Government

No matter what kind of culture you have, you will have to think about how it is governed. Even if you go for complete anarchy, you'll still need to have a general idea of how it works. How a culture is governed impacts not only what your characters are allowed to do, but their attitudes and expectations. Rather than make even more generalized sweeping statements than I make in the rest of this site, I'll go through some standard systems of government and talk about them individually. A rather astonishingly large list of possible forms of government can be found here; I found it rather stimulating in terms of story ideas!

Monarchy

Monarchy is, of course, government which includes a monarch--king, queen, emperor. The monarch's title is usually hereditary; if not, it is usually the monarch's prerogative to choose his successor. In a traditional monarchy, all the laws are subject to the monarch's approval. This means that some laws may be capricious or against the wishes of much of the country. Often, a new monarch will have to reestablish many laws previously signed by his or her predecessor, especially treaties. This makes the ascension of a new monarch a difficult time for everyone in the country, as old protections may suddenly not hold any more. Also, a monarch must rely heavily on his or her advisors. A bad advisor can hurt the entire country, but a good advisor can help, and advising a monarch is a good way to get a non-royal character in power. If a monarch is young or incapacitated, a regent is usually appointed either by the former monarch, if the new monarch is a child, or by the monarch's advisors. This regent will rule with most of the powers of the monarch until the monarch is ready to resume the throne.

	Lloyd Alexander's Westmark Trilogy, while not technically fantasy, holds some good examples of the functioning of monarchs and the powers of advisors, both good and bad. The plots are too broad to summarize here, but the books themselves are a short read (they're aimed at early teens). I'd recommend them for anyone looking to write a traditional monarchy.

In most modern monarchies, the monarch doesn't have much power; they are a head of state, acting as a figurehead for the country, not a head of government. Usually this is attached to some kind of democracy.

Either way, though, don't forget the kind of power the monarch will have in terms of emotional links to the people. A ruling monarch can polarize people—--he or she is either doing a wonderful job or destroying the nation. Even head-of-state monarchs are still national figures. The populace will take an active interest in his or her activities and his or her family. If you want more information on how this relationship works, talk to someone from a country that still has a monarch; a list can be found here.

Dictatorship

Dictatorship is rule by a dictator. There is no set criterion to separate a dictator from a monarch; it's more of a modern term to describe Somebody We Really Don't Like. Dictators are rarely called so by people living in countries ruled by one. Either they're good enough at public relations that the citizens don't realize how bad things are, or they're strong enough to put down any resistance. You can think of a dictator as a monarch with a lot of power and bad intentions. Often, those we consider dictators did not inherit any kind of leadership role as one would normally inherit a monarchy. However, this is not always the case.

Remember that, no matter how good your main character is at clandestine rebellion, the dictator has greater powers at his or her disposal. Eventually someone is going to get hurt.

	I can't give you too much detail without giving away plot, but the section City of Emeralds in Gregory Maguire's novel Wicked is a fairly good model of what the life of a rebel is. Also, most of the book deals with a ruler whom you could definitely call a dictator. The effects of the dictatorship are felt throughout the book, although the dictator himself rarely appears.

	If you're the kind of person to understand things through poetry, find a copy of the short W.H. Auden poem "Epitaph on a Tyrant." It's concise and should give you a good idea of exactly what you're dealing with.

Oligarchy

Oligarchy is rule by a small group of people. To anyone outside the group, the effects will be much the same as a monarchy, except they have more people to hate or adore. Within the group, though, be very careful about the relationships between the rulers.

Theocracy

Rule by religion, or rather by those who deal in religion. Theocracies are especially effective (when they work at all) because not only can a criminal be punished to the death, he or she can be punished after death. Theocracies also have difficulty, though, because the necessary religious devotion of the rulers limits their ability to act. And because you're probably a speculative fiction writer, remember that if the religion is true, the deity itself can intervene!

	In Mercedes Lackey's Velgarth novels, there is a country called Karse which is ruled by the Son of the Sun, a religious leader. The country of Karse and the destinies of the citizens revolve around this religion. Children can be taken away to serve in the temples if visiting priests think their talents would be useful. The army is extremely effective, because all the soldiers have the same purpose and religious fervor to back it up. A few corrupt Sons of the Sun changed the way the religious caste interacted with the general populace, but eventually the deity intervened and restored everything to its correct order.

Feudalism/Manorialism

This is probably the most common kind of fantasy setting other than monarchy. Feudalism and manorialism usually work together; they form a strict hierarchy of those who have power and those who do not. The lowest level are the workers, who own virtually nothing. They work a lord's land, giving him labor, money, and/or part of their crops in return for the ability to farm. Slightly more affluent workers might work farther from the lord's stronghold, giving only rent in exchange. Still, these workers are definitely a lower social level than the lords. The lords themselves may or may not own the land; they may own it or rule it as a gift from a higher, more powerful lord. The lords have the power to make laws and judgments within their own borders, even up to the level of forbidding workers to leave. Less powerful lords swear allegiance to more powerful ones in exchange for aid and protection. Feudalism describes the voluntary and somewhat equal relationship between the lords; manorialism is the relationship between lord and worker. Feudalism can coexist with monarchy, especially when the monarchy is only recently come together from several separate kingdoms.

