Absolute Monarchy in a Modern Setting

Okay, further notes on bureaucracy and patrimonialism that might be of interest.

The single key factor differentiating between a bureaucratic governing apparatus and a patrimonial governing apparatus is that, theoretically, the bureaucracy does not wield power. Like a soldier, the bureaucratic civil servant does what his political masters asks of him: no more, no less. He does not try to extort additional money out of the population, despite the fact that he is uniquely positioned to do so; nor does he make policies or political decisions. Of course, this is an ideal. In practice, the civil servant is given a lot of power and a lot of responsibility, and it'd take a lot for him not to be corrupted by it; this is where oversight from other branches of government comes in: transparency, checks and balances, ambition against ambition, phrase it as you will. The honest tax agent fears the apparatus of law and order as much as anyone else, incentivizing him to stay honest despite his job's built-in opportunities to accept bribes or to embezzle tax funds. This oversight takes a lot of work, and it doesn't always succeed, but so long as a bureaucracy is mostly honest and doesn't abuse its power to the detriment of the citizenry—because it doesn't have the chance to make the rules, only the job to enforce them—all's well.

In a patrimonial system, though, the governing apparatus actually wields the power. This is what happens in society without adequate oversight, whether by chance or by design: since nobody is keeping an eye on the civil servants, they can take advantage of their position to abuse that power to their own benefit. Whether by embezzling public funds, demanding bribes and favors, or selectively enforcing the law to the benefit of himself and his friends, the patrimonial civil servant becomes a rent-seeking de facto ruler. If there's nothing to keep the civil service honest, or if the oversight and regulatory bodies are lax in their work/too weak to effectively make a difference/also subverted by corruption, the civil service will default towards a patrimonial model, with all the attendant consequences.

Come to think of it, the soldier would be the perfect example and analogy here, as a civil servant of sorts. Kept honest by discipline, a working chain of command, the threat of court-martial, and everything that's needed to ensure civilian control over the military, the soldier serves the state by guaranteeing its security, even though he wields a lot of power relative to the civilian population. If that slips, though, the soldier is faced with the perfect opportunity to wield his power for his own benefit. We've seen that happen, time after time, with military dictatorships and tribal warlords. Substitute "civil servant" for "soldier", and you get the apparatchiks, the petty tyrants, the corrupt tax collectors. Let's face it: if you knew you could order the arrest or murder of someone who wouldn't shut up about the bad things you're doing, or someone who's refusing to pay bribes, or just someone you don't like, and you could do it without consequence—wouldn't you? (Sit down, Bo Xilai.)

So, that takes us to the bureaucracy proposed in this thread. The key question is, what's keeping oversight on it? If the answer is "not very much"—and I think that's the case seeing how it might have a major voice in deciding who the next ruler is—then it'll tend towards the corrupt and inefficient. This, unfortunately, tends to be an issue in absolutist states: the autocrat and his servants are functionally above the law, therefore they cannot be held responsible to it. (Or they could if the ruler decided that they could and had the political clout to enforce his decisions, but barring a totally honest and tireless ruler who doesn't play favorites, it won't happen.) There have been many reformist, honest-minded rulers in history who genuinely wanted the best for their country and tried to root out corruption. But their battle tends to be uphill all the way, since this usually means going after corruption in their own power base, and unless they manage to institutionalize their changes in such a way so that the next ruler can't undo them, their effects would only be temporary.

So, question: what happens when the military takes over tax collection duties, literally substituting civil servants for soldiers, and most importantly keeps to a bureaucratic system?

I'm reminded of those old live-action Jidaigeki a little, where a common plot is 'money-grubbing and/or power-hungry local warrior-government is grubbing money and hungering for power; are the good guys bad enough dudes to stop him?'

(*kickass fight music, kickass chambara scene*)

'...huh. It does appear that way, doesn't it.'

The comparison isn't exact by any means.

There's a range of scenarios: worst-case is warlordism, whether in the Congo today or in China after the 1911 revolution. Keeping to a bureaucratic system is difficult, though, since it depends on having honest power brokers outside the bureaucracy to keep an eye on its excesses. You might want to look up any one of a number of military dictatorships to see how that goes: the Argentine junta, Poland under the Colonels' Regime and under Jaruzelski's martial law, or hell, even Egypt under Mubarak and Sisi.

One way to check a potentially overreaching executive is a judiciary. In a modern administrative state, while administrative agencies have significant authority over the individual, their power is still limited by the courts. Mind you, it's not as though the courts have agencies under their thumb, and all too often he courts will side with the bureaucracy.

