Despotism

Despotism. (Can't think of anything funny to put here)

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Absolute Monarchy	In nearly all its modern iterations, monarchy has survived in a diminished, liberalized form more accurately described as "crowned republics." Most royals are now restricted by checks and balances like constitutions and democratically elected parliaments, and kings and queens are but figureheads of their kingdom. However, the old maxim "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is not yet forgotten. Absolute Monarchy is the accumulation of all powers and prerogatives in the realm into the hands of a single man, who, usually by birthright, is entitled to rule and administer the land his predecessors conquered and lorded over before him. This is but the result of centuries upon centuries of a fierce struggle against the nobility and bourgeois alike, ultimate confirmation of the incarnation of the whole country in the King himself. The monarch is intermediary between his subjects and the divine in any form it may take, and the health and holiness of the royal body politic is the health and holiness of the whole of society. For the more traditional-minded, in the royal firmament the king is the sun, and every celestial body orbits and is attracted by its power and majesty. The term "absolute," however, may be deceiving. Even if the monarch can interfere in all spheres of his domain, he is still limited by a series of restrictions. Among them, it may be that he cannot contradict the fundamental laws of the realm that he himself is subject to. He could also neither go against morality nor challenge the natural law whose principles govern the positive laws of the realm. His "absoluteness" also does not imply omnipresence, and a cohort of administrators to govern in his stead are a given. Most of the last old-fashioned monarchies have been dethroned after the Great War, replaced by republics of all kinds and colors. This is far from a death blow to the idea of monarchy. The great houses and their supporters still stand proud in enclaves and fortresses across the world, waiting for the right time to strike back at revolution. Learning from the mistake of giving commoners and oligarchs even the slightest opportunity to gain power is the first step towards the reclamation of their divine right — through any means at their disposal.	Skënderbeu III* Carol II (Unifier-Emperor) Yasuhito Rama VIII
Constitutional Dictatorship'	There are times, and there is no shame in admitting it, when a system is simply not strong enough to withstand the full weight of its challenges. This would usually be ripe time for opportunists and revolutionaries to strike like vultures devouring carrion. However, rather than letting the country fall to these insidious forces, the state might save the day by appointing a Constitutional Dictator until the country is healthy enough to stand on its own again. A constitutionally-appointed dictator is a figure that in exceptional times is temporarily clothed with special powers, through the authority of the legitimate government, in order to overcome certain political or military crises. The precedent has been found even in the Greek world, but is most popular thanks to the ancient Roman Republic. From Rome, we can draw useful similes that will illustrate the many forms this peculiar institution may take. It could be that a given dictator is a Cincinnatus, a man committed to the principles and legality of the system who will attempt to surgically fix the issues that threatened the country and who will step down after his mission is completed, restoring a state of normalcy with unbroken continuity. Perhaps he is rather a Sulla, a vigorous leader who, nonetheless still committed to the values of the institutions that empowered him, will enact a number of reforms to remove the cancerous rot that weakened the system in the first place. After him, a new, healthier but still recognisable state of affairs becomes the norm. In unfortunate cases for the system bestowing power in the dictator, it will anoint a Caesar. A Caesar is an ambitious and shrewd politician who has turned the due process of a system against it, and will use these extraordinary powers to build a realm after his own image and overcome the constitutional and legal limits of his current mandate. The exact limits of a dictator's jurisdiction and abilities varies in accordance to the trust and needs of the government who bestows them, but generally there are certain safety clauses placed to ensure no lines are crossed. The danger of such a decision is absolutely apparent — among the many uncertainties lies the question of, if the dictator is not willing to step down, whether he will be followed by a Brutus or by an Octavian.	Ramón Franco* Emil Sonderegger* Constantin Radulescu-Motru Cenap Şahabettin
