Post

The Bermudan Pentagram wrote:

My point was that there are advantages to both systems; in a democracy, there are checks and balances; while you can corrupt that system, it's relatively difficult. Unfortunately, those checks and balances make it difficult to get anything done.
In a dictatorship, there aren't as many checks and balances (or possibly none at all), and so it's easy to get things done, but it's relatively easier to corrupt the system, with things such as cronyism (Stalinst Russia or Nazi Germany), nepotism (North Korea), or any number of other things.
Even in a military government, there's plenty of room for incompetents. In fact, I'd wager that especially in a military government would this phenomenon be observable, because the skills to run a military are not necessarily the same skills that are needed to run a country, and it's not like the military is filled solely with the best and brightest anyway; there are incompetents in every organization, and some of them can worm their way to the top, or near enough, by playing politics.

As to the series, I'll look into it if I find the time. I'm sure it would be interesting.

Perhaps, but in my government the monarch himself appoints a competent successor rather than relying on eldest born or whoever the nobility thinks would be easiest to control. In this way we have had an almost unbroken line of good monarchs. Monarchs that aren't very good are killed in their sleep by the numerous Monarchist Nationalist organizations whose job it is to maintain the prestige of our dynasty. We DO have checks and balances, you just don't see them at the surface level of government.