But if all power, at least nominally, emanates from the Crown, it seems to me that the Imperial Courts could potentially serve as a check on the power of the bureaucracy. A subject who believes that he has been unlawfully deprived of his privileges can appeal to a judge who, as representative of the Emperor, can decide whether or not something wrong has occurred, and punish the one responsible. So the bureaucracy is not accountable to the people; rather it is accountable to the Crown.

But as far as taxation, as I pointed out earlier, taxation would be relatively low or uncommon in a system where most of the Crown's revenue comes from property it owns outright. Most of the time, taxes would be imposed not mainly to raise revenue, but rather to encourage or discourage certain types of behavior (I suppose much like certain taxes are treated today.)

Where would Imperial China fit into this framework?

True, an independent judiciary would be one of the best ways to guarantee the rights of the citizenry. The question is, though, how to maintain the judiciary's independence and power. Basic research makes me believe that judicial independence really started in Britain as a result of legislative independence, since the judges must see themselves as agents of the law as opposed to agents of the crown. The thing is, an independent judiciary can be mighty inconvenient for the crown when they function as intended, so what protects them from the crown's wrath?

Money from property in the form of rents as opposed to taxes and tariffs takes the economic system back a ways, I think. It won't be nearly as profitable as taxing business revenues; you'll essentially be renting out your land for use—which is a problem when the development of more efficient agricultural techniques means that fewer farmers are needed, and excess peasantry either starve or move to the cities. Indeed, serfdom was an effort by landowning nobles to maintain their grip on money and power by tying peasants to the land, but it also retarded economic development horribly.

That's actually one of the questions I've been asking myself and trying to find out. Ertman limited his study to European states, and I want to see how well that framework translates to other states as well. China was without a doubt an absolutist state; I believe it was also mostly a patrimonial state, despite its famed civil service apparatus, because of the amount of power the scholar-bureaucrats/gentry wielded. Still, I've not seen anyone subject Imperial China to quite that degree of scrutiny, and specialists are welcome to chime in.

edited 20th Aug '14 1:48:55 AM by SabresEdge

Yeah, they are kind of famous for inventing meritocracy, but I dont have any sort of expertise in the subject, hence my curiosity.

Rent from land and such is pretty old school. But what if the Crown, rather than just being a large landowner, also functions as a player in the capital markets? As I noted before, what if you had a situation where the National Bank also acted as a for-profit lending and investing bank? Today, the role of a country's treasury is to collect taxes and spend money authorized by the government. A National Bank's job is to act as a lender of last resort, to issue public debt, and manage the country's monetary policy.

So rather than just being a passive landlord, the Crown Bank also acts how a modern bank would. It probably wouldn't bother with things like car loans or personal credit lines, but would participate in things like Initial Public Offerings, purchase shares on the stock market, buy and sell large blocks of corporate and sovereign debt, and so on.

Remember how in Dune, the real measure of power for nobles wasn't their planetary holdings, but rather in shares and directorships of the MegaCorp CHOAM? Of which, of course the Emperor was a substantial shareholder. I'm not thinking it would be quite like that, but rather the Crown acts as a combination of megabank and holding corporation.

That's...huh, that's a really interesting political setup. State capitalism with a focus on the capitalism part.

It's something I'll need to look into further, but off the top of my head a lot of modern autocratic states do that—China and Russia being the two that come to mind, except that it's not nearly as institutionalized as it is in this setting. The biggest problem is that this places the state—traditionally the regulator of the market—into the position of a player on the market as well, meaning it will be tempted to use its coercive capabilities to drive its competitors out; opponents can be harassed and harried, using the bureaucracy as a weapon. (Kinda like what Putin did to the oligarchs: economic power equals political power, after all, so Khordovsky and company were political threats to his base of power.) That's the immediate issue that comes to mind.

Would being forced to back everything up with cash, rather than credit, do anything? Rule number one of the National Bank being, if the Crown wants to do something political through the bank, it needs to pony up the raw funds to do so. No loans, no I.O.U.s, no futures stocks - liquid funds.

(Plus, if it sets taxes low, foreign investment will come rushing in. If the Crown wants to flex some muscle, it could just set taxes higher... is that a tariff?)

If it's an absolute monarchy, no one can force the Crown to do, or not do, anything. The main problem with this scenario is that the business community would be at the absolute mercy of the government, with no reason to trust it (hence, no reason to risk any sort of investment).

edited 20th Aug '14 12:20:53 PM by demarquis

Yes, that is precisely the sort of problem that could serve as a story conflict. I'm not after an ideal society; I'm after one that is workable, or at least won't obviously fall apart into utter chaos in a light breeze.