'Constitutional Monarchy	If we consider history as a linear progression, we can see a clear view of the evolution of political institutions. From the god-kings of antiquity to Roman oligarchy, passing through feudal vassalage and enlightened absolutism, we reach the zenith, the climax, the height of perfect rulership in the modern world: the Constitutional Monarchy. Also ambiguously called "parliamentary" or "democratic," this form of monarchy is a testament to the indisputable triumphs of liberalism understood in its widest definition. It represents an overcoming of the antiquated despotisms that dominated Ancien Régime Europe and much of Asia up until the 19th century — oppressive anachronisms that wouldn't and couldn't recognise the new era approaching: that of efficiency, moderation, long-term continuity, and professionalism. Yet it acknowledges the horror of tyrannies of the majority, of excessive republicanism, of rabble-rousing populists unable to understand the subtle limitations of democracy and enthroning it in its most savage ugliness. It uses both written and traditional constitutions, as well as representative democracy, as the trustworthy allies of savvy politicians who must work within the respect of individual freedom to achieve the reforms needed to prosper. Like de Tocqueville, Constant, and Locke foresaw, civil society can only exist in a healthy mixture of limitations and liberty, giving a voice to the people but never letting their worst impulses take control, keeping the kings and queens as warrants of liberty rather than threats to it. It has triumphed in the United Kingdom, Italy, and the Netherlands among others, and even westernizing nations elsewhere have recognized its strengths as the only path towards a safe and free future that doesn't wait for anyone. Elsewhere, however, the tale isn't as sweet, and the democratic limitations placed on monarchs aren't a frame to exercise power but a prison that ambitious royals strive to break and escape from by any means necessary. And yet, isn't this proof of its versatility as a tool? Isn't the sound of oppressors gnashing their teeth a sign that it works? Without naivete, common-sense and rationality march across time incarnate in constitutional monarchs, to the horror of radicals of all camps!	Yasuhito* II. Abdülmecid* Carol II* Ghazi Rama VII Yvonne
Military Dictatorship	Force is a simple thing to understand. In a period of perceived loss of legitimacy, a state may find that heavy weaponry and the organization to use them effectively outweighs generations of civic norms and traditions. Whether heeding an invitation from beleaguered civilian leadership, or launching a coup in response to a national crisis, power thus passes into the hands of the hierarchy of the armed forces. As the collective junta is formed, or with a clear generalissimo leading the charge, so begins the period of Military Dictatorship. This form of government has been documented for over a millennium in human history, such is its versatility, and such is the enduring presence of military authority throughout time. It is flexible enough in form and character to theoretically encompass the feudal shoguns of the Far East, the personalist caudillos of Latin America, or even the highly religious rule of the 1600s Commonwealth of England. Frequently, whatever their underlying ideology of the generals, the dictatorship will declare its non-partisan nature, and that its overall goal is to avert a dire threat to the country. The bureaucratic reality of modern military rule also varies, at times being a top-down emergency government, and at other times creating a political party out of willing civilian collaborators to support their agenda. A Military Dictatorship in practice introduces a state of exception into society's ordinary affairs. The usual system of rights and guarantees is reshaped or suspended outright, with militarized police in the streets and secret police in the shadows. Though non-military officials and politicians exist, their decisions are subject to the ruling clique's veto. Finally, while the regime often frames itself as a temporary measure, the duration of "temporary" is subject to their whims — after all, the remaining lifespan of a general or two is still temporary. Despite this, emergency measures to avert disaster will always have justifications, and as the clouds of war gather again, a military-first government may be the proper means to prepare for mobilization.	Erich Ludendorff* Boris Annenkov* Winston Churchill* Peter Fleming Zhang Zongchang
Personalist Dictatorship	Power is a complex, brittle, appealing thing. The ambition and corruption of men have provoked that thus, power is organised and ordered according to a variety of principles such as inheritance, religious authority, military command, or the people's democratically elected representatives. In truth, this is just a mirage. Power is destined for those who dare conquer it. German sociologist Max Weber, in his dissection and analysis of the sources of power in society, saw that in certain cases there existed what he called a "charismatic authority," as opposed to legal authority and traditional authority. In these situations, much like for Archaic Greek tyrants, power is not owed thanks to due political process, but to the perceived or real unique attributes of a leader who goes on to take the reins through exceptional means. The way such a headman exerts his authority is rarely through the trust and codes of formal institutions, but rather they make use