[6 / 4 / ?]
Quoted By: >>39792705
>tl;dr republican constitutional monarchy, with a dictator amendment that can make a royal dictator for 1 year
Came up with an idea for a government. It’s basically just the presidential system like in the US (it’s important in this case that it’s hard for radical reform to go through without a lot of support) except there is a constitutional monarchy that doesn’t have any power most of the time like in the Uk. However there is a dictator amendment in the constitution (Roman republic kind), where someone in the official Royal family (no unknown bastards) can be declared dictator (let’s say a 2/3 majority in the senate) for a one year period wherein the state becomes temporarily absolutist. I see it as solving the problems with republicanism and monarchism, and without the risks involved in the Roman republic for it to slip into a permanent dictatorship. With this if needed radical reform can we occur under the dictator, however in this case the dictator/king is chosen meritocratically and by the people and has as well been prepared his entire life for the possibility that this would one day occur to him. As well it’s not like he’d hate leaving the dictator position as he’d go back to living an honorable and lavish life protected by the state as a prince. It’s meritocratic in that the best within the royal family would be chosen, it wouldn’t be one guy destined for the position. This is what the Romans did to select their emperors in the Nerva-Antonine dynasty and it led to rome’s Golden age. So yes meritocratic. As far as the dictators powers, essentially the dictator can do and order anything aside from change the constitution which will be restored as the law of the land intact at the end of the year, except if in his appointment the congress has outlined specific issues within the constitution they’d like him to make radical changes to then he can affect only the areas of the constitution that they have directed for him to change
>1/2
Came up with an idea for a government. It’s basically just the presidential system like in the US (it’s important in this case that it’s hard for radical reform to go through without a lot of support) except there is a constitutional monarchy that doesn’t have any power most of the time like in the Uk. However there is a dictator amendment in the constitution (Roman republic kind), where someone in the official Royal family (no unknown bastards) can be declared dictator (let’s say a 2/3 majority in the senate) for a one year period wherein the state becomes temporarily absolutist. I see it as solving the problems with republicanism and monarchism, and without the risks involved in the Roman republic for it to slip into a permanent dictatorship. With this if needed radical reform can we occur under the dictator, however in this case the dictator/king is chosen meritocratically and by the people and has as well been prepared his entire life for the possibility that this would one day occur to him. As well it’s not like he’d hate leaving the dictator position as he’d go back to living an honorable and lavish life protected by the state as a prince. It’s meritocratic in that the best within the royal family would be chosen, it wouldn’t be one guy destined for the position. This is what the Romans did to select their emperors in the Nerva-Antonine dynasty and it led to rome’s Golden age. So yes meritocratic. As far as the dictators powers, essentially the dictator can do and order anything aside from change the constitution which will be restored as the law of the land intact at the end of the year, except if in his appointment the congress has outlined specific issues within the constitution they’d like him to make radical changes to then he can affect only the areas of the constitution that they have directed for him to change
>1/2