What kind of government will Westeros have by the end?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

So the way I see it, the options are as follows:

- Absolutist Monarchy. Realistically the only way this could happen is with Dany in charge and riding dragons, maybe with Jon too if he rides a dragon. As long as Dany doesn't go cuckoo this is not a bad idea, especially as historically absolutist monarchies strengthened the merchants, faith and smallfolk to curtail the nobles, which would fit quite well with Dany's and Jon's whole gist. However the problems would come when inevitably one of Dany's successors goes cuckoo, and wait, what is the dragon doing over the city?

- Elective Monarchy. Realistically this is only possible under Bran, as both Jon and Dany (as well as Stannis and Aegon for that matter) would have too strong a bloodline claim for elective monarchy to work with them in charge. Basically the abomination ending. It would mean that there would be no mire succession civil wars, however it would also lead to an incredibly powerful feudal nobility and an inefectual state.

- Constitutional Centralized Monarchy. Probably under Jon and/or a dragon less Dany. Basically a stronger government but with a few checks and balances to prevent another Aerys. Has the potential to be the best long term system, however reaching an England style parlementary constitutional monarchy would not doubt take even kore struggle and probably another civil war or two.

- Independent States. Basically if the Realm breaks up into individual components. This would remove the decentralized inefectual rule of the current Iron Throne in favor of far more centralized regional governance, however it would also mean a state of constant warfare in Westeros, though limited warfare at that.

Now there are the main options, though there a few more whacky ones, from the pre WoT5K status quo, to Faith of the Seven Theocracy under the High Sparrow to 1984 style totalitarian state under Bran the Tree. However those four are the only realistic ones given everything. So which one do you think it will be? Alternatively, which do you think would be best?

[Lord Varys]

The same.

[Tucu]

A loose federation of anarcho-syndicalist communes

[Alyn Oakenfist]

30 minutes ago, Tucu said:

A loose federation of anarcho-syndicalist communes

No longer will we be hanging to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

From now on we shall take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer must be ratified at special biweekly meeting.

[The Young Maester]

Stannis will defeat the others. Upon saving humanity he will March south and proceed to become undefeated in battle. He will take the throne and declare a meritocracy.

[broken one]

I postulate nationalisation of dragons. And turning Iron Islands into proving ground for them (plus complex of re-education camps).

[Alyn Oakenfist]

6 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Stannis will defeat the others. Upon saving humanity he will March south and proceed to become undefeated in battle

If only. I think Stannis will have the opportunity to do that in early TWOW with the North and the Iron Bank mercenaries, especially with Aegon new on the Throne, but will decline in favor of saving the realm.

8 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

He will take the throne and declare a meritocracy.

Meritocracy isn't a system of governance...

[The Young Maester]

12 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Meritocracy isn't a system of governance...

No its a system that certainly works better than the current system westeros has. A meritocracy will solve lots of issues, and ensure only the right person is in power. One of the reason the british empire was able to control vast territories around the globe, was because it became a meritocracy. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, The Young Maester said:

No its a system that certainly works better than the current system westeros has. A meritocracy will solve lots of issues, and ensure only the right person is in power. One of the reason the british empire was able to control vast territories around the globe, was because it became a meritocracy

As I said, meritocracy isn't system of governance, just like the British Empire wasn't a "meritocracy" but rather a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

Meritocracy is an ideal, not a system of governance. Systems that strive for meritocracy vary from representative democracy to technocracy.

[The Young Maester]

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

As I said, meritocracy isn't system of governance, just like the British Empire wasn't a "meritocracy" but rather a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

British Empire ensured only the right administrators were in official posts. The Royal navy dominated the globe mainly because officers and administrators were chosen by merit and birth.

Napoleon and Genghis Khan promoted officers based on skill and not blood.

The East india company conquered India not because of their strength at arms but because they unlike their European rivals, understood how to mingle with the people and how to gain their trust. This is possible because only men of merit were allowed, not men of birth. Portugal was kicked out of several indian territorys because it tried to forcefully convert the indians to christianity. The French and spanish tried the same thing with other territories in the globe. This was because the usual aristocrat zealot was allowed in high posts. Whilst the british empire ensured men of both merit and birth were promoted.

This is a meritocracy, where only the educated and certain intellectuals are allowed these posts. This ideal was born due to the english civil wars and the continuation of a government ran by parliament and not the king. 

Everything about the British empire screams meritocracy it isnt that hard to see.

14 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Meritocracy is an ideal, not a system of governance.

I think we already agreed that it is not a government. 

17 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Systems that strive for meritocracy vary from representative democracy to technocracy.

The Empire of China was an absolute monarchy and it still had meritocratic ideals. It appointed ministers and officials due to education and skill. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, The Young Maester said:

The Empire of China was an absolute monarchy and it still had meritocratic ideals

That backfired horribly when they often became anything but meriticratic.

