Alternate Democracy

Maybe prevent the Normans from taking England at Hastings? The Anglo-Saxon Monarch was elected by a body of nobles, although usually the King had to have some connection to the ruling dynasty. If this system was allowed to develop, you might end up with a system developing much like the Polish Sejm, although, one hopes, without the one man veto.
Although, come to think of it, despite its structural flaws, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth does fit the criteria you give. Possibly have a series of reforms of the Sejm go through in the 17th century, and you might end up with a stable Polish state lasting much longer with an elected Monarch who shares his power with a Parliament.

I'm not talking about a noble republic nor an elective monarchy(unless in Saudi/Islamic sense of it), but a monarchical system where the monarch stays functional, but restricted to executive duties only. Maybe it can develop from a noble republic a la Poland, born from the alliance between the monarch and non-aristocratic citizens to subdue the nobles. But I think it's more likely to develop straight from traditional monarchy. England with its historical Magna Carta and general tradition of compromise looks to be a perfect candidate for this. A less radical French revolution can be a more dramatic option for this as well.

1) I'd be satisfied to just having an actually working Council of People's Representative.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I'm all against any form of hereditary-rule, except if by chance the heir is actually someone competent enough and well-liked by the people.

2) But I do think monarchy is a somewhat more effective government policy than democracy. A People's Representative Council that elects monarchs sounds kinda cool (wait, isn't this like the Papal Election?).


3) Perhaps basically this minus the hereditary part.

1) The main problem with traditional monarchy isn't the hereditarism, but the absolutism and (most often to be the beginning of the death of monarchies)powerful nobility with large fiefs. Absolutism placed both inhumanely heavy burden and plain-scary infinite authority on the monarch, while nobles were generally jerks. The point here is, we can have monarchs who still function as commander of the nation within a frame of a system based on universal suffrage. The only meaningfully undemocratic thing of such system is the hereditary Head of Government, which won't really be a problem from democratic perspective as long as universal suffrage is in effect, and therefore I'm convinced to call it essentially democratic.

2) Roman Senate before the Republic was this IOTL.

3) So basically a Republic without term limit for the Head of Government ? Netherlands prior to Napoleon's invasion was this, but it was de facto hereditary anyway.....
 
Last edited:
Suddenly in the mood for thinking about Iran and general theocratism(for story-making needs). Maybe we can speculate a bit on alternative approaches in reconciling theocracy and republicanism ? Inclusion of clergy has been associated with clerical class dominating/trying to dominate everything. Never I heard about any idea for a system that mandates the accommodation of clergy into government system, but also specifically restrict them to/from certain areas.

Mark Twain's The Curious Republic of Gondour describes an interesting alternate system of government, where each citizen has at least one vote but more can be acquired through reaching higher levels of education or by gaining wealth. The basic principle could be adapted in various ways.

I like how this sounds. Any attempt to reconcile meritocratism and universal suffrage will always going to pull in my interest :cool:
 
Suddenly in the mood for thinking about Iran and general theocratism(for story-making needs). Maybe we can speculate a bit on alternative approaches in reconciling theocracy and republicanism ? Inclusion of clergy has been associated with clerical class dominating/trying to dominate everything. Never I heard about any idea for a system that mandates the accommodation of clergy into government system, but also specifically restrict them to/from certain areas.

Since republicanism is a pretty lax term anyways, you can easily have a house of the legislature that consists entirely of clergy, either appointed by a central church body or elected by imams or priests or something. They wouldn't dominate everything -- though, having special legislative powers certainly is something -- they would simply review legislation passed by the lower, directly elected house, to assure it's godliness.

Or is that how it's done in Iran already?

You could have a tricameral system. While a bicameral legislature was meant to represent two segments of society -- the nobles and the peasants -- a tricameral one would represent three-- the peasants, the clergy, and the nobles. I'm really not sure how you could have a system where the clergy doesn't appear to have more power, however.
 

Thande

Donor
You could have a tricameral system. While a bicameral legislature was meant to represent two segments of society -- the nobles and the peasants -- a tricameral one would represent three-- the peasants, the clergy, and the nobles. I'm really not sure how you could have a system where the clergy doesn't appear to have more power, however.
That is the traditional Three Estates system used in France and other countries. It used to be bicameral legislatures that were the odd one out.
 
Since republicanism is a pretty lax term anyways, you can easily have a house of the legislature that consists entirely of clergy, either appointed by a central church body or elected by imams or priests or something. They wouldn't dominate everything -- though, having special legislative powers certainly is something -- they would simply review legislation passed by the lower, directly elected house, to assure it's godliness.

Or is that how it's done in Iran already?

You could have a tricameral system. While a bicameral legislature was meant to represent two segments of society -- the nobles and the peasants -- a tricameral one would represent three-- the peasants, the clergy, and the nobles. I'm really not sure how you could have a system where the clergy doesn't appear to have more power, however.

Interesting to think how this would work in a religiously plural society. What if one of your upper houses consisted of representatives of religious bodies? You could do proportional representative voting to decide which sects get represented and how much representation they get.

Heck, forget the religion angle. It would be really cool to have a lower house filled by first-past-the-post voting in geographical districts while the upper house is filled by proportional representation in nation-wide voting.
 
What about "family democracy" where instead of one person-one vote, you get "one family-one-vote"? I could see this developing in clan/tribe societies and have a great deal of variety/potential for abuse/"'liberation" movements. IE - Does the patriarch make the decision or is their a group decision before voting? What about women in the tribe?
 
So it essentially would be a guild democracy? Because a construction like that would create guild like structures.

its a variation of a corporate democracy, only difference being that guilds send representatives. The idea actually sounds quite workable.

For the early ages the idea would be that both guilds and nobility would have representation in a multichamber arrangement or even in one parliament. It would be the extension of power to the merchant classes in the early ages.
I could see this happen as merchants often have been pressing for more political power, and if they were to succeed this could be the result. Of course at the start it would only be proto-democratic, but over time a different kind of democracy could evolve.

One of the legislative chambers is a "council of experts." Every so often -- not sure how many years -- the lower house assembles a list of willing experts in certain fields, like college professors, doctors, researchers, magistrates, and the like. Out of that list, a certain number are selected by sortition.

This was Oswald Mosley's idea, he wanted such a chamber to replace the House of Lords. He wasn't opposed to the principle of the Lords when Britain's nobility pretty much ran the economy (which would have been entirely agricultural), but believed that the landed nobility should give way to an elected, urban elite of Trade Unionists, Scientists, Doctors and Experts. He drew these ideas from Guild Socialism.

That's what's funny about him, unlike Hitler or Mussolini, Mosley saw Fascism as a way to fix Parliamentary Democracy and save it from itself. A hopeless eccentric, in other words.

Blair's reforms of the Lords have the potential, strangely enough, to fulfil Mosley's ideals to some extent, albeit less "democratically". Under Blair's model, we've had the House filled with people who actually know their stuff to a much greater extent than the Whip-fodder in the Commons, and actually debate and question government bills in a way the Commons simply doesn't and have reduced the relics of feudalism to a bare minimum. However, most reforms to the Lords are made with the hope of making it into a elected chamber at some time in the future, which would destroy both the point and the value of the Lords.
 
What about "family democracy" where instead of one person-one vote, you get "one family-one-vote"? I could see this developing in clan/tribe societies and have a great deal of variety/potential for abuse/"'liberation" movements. IE - Does the patriarch make the decision or is their a group decision before voting? What about women in the tribe?

It was sort of like that before women got the vote, wasn't it? And if I recall, the argument was that only the "head of household" needed to vote. Though, you could still have voting-aged males in the same domicile, and extended family.

Wasn't there something like this in ancient Rome? Where each tribe had a vote in the tribal assemblies, or something?

Interesting to think how this would work in a religiously plural society. What if one of your upper houses consisted of representatives of religious bodies? You could do proportional representative voting to decide which sects get represented and how much representation they get.

Heck, forget the religion angle. It would be really cool to have a lower house filled by first-past-the-post voting in geographical districts while the upper house is filled by proportional representation in nation-wide voting.

Having a FPTP house and a PR house would be interesting, but I'm not sure what use it would have.

A chamber of appointed clergy apportioned by PR would be interesting as well. But, I think it would make more sense with elected seats apportioned by religious groupings -- like where Muslims get x seats reserved for them and Christians get y seats reserved for them. That would make more sense in a pluralistic society.
 
I have thought about this too, a bit. The King could hold real Executive power similar to that of the US President for example. Ability to veto with a 2/3 override; nominates Judges and Cabinet and such with legislative oversight and approval, etc. Kind of like what Hamilton is said to have suggested in 1787.

This is what I've done in my "Course of Human Events" TL.
 
It was sort of like that before women got the vote, wasn't it? And if I recall, the argument was that only the "head of household" needed to vote. Though, you could still have voting-aged males in the same domicile, and extended family.

Wasn't there something like this in ancient Rome? Where each tribe had a vote in the tribal assemblies, or something?

I'm not sure on Rome, but I am talking family voting. Right now, each person over the age of 18 (in the US) has the ability to vote. I am talking about each family having one vote, regardless of number of people over the age of 18. Now, how far you want to extend that could differentiate. IE - does family mean living in one domicile? Does it mean same last name? How far do you go out in terms of relatives? Does "family" follow the father or the mother? When and how are new families created/formed?
 
The various "limited monarchy" schemes some have posited on this thread are at least vaguely reminiscent of the wilhelmine German constitution or perhaps Bolivar's final proposed constitution, which envisioned a crowned republic and multicameralism. Granted, Bolivar's constitution was in force for only a few years, (Bolivia IIRC, and not fully implemented) but the wilhelmine constitution was less than successful.
 
A chamber of appointed clergy apportioned by PR would be interesting as well. But, I think it would make more sense with elected seats apportioned by religious groupings -- like where Muslims get x seats reserved for them and Christians get y seats reserved for them. That would make more sense in a pluralistic society.

Except that you have to use non-democratic means to determine the proportion of seats. Proportional voting determines it democratically.
 
I'm not sure on Rome, but I am talking family voting. Right now, each person over the age of 18 (in the US) has the ability to vote. I am talking about each family having one vote, regardless of number of people over the age of 18. Now, how far you want to extend that could differentiate. IE - does family mean living in one domicile? Does it mean same last name? How far do you go out in terms of relatives? Does "family" follow the father or the mother? When and how are new families created/formed?

Interesting questions. If you decide that 'family' means household, then you have to decide what to do with single people and unconventional households -- a bunch of roommates, for instance, multiple families living in the same house, etc.

The easiest system would be a patriarchal system where a 'family' constituted all the people descended from the same living man. So if you are married and have kids, you still don't have a separate 'family' as long as your dad and your patrilineal grandfather are alive.

But the easiest system isn't the most likely system. The most likely system is one that reflects the society's social arrangments. In neolocalist America, that would be a vote for one nuclear family, with somewhat arbitrary arrangements for single people and unconventional households.
 
Except that you have to use non-democratic means to determine the proportion of seats. Proportional voting determines it democratically.

Some countries reserve seats for specific groups. I don't see why it couldn't be decided by some government body charged with demography, but of course, like anything involving religion, it could lead to issues.

Perhaps you could have proportional representation among certain religious groups. Like, Hindus vote by PR to select the Hindu MPs, Sikhs vote by PR to select the Sikh MPs, and such.

And then the upper house could have an equal number of representatives of each religious group.
 
Heck, forget the religion angle. It would be really cool to have a lower house filled by first-past-the-post voting in geographical districts while the upper house is filled by proportional representation in nation-wide voting.

It's called the Additional Member System-they use it in Wales and Scotland where they have a unicameral legislature, but if you separated the FPTP MPs from the Regional List MPs then you'd have something exactly like you described.

As for theocracy; I'd think a judiciary made of clerics who then elect and executive (like an Ayatollah). Then there's be a free legislature and a directly elected head of government (prime minister etc.) who would actually govern-the clerics would be for purely constitutional matters and for overseeing the legislature.
 
The various "limited monarchy" schemes some have posited on this thread are at least vaguely reminiscent of the wilhelmine German constitution or perhaps Bolivar's final proposed constitution, which envisioned a crowned republic and multicameralism. Granted, Bolivar's constitution was in force for only a few years, (Bolivia IIRC, and not fully implemented) but the wilhelmine constitution was less than successful.

We can be pretty sure that the prevention OTL extent of Jacobinist radicalism will help immensely in this regard
 
There's also a possibility which was never really implemented in real life: Electoral Monarchy.

The way electoral monarchy would work is that you would have a democratically elected King who acts as the head of state. They would rule either for life or until a certain age. The King would appoint a Prime Minister and Supreme Court Justices. The PM would serve for a certain length (say a twice-renewable five years) while the Justices would also serve for life. The PM would serve as head of government and would reserve almost all powers given to the American president, such as appointing Cabinet members, etc. The only important function of the King is to appoint the PM and Supreme Court.

Additionally, the power of the executive King-PM branch would be balanced by a republican electoral legislative, with exclusive powers over the budget and the ability to override the PM's veto by a 2/3 vote. Additionally, the legislative would approve the PM's appointees. They would also be able to vet the King's choices for his appointed positions, approving them by 4/5 vote for PM or 1/2 vote for Supreme Court. The King could also veto bills, though only in extraordinary circumstances or times of war, and could be overridden by a 4/5 legislative vote.

This is a form of democracy which has never been implemented, but I think might work out alright, as long as the people choose wisely when selecting their King.
 
Top