the professionalisation of law is harder.

Maybe stop the professionalisation of law somehow? Possibly a widespread feeling that legal professionals were somehow dishonourable (since they just advocate a case for money, not because they think it is right) might work.

(And FAO the OP, it should actually be "kritocracy" rather than "krytocracy", since it comes from the Greek for "judge", which is κριτής, not κρυτής.)
 

Dorozhand

Banned
I was thinking about something more like parliamentary democracy, in which the head of government in head of the legislative branch. In this state, the head of government would be the head of the judicial branch. A state in which courts actually make laws by overseeing and judging disputes and using the results as codified precedent.
 
In some ways, the US does do that. Roe v Wade essentially legalized abortion as the result of the precedence decided in court, for instance. It's not the main system of government in the US, but it could be a jumping off point.
 
Local governors in Imperial China were also responsible for juridical matters, as they are supposed to be the people who understood laws best in the area. Adding an appeal system then either the emperor or his PM would be the head of judiciary.

But in Europe it might be harder, since before the French Revolution judges were people hired by nobility and serve their respective lords with little interaction between each other. To implement a coherent juridical system the power of local nobility needs to be reduced since they will not be happy to be stripped of their juridical rights in their fiefs.
 
kinda a chicken or egg discussion

Is the head of community the chief judge or is the chief judge the head of community?

In many places the distinction was vague, specially in scandinavian tradition (and somewhat less so in the larger germanic and the slavic tradition) where the Lawspeakers (one heading each thing, a unique Scandinavian position) was generally acknowledged to be the highest authority in secular questions, just below the king.
 
This is the state of affairs in OTL. The King was always the supreme judge of his kingdom. It's why, for instance, in the modern American parlence, the Court only really exists when the judge is on a (usually elevated) seat and present in their person. Or why a lot of writs in England would run in the name of the King.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Cripes, Lucan tried to do that as late as 1843

Yes, that Lucan.

The Lord Chancellor had to set him straight, that common law practices were in place for everyone in the UK.

Even County Mayo.

Not surprising, is it?

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A few generations back on side, but yep

Ah! A fellow Mayoite! Enda be praised!

A few generations back on one side, but yep.

I was reading up on God's country and came across the Binghams, and Castlebar, and the Earl, and put it together.

Sometimes one wonders how the English gained an empire with people like the Binghams and Brudenells running things...

They make Custer look prudent.

Best,
 
Okay, well, there are several major problems with Kritarchy. For one thing, Montesquieu would turn in his grave at the prospect of ALL the branches of government being tied up in someone who is supposed to be impartial. Another is that you really need a well-established set of laws a priori to be refined by the judges on an ad hoc basis, kinda like English Common Law. Hence...

Scenario 1: Australia
If you have a really strict Governor-General during the early penal colony period who believes that criminal behaviour is hereditary, he will probably use his almost absolute powers to punish wrongdoers (maybe by sending them to the interior?). The executive will fuse with the judicial function, and you'd probably eventually get a hierarchy of common-law Governors/Judges throughout the continent. This will probably end up like apartheid, except with two white tiers. Hence, the Free population needs to be much smaller than OTL and paranoid about its position. Judges are all stick and no carrot, so they might be able to promote people to higher castes to keep them mollified - hence corruption and the watering down of the elite. This kinda thing won't survive past the end of the Cold War, if that.

Scenario 2: Sharia Law
Basically the same as OTL Somalia and Iran. PODs include the Army supporting Morsi against Egyptian protesters, followed by dissolution of Parliament or Khomeini going the whole hog and getting rid of the Majlis. But if the Kritarchy emerges before 1920-ish, it'll get overthrown by the British or French and replaced with a nice friendly monarchy, like Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

Scenario 3: French Revolution
Say Robespierre et al don't escalate the Terror (alienating Paris) and keep their power for a few more years. Supposing the general course of the war goes as OTL they could make peace with everybody in the wake of Campo Formio - they'd give up all the colonies, Alsace-Lorraine, Corsica and promise not to export the revolution - then whatever the Parliament is called that week could legislate all the Jacobin reforms and be abolished by the Committee for Public Safety, which would become a kind of Supreme Court with Executive powers, with the Terror becoming a low-scale Nervous Anxiety. Obviously, Sieyes, Bonaparte and maybe Talleyrand would destabilise the regime if pushed, and it remains to be seen whether the state would survive Alt-1848 and Alt-1871, but if there was a propaganda genius and a diplomatic genius in the CPS at all times they could conceivably limp along to today in Switzerland Mode.

Of the above, the least ASB is Scenario 2, because of the populist influence of a religion that prioritises 'submission' above reform. Any thoughts on how to make these remotely workable?
 
Top