Fantasy Nation With Multiple Branches of Government

[Dusk Raven]

Okay, so here’s something for those political science majors out there – I’m looking to craft a government for a fantasy nation of mine in the novel I’m seeking to write. Basically, what sets this nation apart is its multiple branches of government – the monarchy, the military, and the electorate. Here’s an excerpt from my notes:

“The Alliance of Alucita, simply known as the Alliance, is the largest nation on the continent of Alucita. Legend holds that the Alliance was formed from three smaller nations that banded together to deal with the threat of a triad of powerful sorceresses who threatened to shroud the land in perpetual winter. Now a single political entity, no trace of the three nations remain except in the three branches of government – the monarchy, the military, and the electorate.

While a monarchy, the Alliance is not a kingdom. While a monarch resides on the throne, power is not held in their hands alone. Legislative and judicial matters are handled by the provincial governors and their staff in the elected senate, while military matters are handled by the Grand Commander and his generals. The monarchy, for its part, holds executive authority over the other two, and has command over various special purpose groups such as mages.”

Essentially, three nations banded together for survival a century ago – one ruled by the military, another by a monarchy, and a third by a hodgepodge democracy – and each nation incorporated a piece of its government into the resulting Alliance. I’m looking for ways in which such an arrangement could work out. More information can be given if needed - I just don't want to turn this into a huge infodump in my first post.

[ReturnOfTheKing]

Though I regret to say I am not a political science major, I'd suggest the alliance is ruled by a council of three rulers, one representing each government. Matters which affect the alliance as a whole are voted upon by the three representatives, and the nations cannot go to war with one another and are expected to provide each other with military aid, but all three involved nations are largely self-sufficient otherwise. That fit your vision?

[Dusk Raven]

Well, the Alliance is no longer the three nations anymore, the national borders have long been dissolved and what was once three nations now rules as one. Though I don't doubt things worked as you suggested in the early stages of the Alliance.

As for the "council of three" idea, it sounds reasonable. I admit I'm biased towards giving the monarchy more power over the others, but with the monarch having equal power (in theory) with the Chancellor and Grand Commander it works out.

[Xuc Xac]

They've been united for only a century, but they have already lost all the cultural identifiers of their original three nations? How did that happen?

You describe it like it's the modern United Kingdom (actually the UK is older than a hundred years) where people are still distinctly English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish, but you seem to think it would be more like modern England where you can't tell who is descended from Angles, Saxons, or Jutes.

If it isn't 3 independent countries working together as allies, then it's not really an Alliance now. Uniting them together with one government (with any number of branches), would be much easier than eliminating the cultural traces from their original nations. There will be local languages like French in Quebec or the thousands of minority languages spread across India and Indonesia, although they will learn a common language to communicate with people outside their local area. Wiping out native languages in favour of a common language is usually only done to colonies by a stronger dominant power. Equal allies don't force each other to give up their own language and culture.

Unless there is a dominant power that forces them to relocate and intermingle and bans the wearing of traditional dress and the speaking of their native languages, then you will be able to easily draw the lines on the map to mark the borders of the original nations.

[Dusk Raven]

I'm sorry if I gave that impression, as a matter of fact the differences between the three nations aren't all that drastic. They're actually all the same culture, more or less. In this setting, humanity has only been around for about 500 years, so there hasn't been much time for cultures to diverge. It's less like the difference between English and Welsh and more like the difference between America and Great Britain... and that's with opposite corners of the game world. In the area we're talking about? It's more like the difference of the western US versus... midwest US.

As a matter of fact, the three nations were once the same nation, where they were united 190 years before the present by a Fey warlord. 170 years ago, upon the Fey's death under mysterious circumstances, her two top generals, each having previously been granted a third of a nation, went to war with each other, each blaming the other for their leader's death, upon which the three nations split off. Before that, they were a collection of city-states and general patches of territory ruled by whoever with the might or savvy to govern such an area.

[NothingButCake]

fyi, 'electorate' as a term traditionally refers to the voting population, not the elected officials. You can use it differently, but I think it'd be misleading for most people.

I guess a big thing is figuring out how governance is divided between the three groups. Like what makes the military a distinct branch of government and not like other standing militaries which are under the head of government (king/president/etc.)? Maybe the military is in charge of enforcing laws, policing, and then also criminal trials for crimes against civilians? Maybe their mastery of tactical movement and resource distribution means they eventually grew to take on governing trade and movement, not just in and out of the country, but also controlling/maintaining roads and levying trade taxes.