of the loyalty that they inspire in their followers, whether because of love or because of fear. This strictly personal conception of fealty between masters and subordinates is why regimes like these are denominated Personalist Dictatorships. Such phenomenon is universal and found all across the globe, although due to their strange births these forms of government rarely last for long. Personalistic dictators are nearly always eclectic and their rule convoluted, with a scarcely consistent ideology accompanying a strong cult of the leader. In its synergy lies its best qualities, however, and they are highly adaptable and pragmatic regimes able to rise to changing internal and external challenges in the blink of an eye. Its most obvious downside is that men who take power in such ways are susceptible to vices and untold luxury, because as Lord Acton wrote, "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and earthly pleasures provide excellent distractions from efficient statesmanship.	Emir Enver* Zhang Zongyuan* L. Ron Hubbard Abdul Rahman
Revolutionary Nationalism	The years of bloodletting and revanchist disappointments of the Great War bred radical political responses. Some, like the German model of socialism or the crystallization of the Polish and Fiuman regimes into accelerationism, sent shockwaves through the ideological sphere. But not every reaction would make it to the end of the decade with a host of converts and imitators. Before Accelerationism was an official label, other syncretic nationalist movements rose and fell in the 20s — most dramatically in Italy. Situated between the rejuvenationists and reactionaries, and without a core tendency to unite them, these groups and their followers are collected under the name Revolutionary Nationalism. Despite the failure of the Italian example, the attempt to bring romantic nationalists, anti-parliamentarians, and dissident socialists — even futurists — into one camp has been instructive. The political tensions in Europe before the Great War, followed by five years of disaster that seemingly satisfied nobody, led to a number of dramatic rejections of the liberal parliamentary status quo. Even in Red Germany, the eastern soldier councils proved this rejection could include bellicose, nationalistic sentiments — led by men who were ready to overthrow the Kaiser to reinvigorate Germany. But what tenets constitute Revolutionary Nationalism? In some respects, its groups are defined by what they are not, an illiberal vanguardism that is not as disdainful of modernity as the reactionaries, nor as anti-traditional as the common accelerationists. Rejecting parliamentary politics as too corrupt to answer to the public and too divided to have clear vision, they produce an authoritarian government by design, capable of taking decisive action to reshape the country. Though their economic orthodoxy varies, they favour state intervention or coordination in the economy for the national interest and stability, such as corporatism. It remains to be seen what the fate of these political outsiders will be: though Fiume became a cause célèbre of the revolutionary far right, the men who were left behind are still awaiting their turn to shake the world.	Pierre Gemayel* Benito Mussolini* Ioannis Metaxas Aleksandr Kazem-Bek Radola Gajda Stepan Bandera
Theocracy	Set aside all questions of electoral merit and court gossip, and ask: Who can rule wiser and fairer than the men of the Divine? Who can know justice better than those who dedicated themselves to the study of the sacred? For Theocracy, there is no answer — as there is no divide between spiritual and temporal power. Despite the onslaught of modernity, a few places in the world still are home to states traditionally ruled by the representatives of a local religion. Be it a powerful hierarch of the clergy, a scheming leader of a heretical sect, or a charismatic prophet, all theocrats draw their power from the mandate of faith, their state being the realisation of divine will on Earth. Despite the usual associations, this will can take many shapes. Generally conservative, and far from co-religionists who preach for a great levelling of society, theocrats still do not necessarily see progress as an evil in itself. Freed from the petty concerns of dynastic maintenance, financial acquisition, and class theory, a number of religious priorities resemble a call for social reform. Furthermore, is it not cloistered monks, sages, and other holy men who ensured the passage of knowledge down through ages of strife? This form of government is doctrinaire, certainly, but not necessarily regressive - and many faiths have been spread far and wide through adaptation. Many say that in the storm of the modern world God has died, that all wonders have mundane explanations, and that Theocracy should be banished to the history books. Yet this bond between men can transcend the gulfs of class, nation, and politics, and no creed has ever been without doubters. The awe of spirituality, of great designs and greater truths, will continue to humble the proud.After all, is it not said that faith alone can move mountains?	Benyamin XIX Shimun* Ignatius* Mathilde Ludendorff Pham Công Tac