I'm Going to Break the Wheel

[SeanF]

Except absolutism doesn't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to helping the common people. By the time you roll around to Louis IX, the commoners were paying something like 90% of the taxes. Also, just doing a rough comparison, by the 18th century or so, common workers in England and Holland, places where the doctrine of absolutism got rejected, enjoyed higher wages than places like France and Spain, where absolutism as an ideogoly was embraced.

The problem with absolutism is that while monarchs may pronounce that their power is unlimited, they often know they must give some concessions to the ruling elites. In France, the concesssions were that the nobles were required to pay little in taxes, in exchange for them giving up some political power.

You might start of with a self-styled absolutist monarch, like Henry IV, who seemingly did care about the commers and tried to help them. The trouble is though that there is no guarenteee that a Henry IV will be followed by a similary progressive minded monarch. Aegon V might have been able to do more for the smallfolk if he had dragons. But what one absolutist monarch can give, another can take away. Under Aerys, it seems that many of Aegon's policies were repealed by Twyin because Aerys simply did not give a shit.

Don't get me wrong, I think the power in Westeros needs to be centralized a bit. But that is not as easy, without some institutions in place. A major one is that a state needs a fairly well developed system of finance. Another is that the state needs to have the ability to maintain a fairly well developed bureaucracy.

I think that a move towards absolutism would be the likeliest outcome. It could be enlightened absolutism, like the government of Frederick the Great, but still absolutism.

[jet199]

There is nothing like an invasion to push for more centralised power and we have two invasions coming to the Seven Kingdoms. I think it is centralisation that is necessary to create democracy because it is impossible to push through that kind of change if you have to negotiate with every local worthy and a centralised government has to prove it has a mandate in a way which doesn't give too much power to any individual.

[Dragon_Rider]

She will have Drogon melt the Iron Throne--"destroy the wheel"--and replace its absolute tyranny with something else. So no she won't sit on it, and there won't be a King in the end.

The only problem with this revolutionary idea though is there haven't been any seeds sown for it. That is, the Enlightenment precedent the democratic revolutions in the West. Ideas about equality and freedom spread among the intellectuals and the common people before revolutions took hold. There has to be a belief among the people that men are equal and bloodline doesn't matter, that lords and kings have no right to rule over them just because they were sons of such and such.

Moreover, a revolution in Westeros to replace the political system is a whole story in and of itself that may not have room with the fight against the Others.

However, smaller reform is possible. In Britain, democracy took hold gradually, and the biggest steps were things like the establishment of Parliament as representative of the common people. Perhaps something like a parliamentary system might be established to "break the wheel".

[RenlyTheOneTrueKing]

I think Dany's being pretty naîve.

I would've thought Barristan's death would've taught her she isn't invincible.

[Gimli son of Gloin]

I think there's a revolution coming. An awakening among the common folk of some sort, considering the uprise of the High Sparrow and his words: "what happens when the many start fearing the few?"

Daenerys: "I'm going to break the wheel". She'll destroy the way the seven kingdoms are ruled ahora, and make a better mañana.

It's obvious what direction the story is taking, at the same time as other conversations among important characters often discuss how the seven kingdoms needs a better ruler and better times. (Varys, Tyrion, Littlefinger. Allthough Littlefinger wants everything for himself).

If there will be a ruler in the end, I'll put my money on Sansa. The story starts with the Starks in the first book, and for me it makes sense, plus after seing "Game of Thrones Academy"-s video (youtube channel) about Sansa, I'll support that theory. See Queen Elisabeth 1 of England.

[Dragon_Rider]

A parliament is probably the best compromise, an "upper chamber" representing the noble houses and another representing the common people. It may or may not include a King/Monarch.

But who would be smart enough to propose such a radical idea and which powerful person would support it? Tyrion might. And I imagine he could convince at least Dany to back it.

[OldGimletEye]

I think that a move towards absolutism would be the likeliest outcome. It could be enlightened absolutism, like the government of Frederick the Great, but still absolutism.

So when does Dany start correponding with with Voltaire? LOL

Anyway, I'd say that Frederick The Great's "enlightened absolutism" did not last as seemingly the forces of Prussian conservatism won out, at least until the end of the 19th Century, even though von Scharnhorst and the other four reformers did try to liberalize the Prussian state.

And Frederick did in some ways strengthen the position of the Prussian Nobility. Until the late 19th Century, the Prussian nobility seemed to have had enormous power with respect to the production and sale of grain, for instance.

[DemiNymph]

Oh Dany. I always laugh when she makes proclaimations like this. Or maybe it's just the acting? I don't know.

[kimim]

It took Europe fourteen hundred years to move from feudalism to democracy.