The description of the king and the local elected officials seems to imply federalism, meaning the national monarchical government has some nation-level powers to make national policy and to represent the country internationally while the local officials are like US governors and state legislatures to make regional policy? But if you want more than just federal/state division of powers, maybe the monarchy oversees what are considered national projects while the local officials make actual laws? Which means there would be high variance in laws from region to region and the monarchy takes on an almost cultural preservationist role. The monarch is the head diplomat, builds national monuments, protects natural resources (if the culture is open to projects like national parks rather than seeing nature as something to master), oversees large national academies. Through the last, the monarch directs the cultural and technological direction the nation takes, where one king may push divination magic over all others, and the queen after him hires druids, sculptors, and architects to build giant sculpted garden-parks, and the king after her is excited by the possibilities of steampunk tech. There's kind of a mind-spirit-body division between elected legislators-monarchy-military, but not really.

Just thoughts.

[Tzi]

Okay, so here’s something for those political science majors out there – I’m looking to craft a government for a fantasy nation of mine in the novel I’m seeking to write. Basically, what sets this nation apart is its multiple branches of government – the monarchy, the military, and the electorate. Here’s an excerpt from my notes:

“The Alliance of Alucita, simply known as the Alliance, is the largest nation on the continent of Alucita. Legend holds that the Alliance was formed from three smaller nations that banded together to deal with the threat of a triad of powerful sorceresses who threatened to shroud the land in perpetual winter. Now a single political entity, no trace of the three nations remain except in the three branches of government – the monarchy, the military, and the electorate.

While a monarchy, the Alliance is not a kingdom. While a monarch resides on the throne, power is not held in their hands alone. Legislative and judicial matters are handled by the provincial governors and their staff in the elected senate, while military matters are handled by the Grand Commander and his generals. The monarchy, for its part, holds executive authority over the other two, and has command over various special purpose groups such as mages.”

Essentially, three nations banded together for survival a century ago – one ruled by the military, another by a monarchy, and a third by a hodgepodge democracy – and each nation incorporated a piece of its government into the resulting Alliance. I’m looking for ways in which such an arrangement could work out. More information can be given if needed - I just don't want to turn this into a huge infodump in my first post.

I'm not certain if this would necessarily incorporate easily, you are talking about an incredibly diverse set of ideologies here.

One Idea is that the three original nations are semi-autonomous prefectures, OR a plausible idea is that its a parliamentary democracy but with an upper chamber and lower chamber. A compromise arising out of the desire of the Military class in one nation and the Democracy of the other. A lower chamber being for common representatives and the upper perhaps elected only by the military class OR a division that can only be held by Veterans whom have a special class of citizenship and are allowed a vote and can be seated in an upper chamber.

The Monarchy could select, dissolve and offer input to the Lower Chamber as well as preside over the Upper Chamber and has the power to submit laws but rarely does this. The Monarchies biggest role is that of supreme judge in court cases. Presiding over legal disputes over the nature of law or if a law is necessarily valid.

The King works in conjunction with the elected Prime Minister, legally able to select a Prime Minister from the ruling coalition or party but typically picks whomever controls the Lower House. Though not a stated Rule, tradition holds that only the Crown and the Upper House can actually declare war, but the lower house does control funding for war.

[Dusk Raven]

fyi, 'electorate' as a term traditionally refers to the voting population, not the elected officials. You can use it differently, but I think it'd be misleading for most people.

...Oops. Edits will be made.

[/quote]I guess a big thing is figuring out how governance is divided between the three groups. Like what makes the military a distinct branch of government and not like other standing militaries which are under the head of government (king/president/etc.)? Maybe the military is in charge of enforcing laws, policing, and then also criminal trials for crimes against civilians? Maybe their mastery of tactical movement and resource distribution means they eventually grew to take on governing trade and movement, not just in and out of the country, but also controlling/maintaining roads and levying trade taxes.

The description of the king and the local elected officials seems to imply federalism, meaning the national monarchical government has some nation-level powers to make national policy and to represent the country internationally while the local officials are like US governors and state legislatures to make regional policy? But if you want more than just federal/state division of powers, maybe the monarchy oversees what are considered national projects while the local officials make actual laws? Which means there would be high variance in laws from region to region and the monarchy takes on an almost cultural preservationist role. The monarch is the head diplomat, builds national monuments, protects natural resources (if the culture is open to projects like national parks rather than seeing nature as something to master), oversees large national academies. Through the last, the monarch directs the cultural and technological direction the nation takes, where one king may push divination magic over all others, and the queen after him hires druids, sculptors, and architects to build giant sculpted garden-parks, and the king after her is excited by the possibilities of steampunk tech. There's kind of a mind-spirit-body division between elected legislators-monarchy-military, but not really.

