Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Indeed, among the ten most populous nations on the planet only China, Russia and, maybe, Bangladesh have Gov A+.
>
> One could argue that this is because 'Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy' is such a low type, presumably because it was a common government type in the classical world, and by modern standards classical states had low populations and low law levels.

That's an interesting point, which might sort of serve to "save" the offered premise that Traveller Government types get "more authoritarian" as Population increases but . . .

> But China is now probably a Type B (having slid from type A), and there are a lot of Type As out there from Russia

I think one could reasonably argue that Communist Party-ruled China and contemporary "oligarchic" Russia (as well as the old Soviet Union too) are "Self-Perpetuating Oligarchies." (The differences would show up in the Government-modified Law Level rather than the Government type itself.)

What we're really seeing here though is what a mess, er . . . I mean, hodgepodge the Traveller government types are.

> and Turkey to a good chunk of Latin America.

The Latin American country where a recent election has not brought the nominal opposition into power in the absence of substantial political violence is more the exception than the rule these days. That's an experience to which it would be impossible for the Third Imperium to lay claim, for example.

> Also, there's no government type for a dictator that's gained power through non-standard means that doesn't have the confidence of the citizens.

Maybe Captive Government (type 6)?

I'm having trouble coming up with a real-world example of that sort of situation. Gaining power through "non-standard means" is tough without some measure of assent from a large chunk of the populace. Consider, for example, the way the Russian Federation (and the other post-Soviet states) emerged from the remnants of the Soviet Union. Lots of folks in Belarus might not be happy with their government today but they largely supported "independence" three decades ago. . . .

And even Dulinor claimed that his attempt to seize the Iridium Throne was based in "standard" historical precedent.

Cheers,

David
--
"Our rulers are the barbarians among us.  There isn't one of them . . . who is devoted to civilization or anything else outside himself, and that's the mark of the barbarian." - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper), ~Space Viking~