Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
I think this thread has focused in on the wrong question. The original question was something like* "Why aren't (almost) all governments based of spell casters - mageocracy/theocracies - instead of the ones we actually see in stories?" The thing is people have actually been focusing in on "Can you form a government from magic users?" but really I think the better question is "Can you still form other forms of government?". And I think the answer to both questions is yes.

Like a wizard-warlord who values magical ability and fills the army's leadership (and then the government's leadership) with spell-casters. But what about a fighter warlord? Who probably has some spell casters in their army but spends a lot more time actually leading than they do. And once the nation has access to magic, there isn't any benefit I can think of to have the leaders be doing that magic themselves instead of dispatching other spell casters to the jobs.

* I did look back but there were a couple of versions of it so I'm paraphrasing to try and cover most of them.
I mean, this has pretty much been my approach since the beginning. So long as it's feasible to have a government that where the decisionmaking and power is not held directly by casters, there is a "reasonable explanation" by the standards of the OP.