Westeros is facing a zombie apocalypse, a very long winter, with starvation and, probably, a plague. Dany won't have to break the wheel, as the likelihood is it'll be broken for her. After that, if there's still an IT, realistically speaking all Dany can do is start the process of centralization, via baby steps. With Dany, though, there is no "realistic," and there are no baby steps--Essos. Dany will achieve her dreams in Westeros, thanks to Martin's generosity.

[aFeastForDragons]

That came off worse than it did in the trailer.

[Dragon_Rider]

It took Europe fourteen hundred years to move from feudalism to democracy.

Westeros is facing a zombie apocalypse, a very long winter, with starvation and, probably, a plague. Dany won't have to break the wheel, as the likelihood is it'll be broken for her. After that, if there's still an IT, realistically speaking all Dany can do is start the process of centralization, via baby steps. With Dany, though, there is no "realistic," and there are no baby steps--Essos. Dany will achieve her dreams in Westeros, thanks to Martin's generosity.

No. She wants big radical changes but I think with time and smart counseling she could be convinced to go with smaller "baby step" reforms.

[Mithras]

We have observed how well Astapor fared with broken wheels.

[Young Nan]

Furthermore the more I think of it, the last book in the series is called A Dream of Spring.

Now most of us, me included assumed that meant the end of winter and the beginning of the summer that never ends.

Spring is rebirth, rejuvenation, fertility. Maybe Spring is not a seasonal aspect, but a political one. A birth of a new way of looking at things.

A Dream of Spring, means that this new way of looking at things has not been implemented yet, hence a dream.

Daenerys is also related to rebirth, rejuvenation and fertility. Fire and Blood can mean death and destruction, it can also mean life and rebirth/rejuvenation.

Curious idea.

This is exactly what I think. She isn't going to implement a fully functioning democracy during these books or probably her lifetime, but she'll get the ball rolling, so to speak. I think that the books/show will end with a new political system in it's infancy and hope for a better future.

[Stonehearted Snake]

As a few other posters noted, she includes herself in that list. That is clearly very intentional to show she means the entire system. I also don't believe there will be an IT but not sure I think a democratic revolution will replace it. Or, at least, we may seen one start but that we won't see it resolve into a stable system by the time the books end.

[ADanceWithCats]

Well, that's a horseshit answer. If D & D are going to go the route that Dany will be a revolutionary who change the system, then they could at least try to make that credible and not just hand waive it. Also, I don't see them telling us how Dany thinks she will change the system over the next two years. Continuity isn't exactly their strong suit. And two years probably isn't enough time to actually think through all the details of replacing the entire system in Westeros, particularly when your doing other things.

Also, I don't thinks quite clear yet whether Varsys is really on Dany's side yet.

How is that a horseshit answer? This is literally the first episode that told us that Dany has an idea for a revolution in Westeros. So far, it's been just 'oh, she's going there to conquer it'. In the show and in the books. It would be weird if she informed Tyrion, "I'm going to establish a bicameral parliament, universal suffrage and a constitution guaranteeing universal education, healthcare and other basic human rights". Especially since most of these things haven't been invented in Westeros yet.

She has two years of the show to tell us what she wants. In reality, probably some sort of Estates-General and the Montesquieu triad, adding both of which would push the Westerosi political thought deep into the European Enlightenment... which would be entirely sufficient for an effort from one person by me.

e: basically what Young Nan said. Also, to everyone who talks about parliaments, don't forget an independent judiciary! Preferably not based on trials by combat.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Yeah, well, the Khaleesi needs to learn that there is a lot more to making serious reforms than just being "bad ass" and making fist pumping speeches.

The thing is that Dany is going to have to put another system in place. In short, Dany may get rid of the old elites, but she'll have to put new elites in their place to run Westeros.

The question is how does she limit the power of these new elites? And just as importantly how is she going to make sure that her successors don't overturn her reforms?

What new political strutrure does she imagine? What economic structure does she imagine? These are basic questions that just can't be hand waved. Making fist pumping speeches is fine I suppose, but they don't mean much without details.

Yeah, it would be nice if Dany put in a political system with proper checks and balances with one yet being strong enough to not come flying off at the wheels, as well as putting in consumer protection laws, protection of union rights, anti -discrimination laws,a fairer judicial system etc etc. Sorry if I don't see that happening.

Yeah, also, I am not seeing her reading Smith, Locke, Marx, Montesquieu,Mill, Madison, Hayek, Burke, Keynes, Hume, Spinoza, Green,Popper, Rawls, and Weber either, for some reason.

And the "beginnings" of a plan isn't going to cut it.

Look, I'm all for Westeros having better gender equality (like I am in the RW) and moving toward a better system. The thing is though is that it isn't that easy to completely wipe out an entire system and then just put one in its place overnight. And if your going to attempt to do that, you better have a really good idea of how your going to accomplish that.