And while private property owners would legally be at the mercy of the Crown, history has taught us that when a State outright appropriates a lot of the people's property, it tends to really make them angry. Also, I think the Crown would be reluctant to do that on a large scale for purely practical reasons. If it's known that the State will just confiscate your company at the stroke of a pen, you'll be less likely to want to become successful.

While under an absolutist system, there would be no constitutional prohibition against taking of property without compensation or due process, I think that the practical side would be a significant deterrent.

As far as paying for things in cash, the Crown could also borrow or pay out. What makes sovereign debt so appealing is that governments can raise taxes to pay it off, which corporations can't do. It's also why sovereign debt defaults are such a really big deal.

As well, if the Emperor wanted to, he could confiscate the property of traitors, criminals, or political enemies. Heck, he could sentence them to prison or to death just by signing a Writ of Attainder.

It's not just property rights, it's the competitive advantage to be gained from such things as tax policies, import duties, safety regulations and the like. It would be too easy for the Crown to allow itself to be bribed to favor one company, or even an entire economic sector, over another.

The point of bribery is to get something you want, such as a legal favor, in return for an illegal payment to an official. So prospective beneficiaries wouldn't bribe The Crown itself, because what's the point? Rather they would bribe its lower to middle class functionaries. Of course, that depends on the sort of favors or patronage they could hand out.

On the other hand, I see no problem with The Crown itself taking kickbacks or bribes in lieu of taxation. Call it "tribute" or "donations" or "voluntary contributions" or some such thing. Heck, have those in a position to offer patronage agree to kick a portion of the "bribes" upstairs. In the US, it's easier to bribe a politician legally than to bribe one illegally.

And actually that was one of my ideas for how the system would "work" from the inside. It wouldn't be uncommon for ambitious individuals to use bribery or blackmail to secure an important appointment or get somebody fired. Absolute monarchies tend to be rife with petty squabbles and backstabbing as ruthless individuals claw their way upwards. That's why they're so fun!

edited 20th Aug '14 4:00:32 PM by Lawyerdude

Well, it sounds like you have a pretty clear idea what you want to do, so if I were you I would just start writing it. Let us see a sample when you have one.

Mm-hmm. I'll chime in with more points as I think of them. Each time I say "problem" that's from the perspective of polisci/good governing; they make for amazing story hooks.

Yes, thank you. I really appreciate the help and insight you've lent me. Let me know if I can help you.

One or two other things. While I may have the broad outlines of the setting worked out, I'm still thinking about a prospective protagonist. In this world, it seems that an appropriate perspective character should be some sort of Magnificent Bastard. But I'm afraid that may have already been done to death, what with stories running from Richard III to House Of Cards and so much in between.

So perhaps I may ask, what sort of person would a reader be interested in reading about who lives in this sort of setting? Another Villain Protagonist or a NaïveNewcomer, or something else?

Also, is there a particular forum for people to post segments of story ideas?

An I, Claudius type protag might be interesting: someone perceived by everyone as too weak to be a threat, yet his will to survive leads him to end up as the "last man standing", and becomes the Emporer.

IClaudius is a great series. Did you know it's available on Hulu?

edited 21st Aug '14 9:02:47 AM by Lawyerdude

I'd go with a low-level Beleaguered Bureaucrat. Off the top of my head, I don't think it's been done much.

"I, Claudius" rocked.

It depends on what aspect of the world you want to explore. The classic is the idealistic protagonist to climbs his way to the top, slowly becoming what he hated and becoming corrupted by power. It's been around forever—everything from Shakespeare to The Godfather—but that's because it's chilling and timeless, not cliche'd.

There's was also a pretty nice (if sadly short lived) NBC series called Kings. It basically re-told the story of David in a modern setting. Religious elements aside, it gave a pretty good look into a country like the US being ruled by an absolute monarch.

edited 21st Aug '14 1:19:09 PM by LogoP

I watched every episode of Kings when it came out. Absolutely loved it. Few actors other than Ian Mc Shane could pull off standing on a tall building yelling at the clouds and make it seem tragic, rather than goofy.

Any case, the relationship between the MegaCorp Crossgen and King Silas was a very good dynamic. How they pretty much financed his rise to power and could even come close to bringing down the King.

Much like Varys's riddle of the king, the rich man and the priest, you had Silas Benjamin, William Cross and Rev. Samuels.

Yeah, it was a very interesting series bringing-up some very interesting points.

In an absolute monarchy, the King has to think about his relationship with the Church, too. Not just the magacorps. Unless, of course, he is is the Church.

Edit: I think the most absolute from of absolute monarchy would be a state where the King is the head of the Church (and perhaps the main figure of worship) and the Royal House owns all the magacorps, along with the National Bank.

edited 21st Aug '14 2:08:59 PM by LogoP