Is it possible to have a world dominated by stable democracies instead of being ruled by monarchy? Admittedly this is probably ASB since there's no reason for an opposing side not to start a civil war if they lose.
DBWI: Democratic World
- Thread starter Von Tyrconnell
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
We have some examples from Antiquity, but like the Dutch Republic, Switzerland or Venice, they all had clear limitatations of who gets to vote. Also similar to these modern examples, they tended to function primarily on a local level. The ones that didn't work like that never lasted long. Everyone knows the cycle these things take, from ancient Athens to modern Britain: an aristocracy gets more and more 'open' as new money families rise through the ranks, then more and more people desire similar heightened status, which leads to populism and demagoguery, which leads to tyrants seizing power. Fortunately, the power of tyrants is often resisted or gradually chipped away at, leading to a new system of aristocracy. Of course, on the other hand, we often see aristocrats falling into civil wars among each other, as well. That's just as bad as demoguagery, if not worse. The obvious conclusion is that you need a monarch to keep order-- to serve as a supreme arbiter between the noble houses. The king keeps the nobles from in-fighting, and the nobles keep the king from becoming a tyrant who rules without regard for others.
I really don't see how mob rule could ever be stable, when it's so obvious that good governance relies on such a delicate balance.
I really don't see how mob rule could ever be stable, when it's so obvious that good governance relies on such a delicate balance.
Lord_Vespasian
Banned
You just distinguish between Republics and Democracies. They function very differently. You most also state whether or not they have a Constitution, the type of legislative body they maintain, is the Judiciary independent and is there an executive and if do, how powerful is he, is it a parliamentary or a senatorial system, etc etc
FillyofDelphi
Banned
(OOC: Gah... I have a really interesting idea, but it's a MAJOR tech divergence that would throw this world into wildly different territory. I'm torn as to weather or not to introduce it)
It's pretty likely when you think about it. There are clear democracies out right now that function (most famously, the Federation of Mexico and the Danube Confederacy), but most were the result of socialist uprisings and fairly recent (well, in comparison. Mexico as a democratic republic is almost 200 years old.) Furthermore, most monarchies nowadays are constitutional monarchies or inherited the elective monarchy system that the Intermarium Commonwealth (or Polish-Lithuanian for those who prefer the odler name) had. Bost of the stuff is handled by prime ministers and other counterparts and while they are pretty stable, least compared to the occasional populist nuttery in democracies (the United States of Appalachia), it can be easy to picture that had reforms not been passed, alot more monarchies would've been toppled.
Impossible. Democracy has never worked in practise. The only thing that ever comes from trying it is carnage and death. Just read the Black Book of Democracy.
This hasn't always been the case, though, sadly. Look at the Russian Empire immediately before it's collapse-Tsar Michael III was very much a tyrant and most of the nobility did nothing to stop him(many of those few who did, like Maritsa Varennikova, were exiled, and some were even executed for treason). And Prussia's last king, prior to German unification in 1890, not only sided heavily with the Hohenzollerns over their rivals, but also, as was found out decades later, even partook in stoking in-fighting not only for political gain, but even occasionally, for his own amusement. And not to mention the Ottoman Empire during their last days of their rule over their European territories, Qing China in it's sunset years(at least the Longs are much more mellow), and much of modern Korean history prior to the Revolution of 1968. And Austria-Hungary from 1905 to 1920. And so on, and so forth.
Compare that to Great Britain, which has had a fairly established liberal tradition and hasn't had such problems since the English Civil War, as well France, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Yapon, and Persia, and it's not at all difficult to see the major difference. As we can see, it's monarchies that are willing to be pragmatic, and introduce reforms(including a degree of liberalization), that generally not only survive, but even thrive, whereas the more reactionary ones have generally tended to stagnate, even if they don't always fall completely(for example, the Kingdom of the Nejd survives thanks to oil money, but most of the people outside of the nobility and the small commercial and industrial upper classes are quite poor. We can also look at Bulgaria for another example; this country is surprisingly stable despite it's recent history but is itself fairly backwards compared to even Serbia).
Now, mind, I'm aware that a few exceptions to the rule have existed, and even today, do exist-Bhutan, for example, is a traditionalist monarchy that is surprisingly not that badly off in terms of living standards, etc., and we did have the collapse of the Javanese kingdom in the 1980s even despite sweeping reforms.....but they are just that. exceptions.
(I mean, if nothing else, you can at least see that I picked some very reputable sources for my citations, many of them award-winning scholars from top-notch universities.)
I generally agree, based on my own knowledge of history(but let's not forget Cascadia!). Also, one big thing that would help the rise in democracy would be to mitigate the absolute mess that was the government of the short-lived Russian Federation-had it been just a little bit better organized it would likely have stayed together.
The "Black Book of Democracy"? I've read it before, but, to be quite frank, it's largely garbage. And, btw, let's not forget that it's author, Wilhelm Helfferich, was a notorious denier of the ethnic cleansings that occurred in Austria-Hungary during the last years of the rule of the mad Franz Josef II, and that of the Great Pogrom in Russia from 1905-08(which, needless to say, remains the worst outright genocide in modern history), so that does need to be taken into account.
