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: