Is a form of government in which a single family rules from generation to generation?

1b. Types of Government

"Off with his head!"

This is a favorite story line to show how cruel a king (or a sultan or emperor) can be. The rules in this type of government are pretty clear. Whatever the ruler says, goes. Of course, many people have had different ideas about how the ruler should govern, and those beliefs support totally different types of government. The rules shape the government's legitimacy, or the degree to which the people accept the authority of the government.

Rule by Man

Countries whose citizens are governed by the absolute decisions of the ruler have not necessarily been unhappy. A government whose king or queen rules justly and wisely may enjoy a great deal of legitimacy as long as the ruler's authority is accepted. Sometimes people may accept their leader because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't. In the words of Machiavelli, "It is better to be feared than loved." As long as the feared ruler is seen as bringing about prosperity or protecting the lives of his subjects, it is entirely possible that his people will be happy.

An absolute ruler may be accepted because the people believe or accept the idea that God gave him/her the right to rule. This belief is known as divine right, which often has been associated with a monarchy, a form of government in which the power of the king or queen is hereditary. A similar idea legitimized the Chinese emperor, whose rule was threatened if his subjects perceived that he had lost the "mandate of heaven."

Rule by man can also take the shape of an oligarchy, or rule by a few elites whose right to rule is based on possession of wealth, social status, military position or achievement. A little more broadly based rule is by aristocracy (literally, "rule of the highest"), but if the type of government is "rule by man", their decisions are still arbitary and absolute.

Rule by Law

Rule by law exists in any political system in which those with power cannot make up all their own rules, but must follow an established code of law. In ancient times a Byzantine emperor established Justinian's Code, a set of laws named after him that lived on long after he died. We still follow parts of that code today. The Romans were also known for codifying laws, as was Napoleon, Emperor of France, many centuries later.

Today most governments at least claim to be ruled by law. The most common indication is the existence of a written constitution, but the most important question to ask is whether or not the constitution actually is the "blueprint" that determines how and what policies are made. For example, Nigeria officially is a democracy with a written constitution that one dictator after another has ignored. On the other hand, Great Britain has never had a constitution as a single written document, but has for centuries been governed by law. For much of their history, the English had a limited monarchy, or a king or queen who has followed rule of law.

So whether a king can order "off with his head!" depends on the type of government that is accepted in his country. If he sets the rules (rule by man), or if the accepted outside rules allow (rule by law), the victim doesn't have a chance.

A hereditary monarchy is a form of government and succession of power in which the throne passes from one member of a ruling family to another member of the same family. A series of rulers from the same family would constitute a dynasty.

It is historically the most common type of monarchy and remains the dominant form in extant monarchies. It has the advantages of continuity of the concentration of power and wealth and predictability of who one can expect to control the means of governance and patronage. Provided that a monarch is competent, not oppressive, and maintains an appropriate dignity, it might also offer the stabilizing factors of popular affection for and loyalty to a ruling family.[1] The adjudication of what constitutes oppressive, dignified and popular tends to remain in the purview of the monarch.[1] A major disadvantage of hereditary monarchy arises when the heir apparent may be physically or temperamentally unfit to rule.[2] Other disadvantages include the inability of a people to choose their head of state, the ossified distribution of wealth and power across a broad spectrum of society, and the continuation of outmoded religious and social-economic structures mainly for the benefit of monarchs, their families, and supporters.[3]

In most extant hereditary monarchies, the typical order of succession uses some form of primogeniture, but there exist other methods such as seniority and tanistry (in which an heir-apparent is nominated from among qualified candidates).