If one wants a truly balanced account about the genuine shortcomings that some democracies have had, then I should refer you to Hans von Lindemann's A Critique of Unchecked Democracy from 1972-I don't agree with all of his conclusions, of course, but he actually cited facts in their real context, and didn't quote from disreputable propagandists & revisionists, or even make stuff up out of thin air as Herr Helfferich did.
Last edited:
Oh yeah, that's a big issue though things seem to be doing now. Yeah, Nejd is pretty much surviving thanks to oil money, though it's clear that the Kingdom of Mashriq and North Arabia really wants that land. The Hashemite and Jewish forces nearly got it if not for support from the Prussians back then.
I heard from one place that the United States of Appalachia could've actually become a global superpower had they adopted a mroe central form of governemnt rather than the Confederacy they started out with. A map even had this "United States of America" consist of the territory of US of Appalachia, the Iroquois Federation (presumably, something happened to the Intermarium Commonwealth there since they and the Iroquois are quite close), the Lakota Confederacy, the southern half of Cascadia, northern Mexico (everything north of the Rio Grande) and New Afrika (that freeman state established during the Applachian Civil War out west between them and Mexico, under the Lakota)
Perhaps had this "USA" succeeded, its status could've influenced more democracies
I actually forgot about the North Arabians for a little bit. And yes, very interesting to see what might have happened had Prussia not been there to support the Nejdi forces in holding on.
I remember the timeline that map came from; it was an old collab TL that was very popular on some of the more veteran counter-factual forums back in the mid and late '90s, and early in the last decade(it also had western Alaska and the Hawaii'an Islands, too). I'll see if I can find it somewhere.
Edit: And here it is.
You had to go and say "stable." I was wondering why everyone was ignoring the elephant (heh) in the room, but if we adopt a generous definition of "stable" like "no territorial losses and no rebellions against the overall governing structure, and nearly all organized political violence manages to stay confined in the boardroom," or "shockingly well-functioning, happy, and ludicrously wealthy," then the Combined East India Company basically qualifies already. I'll make their case.
If we look at the current National Shareholders, just under half are Subsidiary states, and essentially all of those are republican in all but terminology. The only one I can think of that doesn't cap and subsidize voting shares at somewhere under the cost of a new fridge is Antananarivo, and a bunch have started following Travancore's lead in just doing birthright shareholdership. (And probably a good third or so of the Princely states have some shiftless layabout in charge and might as well be run by a subsidiary anyway.) Once Afghanistan finally incorporates a government or three (I don't predict a return to monarchism for them after the Musahibans -- you can't literally buy a country out from under the feet of its ruler if the system was ever popular) 51% of states will be corporate, and a more-republican-than-not confederation will make all our products and own all our real estate. How's that for dominance?
The Indians figured out a while back that the secret to a well-functioning democratic or republican state was not making it a parody of monarchism. You absolutely cannot have a republican society with a strong executive, where the elected leader gets to be king for some amount of years until the next election and the next elected king. The very first thing that any king on an unstable throne is going to do is secure said throne, regardless of how temporary it was supposed to be, which means that if the other candidate wasn't already planning on starting a civil war, the first assassin to come through his bedroom window will certainly change his mind.
Instead, the Indians see government as a framework for an almost incomprehensibly complex multi-party negotiation that continues forever and ever and ever. Rajiv's interests are negotiated against Vihaan's and both of theirs against Abdul's; Rajiv bargains for the policies most important to him and trades off the least valuable things that Vihaan and Abdul value more highly; and Rajiv and Vihaan can never meaningfully collude to rob Abdul because if they do, Rajiv and Abdul (or Vihaan and Abdul) can team up to do the same thing right back. This, but with a billion people. I have no idea how they get away with it, or if they even could if haggling wasn't India's national sport. But if you want to get democratic domination I think we have to look to Asia.
Total ASB. I mean in a so called "pure democracy" it just goes to hell in a handbasket, I mean the poor can just vote away the riches power, and in a so called "republic" or "representative democracy" well thats just an Oligarchy that has the audacity to pretend otherwise. I bet this is just more Western Propaganda as to why the "Byzantines" are bad, Our system has been working since before you people could wipe your asses thank you very much.
Interesting point, though I'd add that India does have genuinely liberal policies when it comes to ethnic affairs, which helps a lot with keeping their society cohesive.....
Not quite. The Republic of Gran Bolivia is about as pure of a Hamiltonian democracy as one can get, but is actually fairly stable, by and large, and Cascadia is actually fairly prosperous itself.
And btw, let's not forget that the Restored Byzantine Empire did have a lot of problems in it's early years, particularly under the rather harsh-and later virtually insane-Emperor Irinaeus I(indeed, there's a very good reason why no male ruler of the Empire has taken his name since. There's also a reason why he has no living descendants; his only son was just as hated as he was, and was himself assassinated at the age of 25.)-thank goodness John II was able to secure his rightful place on the throne, or the Empire might not have survived to the present day. Just thought you should keep that in mind.....
Also, for more on that particular era of Byzantine history, I have a free copy of Paraskevi Kantopoulos's The Mad Emperor: The Unfortunate Reign of Irinaeus I, 1833-1846 from 1951, on the GlobeNet for anyone who's interested. It's a really good book.