[Ephraim'sFruit]

59 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Stannis will defeat the others. Upon saving humanity he will March south and proceed to become undefeated in battle. He will take the throne and declare a meritocracy.

Stannis is the only one i can really see drastically changing government. Despite his "letter of the law" attitude. So conservative that he becomes radical.

I can picture him in a beret and modern military fatigues instituting some prototype form of socialism or communism. 

His war would be against the Iron Bank who funded him. Makes "The Peoples Bank of the Seven Kingdoms" or something.

[Aldarion]

10 minutes ago, Ephraim'sFruit said:

Stannis is the only one i can really see drastically changing government. Despite his "letter of the law" attitude. So conservative that he becomes radical.

I can picture him in a beret and modern military fatigues instituting some prototype form of socialism or communism. 

His war would be against the Iron Bank who funded him. Makes "The Peoples Bank of the Seven Kingdoms" or something.

I don't think so. Stannis is a legalist, he wouldn't do anything that radical. Problem is, system in Westeros is so screwed up that radical measures are pretty much necessary to make it function as intended.

[King17]

Elective monarchy with bran obviously. It would be best for westeroes bran strikes me as a smart kid even without his powers and he doesn't really have the dany sense if entitlement.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

11 minutes ago, King17 said:

Elective monarchy with bran obviously. It would be best for westeroes bran strikes me as a smart kid even without his powers and he doesn't really have the dany sense if entitlement

So my bet is that "Bran" is going to get absorbed into the 3EC. Regardless, this is less about rulers and more about systems. A country with a jobility as strong and overpowering as Westeros with feudal elective monarchy. That's just the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth come again, only it'd probably implode even faster

[King17]

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So my bet is that "Bran" is going to get absorbed into the 3EC. Regardless, this is less about rulers and more about systems. A country with a jobility as strong and overpowering as Westeros with feudal elective monarchy. That's just the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth come again, only it'd probably implode even faster

I seriously hope bran doesn't become an emotionless zombie in the books as I think current bran would be a good king zombie bran not so much.

[King17]

6 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So my bet is that "Bran" is going to get absorbed into the 3EC. Regardless, this is less about rulers and more about systems. A country with a jobility as strong and overpowering as Westeros with feudal elective monarchy. That's just the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth come again, only it'd probably implode even faster

Remember good systems take time an elective monarchy wouldn't be perfect but it is a step in the right direction. Most peasants can't read or write or have an education having a full democracy in a system like that probably isn't a great idea.

[Back in Black-Snow]

I sincerely understand the need to keep a constant flow of discussion going as we wait for TWOW. But this topic has been thoroughly covered several times. I highly doubt starting a new thread will add more to the discussions we have already had.

ETA: I'm sorry if that seems rude (I can see how it might). That is never my intention when I post.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 minutes ago, King17 said:

Remember good systems take time an elective monarchy wouldn't be perfect but it is a step in the right direction. Most peasants can't read or write or have an education having a full democracy in a system like that probably isn't a great idea.

That's the problem it's step in the wrong direction. Every king needing to kowtow more and more to the nobility to get elected, means that the nobles get absolute power, leading to a weak inefectual state, just like in Poland. Furthermore, while an absolutist monarch often gives power and privildges to the clergy, merchants and peasants to offset the nobility, said nobility often does the opposite, doubling down the feudalism, again, like in Poland.

10 minutes ago, King17 said:

Most peasants can't read or write or have an education having a full democracy in a system like that probably isn't a great idea.

True, but a system that eventually leads to said democracy is obviously preferable. Historically only two intermediary systems existed organically (aka not forced upon by outside forces), absolutism and Constitutional Monarchy. Keep in mind a constitutional monarchy doesn't need to be democratic, England was one as early as 1204, but it never really became democratic until the early 17th century, and even then that democracy was in a struggle until 1689.

[King17]

21 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

That's the problem it's step in the wrong direction. Every king needing to kowtow more and more to the nobility to get elected, means that the nobles get absolute power, leading to a weak inefectual state, just like in Poland. Furthermore, while an absolutist monarch often gives power and privildges to the clergy, merchants and peasants to offset the nobility, said nobility often does the opposite, doubling down the feudalism, again, like in Poland.

True, but a system that eventually leads to said democracy is obviously preferable. Historically only two intermediary systems existed organically (aka not forced upon by outside forces), absolutism and Constitutional Monarchy. Keep in mind a constitutional monarchy doesn't need to be democratic, England was one as early as 1204, but it never really became democratic until the early 17th century, and even then that democracy was in a struggle until 1689.

The problem with a constitutional monarchy I think is that westeroes has no real precedent for it. They have had great council's and multiple organizations hold internal elections so an elective monarchy wouldn't be a bizzare concept where as I think a constitution might be. And of course a constitutional monarchy would have a constitution that benefits nobles not the common people.