Oddly enough, I haven't heard anything about copies of Smith, Locke, Marx, etc., existing in the Oldtown library.

It's simple. The current system SUCKS REALLY HARD. Remember Brienne's tour of the Riverlands? The Boltons? Cersei?

I would be all for somebody with good intentions coming in, tearing it all down, and making do best as best can from the left-over pieces. There aren't any extant political theorists or macroeconomists, so we'll just have to make do without. Beyond doubt it will be a traumatic period, but the current period is already traumatic. The difference is that there would be hope for something better, perhaps much better.

To me, if the choice is between leaving it as it and tearing it all down to start something new from scratch with the intent to make a good system for a change, that's a no-brainer.

[OldGimletEye]

She has two years of the show to tell us what she wants. In reality, probably some sort of Estates-General and the Montesquieu triad, adding both of which would push the Westerosi political thought deep into the European Enlightenment... which would be entirely sufficient for an effort from one person by me.

And that would be quite different from eliminating the nobility in its entirety, which she seemingly is suggesting, now wouldn't it?

[Dragon_Rider]

How is that a horseshit answer? This is literally the first episode that told us that Dany has an idea for a revolution in Westeros. So far, it's been just 'oh, she's going there to conquer it'. In the show and in the books. It would be weird if she informed Tyrion, "I'm going to establish a bicameral parliament, universal suffrage and a constitution guaranteeing universal education, healthcare and other basic human rights". Especially since most of these things haven't been invented in Westeros yet.

She has two years of the show to tell us what she wants. In reality, probably some sort of Estates-General and the Montesquieu triad, adding both of which would push the Westerosi political thought deep into the European Enlightenment... which would be entirely sufficient for an effort from one person by me.

She's not smart enough or experienced enough for that kind of idea, though. Tyrion seems like the kind of person who could think up a compromise political system between the noble houses and the common people (e.g. Estates-General you mentioned).

[OldGimletEye]

I don't know. This seems like a pretty realistic portrayal of the thought process and level of planning detail I'd expect from a 20 year-old girl with dragons who just conquered three cities. Having her recite from The Republic and explain the idea of the social contract to Tyrion would be hand-waving how the heck she learned all that. "I'm going to break the wheel" is definitely we've seen her learn.

Oddly enough, I haven't heard anything about copies of Smith, Locke, Marx, etc., existing in the Oldtown library.

It's simple. The current system SUCKS REALLY HARD. Remember Brienne's tour of the Riverlands? The Boltons? Cersei?

I would be all for somebody with good intentions coming in, tearing it all down, and making do best as best can from the left-over pieces. There aren't any extant political theorists or macroeconomists, so we'll just have to make do without. Beyond doubt it will be a traumatic period, but the current period is already traumatic. The difference is that there would be hope for something better, perhaps much better.

To me, if the choice is between leaving it as it and tearing it all down to start something new from scratch with the intent to make a good system for a change, that's a no-brainer.

I understand D & D want us to like St. Tyrion and Dany. But portraying Dany as Dany "Che Guevara" Stormborn, founder of the Westerosi People's Army and the Union Of Westerosi Socialist Republics is dumb.

Martin has said that he has been aggravated by reading works in the medieval fantasy genre where the characters have the mindset of the people of the 20th Century. With perhaps the exception of Arya Stark, I think he has generally kept true to that principle. There is nothing about book!Dany's character that convincingly demonstrates she's a 20th Century Social Democrat or even a 19th Century Classic Liberal. Book!Dany is a monarchist at heart, which is fine given the culture she has grown up in. So D & D's "broken wheel speech" seems to be yet another character departure. Although, there is a good chance that the speech didn't really mean anything, other than to get a short term fist pumper in, as continuity isn't D & D's greatest attribute.

Also, it's a bit odd that show!Dany says she needs the nobility of Mereen to run the place, but then decides she doesn't, evidently, need the nobility of Westeros to run that place.

Also, her "break the wheel speech" seems exactly like something a 20 year old kid would say, with good intentions, but without the slightest clue about realistic constraints or how to implement those intentions.

Also, I don't want to come off here like some arch-conservative defending the feudal system of Westeros as I think it's abhorrent. But, just eliminating it without a viable and well thought out alternative seems like a recipe for one giant cluster fuck.

[Dragon_Rider]

And that would be quite different from eliminating the nobility in its entirety, which she seemingly is suggesting, now wouldn't it?

France did it. The UK did not. In the French revolution, the entire nobility were beheaded at the guillotine in a few short years. The UK built a parliamentary system to be more inclusive (gradually).

Both are relatively successful democracies.