In the honorverse are imperial style goverments more stable?

kzt wrote:But the monarch still has enormous power. The monarch is the head of the military and executive branches, more like the US president than the British Queen. The new PM visiting the monarch isn't just a formality. She can tell the PM "I don't like you, and I refuse. Go away." And then they need to find a new PM candidate.

The Head of State retains the power to dissolve parliament and call for new elections in many European countries today, whether that Head of State is a monarch or a mostly powerless president.

Though the fact that you called elections does not mean the PM you dislike will also fall in disfavour. They could come back with a larger majority and make things worse. The Head of State would usually use this power when the population would likely vote this leader out for their deficiencies (whether real or imagined).

Or when necessary for exigent circumstances, like inability to form a Government. Though in Belgium it looks like Government is optional...

David explains once why Elizabeth didn't just get rid of the incompetent and corrupt government at the start rather than waiting until their flaws were obvious to all.

True, sensible to have the electorate's support, less chance of a constitutional crisis.

kzt wrote:David explains once why Elizabeth didn't just get rid of the incompetent and corrupt government at the start rather than waiting until their flaws were obvious to all.

It happened in Australia in 1975. Our Governor General was the British Queen's representative and he sacked the elected government (and PM).
The government was a left leaning and reformist one, that was going too fast for our then conservative electorate. The subsequent election voted in a conservative government.
Ironically, over time all of the reforms the progressive government was trying to impose have been implemented, and more.

kzt wrote:But the monarch still has enormous power. The monarch is the head of the military and executive branches, more like the US president than the British Queen. The new PM visiting the monarch isn't just a formality. She can tell the PM "I don't like you, and I refuse. Go away." And then they need to find a new PM candidate.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The Head of State retains the power to dissolve parliament and call for new elections in many European countries today, whether that Head of State is a monarch or a mostly powerless president.

Though the fact that you called elections does not mean the PM you dislike will also fall in disfavour. They could come back with a larger majority and make things worse. The Head of State would usually use this power when the population would likely vote this leader out for their deficiencies (whether real or imagined).

Or when necessary for exigent circumstances, like inability to form a Government. Though in Belgium it looks like Government is optional...

But the question is whether those additional displays of power are sufficient to mean that Manticore has an autocrat in the Imperial mode? I do not think so; Manticore is still a constitutional monarchy, not an autocracy.

PS: note that the military may swear fealty to the Queen, but they still needed the legislature to vote out a declaration of war.

The MWW isn't the only author to set up his successful government systems this way. A number of other authors have, for many of the reasons already given.

Without the handwavium of instant communication, you have to be able to make decisions in a local radius in order to have effective government. This doesn't always mean they'll be the right ones or good ones, or even what the person in charge back home would like to have happen, but it avoids the paralyzing factor of waiting on orders which are no longer relevant.

Historically empires/monarchies have worked well for far flung governments without the ease of communication we enjoy today. But only so long as the people in charge aren't tyrants. As soon as the top level politicians start to get less than trustworthy or capable, you'll start having problems. Central authority has to trust these remotely situated leaders, and they need to give them sufficient authority to go with their responsibility.

True Fireflair. I wonder how Putin's commanders go reporting reversals?

Daryl wrote:True Fireflair. I wonder how Putin's commanders go reporting reversals?

The same way everyone in the Russian army does. “Vranyo”:
This is believed to be a large part of why so many Russian generals got killed, they can’t trust reports so they have to go forward to find out for themselves. Everyone lies to everyone else about condition, status, training, progress in the attack, how successful the defense is. And then their boss polishes it more before sending it to their boss, who…

Vranyo – “Pioneered by the Soviets and perfected by Putin, this is a special word in Russia which means telling a barefaced lie which you do not expect anyone to believe.” — The Sun, UK

“When I recently opened The New York Times and saw Vladimir Putin … walking out of the Black Sea with two nearly intact ancient amphorae in his hands, the vranyo alarm went off. … The smell of vranyo was so strong I had to put down the paper. … Putin was lying to us, we knew he was lying, he knew we knew he was lying, but he kept lying anyway, and we pretended to believe him.” — Elena Gorokhova in the New York Times, 2011

Fireflair wrote:Historically empires/monarchies have worked well for far flung governments without the ease of communication we enjoy today. But only so long as the people in charge aren't tyrants. As soon as the top level politicians start to get less than trustworthy or capable, you'll start having problems. Central authority has to trust these remotely situated leaders, and they need to give them sufficient authority to go with their responsibility.

Size isn't the issue, it's the level of micromanagement that the central government will try to exert on those far-flung provinces. The level of autonomy must be proportional to the time it takes to get instructions back.