Just thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Well, part of the balance of power is that each branch has its own armed forces - the military holds the bulk of it, but the Crown commands various special forces and the elected officials have the Civil Guard, which is a combination police force and national guard. I do kinda like the idea of the military controlling some aspect of the government beyond just the armed forces, and having them control trade seems interesting.

As per the monarchy and elected officials, I kinda like to imagine the monarchy as being like the United States' executive branch, and the elected officials are the legislative and judiciary branches - although the power to enforce laws falls with the Civil Guard and the monarch can submit their own laws for vote, so they blend a little into each other.


I'm not certain if this would necessarily incorporate easily, you are talking about an incredibly diverse set of ideologies here.

One Idea is that the three original nations are semi-autonomous prefectures, OR a plausible idea is that its a parliamentary democracy but with an upper chamber and lower chamber. A compromise arising out of the desire of the Military class in one nation and the Democracy of the other. A lower chamber being for common representatives and the upper perhaps elected only by the military class OR a division that can only be held by Veterans whom have a special class of citizenship and are allowed a vote and can be seated in an upper chamber.

The Monarchy could select, dissolve and offer input to the Lower Chamber as well as preside over the Upper Chamber and has the power to submit laws but rarely does this. The Monarchies biggest role is that of supreme judge in court cases. Presiding over legal disputes over the nature of law or if a law is necessarily valid.

The King works in conjunction with the elected Prime Minister, legally able to select a Prime Minister from the ruling coalition or party but typically picks whomever controls the Lower House. Though not a stated Rule, tradition holds that only the Crown and the Upper House can actually declare war, but the lower house does control funding for war.

An interesting idea... unfortunately, I tend to prefer single-house senates, so to speak. Still wrapping my head around how all this works...

[Tzi]

...Oops. Edits will be made.

I guess a big thing is figuring out how governance is divided between the three groups. Like what makes the military a distinct branch of government and not like other standing militaries which are under the head of government (king/president/etc.)? Maybe the military is in charge of enforcing laws, policing, and then also criminal trials for crimes against civilians? Maybe their mastery of tactical movement and resource distribution means they eventually grew to take on governing trade and movement, not just in and out of the country, but also controlling/maintaining roads and levying trade taxes.

The description of the king and the local elected officials seems to imply federalism, meaning the national monarchical government has some nation-level powers to make national policy and to represent the country internationally while the local officials are like US governors and state legislatures to make regional policy? But if you want more than just federal/state division of powers, maybe the monarchy oversees what are considered national projects while the local officials make actual laws? Which means there would be high variance in laws from region to region and the monarchy takes on an almost cultural preservationist role. The monarch is the head diplomat, builds national monuments, protects natural resources (if the culture is open to projects like national parks rather than seeing nature as something to master), oversees large national academies. Through the last, the monarch directs the cultural and technological direction the nation takes, where one king may push divination magic over all others, and the queen after him hires druids, sculptors, and architects to build giant sculpted garden-parks, and the king after her is excited by the possibilities of steampunk tech. There's kind of a mind-spirit-body division between elected legislators-monarchy-military, but not really.

Just thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Well, part of the balance of power is that each branch has its own armed forces - the military holds the bulk of it, but the Crown commands various special forces and the elected officials have the Civil Guard, which is a combination police force and national guard. I do kinda like the idea of the military controlling some aspect of the government beyond just the armed forces, and having them control trade seems interesting.

As per the monarchy and elected officials, I kinda like to imagine the monarchy as being like the United States' executive branch, and the elected officials are the legislative and judiciary branches - although the power to enforce laws falls with the Civil Guard and the monarch can submit their own laws for vote, so they blend a little into each other.



An interesting idea... unfortunately, I tend to prefer single-house senates, so to speak. Still wrapping my head around how all this works...[/QUOTE]

For one of my countries, its modeled heavily on the British Parliament, but older.

There is the High King, and several vassal Kings. Each "province," having its own legislative body and presiding King/Judge. The upper High Parliament is divided since it started out as simply the King and a Council of Peers. But the Lower House was granted as elected by the people representatives nationally. The National Parliament is actually fairly limited in scope. The Lower Chamber handles a lot of budgetary concerns, is responsible ultimately for the declarations of war and granting of war powers, and is the first chamber a dispute between two Provinces happen to be. Or it can be, they can ask for a "Trial by Commons," in which the dispute is voted on. "Trial by Crown," In which the House of Lords votes on it. Or direct Arbitration in which the High King simply issues a ruling.

The divided government of Upper and Lower Houses can work if done right.