Research shows that hereditary regimes, in particular primogeniture, are more stable than forms of authoritarian rule with alternative succession arrangements.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

Succession[edit]

Theoretically, when the monarch of a hereditary monarchy dies or abdicates, the crown typically passes to the next generation of the family. If no qualified child exists, the crown may pass to a brother, sister, nephew, niece, cousin, or other relative, in accordance with a predefined order of succession, often enshrined in legislation. Such a process establishes who will be the next monarch beforehand and avoids disputes among members of the royal family. Usurpers may resort to inventing semi-mythical genealogies to bolster their respectability.[11]

Historically, there have been differences in systems of succession, mainly revolving around the question of whether succession is limited to males, or whether females are also eligible (historically, the crown often devolved on the eldest male child, as ability to lead an army in battle was a requisite of kingship). Agnatic succession refers to systems where females are neither allowed to succeed nor to transmit succession rights to their male descendants (see Salic Law). An agnate is a kinsman with whom one has a common ancestor by descent in an unbroken male line. Cognatic succession once referred to any succession which allowed both males and females to be heirs, although in modern usage it specifically refers to succession by seniority regardless of sex[citation needed] (absolute primogeniture as in Sweden since 1980). Another factor which may be taken into account is the religious affiliation of the candidate or the candidate's spouse, specifically where the monarch also has a religious title or role; for example, the British monarch has the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and may not profess Roman Catholicism.

Elective hereditary monarchy[edit]

Elective monarchy can function as de facto hereditary monarchy. A specific type of elective monarchy known as tanistry limits eligibility to members of the ruling house. But hereditary succession can also occur in practice despite any such legal limitations. For example, if the majority of electors belong to the same house, then they may elect only family members. Or a reigning monarch might have sole power to elect a relative. Many late-medieval countries of Europe were officially elective monarchies, but in fact pseudo-elective; most transitioned into officially hereditary systems in the early modern age. Exceptions include the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

See also[edit]

• List of hereditary monarchies
• Heir presumptive

References[edit]

1. ^ a b Sharma, Urmila Sharma & S. K. (2000). Principles and Theory of Political Science. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 412. ISBN 9788171569380. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
2. ^ Flesch, Carl F. (2006). Who's Not Who and Other Matters. Pegasus Elliot Mackenzie Pu. p. 69. ISBN 9781843862444.
3. ^ Robertson, Geoffrey (25 September 2008). "A hereditary head of state and a system based on sexism and religious discrimination have no place in the 21st century". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
4. ^ Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter (2000). "The constitutional economics of autocratic succession". Public Choice. 103 (1/2): 63–84. doi:10.1023/A:1005078532251. ISSN 0048-5829. S2CID 154097838.
5. ^ Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter (2004). "Autocratic succession". Encyclopedia of Public Choice. 103: 358–362. doi:10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_39. ISBN 978-0-306-47828-4.
6. ^ Kokkonen, Andrej; Sundell, Anders (May 2014). "Delivering Stability—Primogeniture and Autocratic Survival in European Monarchies 1000–1800". American Political Science Review. 108 (2): 438–453. doi:10.1017/S000305541400015X. hdl:2077/38982. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 53132563.
7. ^ Acharya, Avidit; Lee, Alexander (2019-11-01). "Path Dependence in European Development: Medieval Politics, Conflict, and State Building". Comparative Political Studies. 52 (13–14): 2171–2206. doi:10.1177/0010414019830716. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 29515121.
8. ^ Kokkonen, Andrej; Sundell, Anders (2019-06-11). "Leader Succession and Civil War". Comparative Political Studies. 53 (3–4): 434–468. doi:10.1177/0010414019852712. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 197804359.
9. ^ "Tracking the "Arab Spring": Why the Modest Harvest?". Journal of Democracy. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
10. ^ D.M. (2 June 2017). "Why is the Japanese monarchy under threat?". The Economist. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
11. ^ For example: Mitchell, Brian (2001). Finding Your Irish Ancestors: Unique Aspects of Irish Genealogy. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Com. p. 12. ISBN 9780806351001. Retrieved 11 December 2017. To legitimise the rise to power of new tribal or dynastic groups Gaelic genealogists often forged a link between the usurper and the dynasty they had overthrown.

What is a single family rules from generation to generation?

What is it called when a family rules a country?

What is a family run government called?

In which type of political system does power pass from generation to generation in a single family?