In a feudalist/manorial society, you have power or you don't. Rising from humble beginnings to a place of prestige will not happen unless there's a religion (or similar body) around and a worker manages to rise in the power system of that religion. Even that is only true if it is a religion which turns a blind eye to the former social status of the devoted. If there's no religion, or if the religion favors the upper classes, there is virtually no way out of poverty. If all your time is spent on the basics of survival, will you ever be able to focus on ways to gain power in your society? Few if any of the working class will be literate, in all likelihood, especially before the invention of the printing press. Also, consider the attitudes about class that the upper level of society must have with such a strict hierarchy. If many of the upper class thought that the workers were their equals, the manorial society would probably collapse.

Basically, if you choose feudalism and manorialism as your system of government, none of your working class will make interesting characters in terms of quests and power. There are stories to be told, of course, but they will be on a much smaller scale. Also, if you choose the upper class in a society like this, remember that your character will likely have strong prejudices that may alienate modern readers.

Democracy

Democracy: rule by the people. Or at least some of them.

The basic idea of a democracy is that everyone gets to decide on the laws that are put into place. In any kind of large society, this isn't really possible—. Can you imagine what it would be like if 300 million people or more had to vote on every law that the United States legislature passed? That would be kind of...insane. Many democracies instead elect representatives; the group of representatives is what we call the legislature.

There are, of course, problems with democracies. First, the legislature is often the only lawmaking body; that's why most countries also create judicial bodies (courts) to act as a check on the legislature's power. Second, the legislators are usually representatives and not proxies--—the people give them the power to act as they see fit, rather than exactly as the majority of their constituents would prefer. So the laws put in place may not be the laws a majority of citizens would prefer to see enacted. This may be good for the country or bad, depending on the legislature. And at a basic level, there are many problems with organization and with elections which would have to be considered.

	C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen discusses the system of government of Union, one of the multi-planet governments of her Merchanter universe. There are two councils, one based on where you live and one (more important) based on what you do. For example, the Bureaus of Science, Information, Defense, and Citizens play a large role in the book. Each person can vote, but a vote is worth more depending on the status of the voter within his or her profession. Also, elections take several months as the results from each of the far-flung stations are brought to the government center on Cyteen. The nine Bureau heads make up a small council and also act as part of a larger council that includes geographic representation. The system is intended to allow people of high rank in their fields--and thus, probably, those with great knowledge and wisdom--to make decisions that affect their constituents, rather than handing those decisions to people whose only specialty is politics or law.

Bureaucracy

To be blunt, bureaucracy is rule by the paper-pushers. Think of a major corporation running the country, and you'll get the idea. Bureaucracies have lots of strict levels in their hierarchies, lots of signatures and forms, and lots of difficulty in getting rid of people. In one sense, they can be useful, because well-run bureaucracies will have many standardized ways of doing things, and so everyone should either know how to do something or know someone else who knows. On the other hand, there are few favors to call in and few people who are actually in charge, so exceptions are a lot more difficult to make. If you choose a bureaucracy, everyone is going to be strictly regimented--that's the only way bureaucracies can be truly successful. Boring, but true.

Clans, Tribes and Castes

In smaller societies, government is often more fluid and based on clan or kinship boundaries. The leader may be chosen by the group as a whole, or may earn his or her position through competition with others, or may inherit the position from a parent. Sometimes rule will be held by the group as a whole or by certain members of the group (the elderly, the warriors, or, I don't know, the best basket weavers). These are the types of government most associated with "primitive" cultures. (I'm sure you can guess my feelings on that word, but that's another rant.)

This system, like all the others, has advantages and disadvantages. The clan or family may be more wary of outsiders, since everyone is so familiar--although the work of sociologists has shown that many existing clans are made up of dissimilar cultures, even to the extent of different dialects. The leader or leaders will be extremely familiar with the workings of the clan, which can be helpful for decision-making, but also harmful since they are less likely to be objective. The people may trust the leaders more because they know them, or less for the same reason.

	The Bazhir clans of Tamora Pierce's Song of the Lioness quartet are a fairly good example of one type of clan culture. Different aspects of the clan are controlled by the clan chief and by the shaman; decisions which involve more than one clan are arbitrated by a person known as the Voice of the Tribes. What brings this portrayal above many others of the same kind, though, is the way in which Pierce describes the power of everyone in the tribe. The chief listens carefully to the opinions of the warriors, and the women have a more subtle power of their own in their ability to advise their husbands.

Socialism

Socialism is, at least as an idea, a strictly regulated economy with very loose laws about personal behavior. In practice it often becomes a regime that controls far too much of both the economy and the personal lives of its citizens; see the history of any Communist country for examples.

I should mention that there's a technical difference between socialism and communism, but I don't really know what it is. Communism, big C, and communism, little c, however, are very different; communism is the idea, Communism the party that controls or controlled a large portion of Asia. Communism bears some resemblance to communism, but it is no way a perfect example of what the idea is supposed to be.

Anyway, in a true socialist society, many goods and services are provided by the government for the people in return for labor and goods. Or perhaps a better definition is that all citizens do their work for the government, and the government distributes the results as it sees fit. Again, in practice, this often leads to the government controlling far too much: where citizens are allowed to work and how, what they are allowed to believe.

Socialism as Western society knows it is a product of the working classes of the nineteenth century. Because of this, nobody in a socialist society is supposed to be wealthy (practice to the contrary). The ideal states that all the wealth is shared equally.

The problem with Communism is not the idea; it is that those in power have far too much power, and use it. Communes such as some hippies and anarchists practice work slightly better because they are a much smaller scale. The kibbutzim of 1950s and 60s Israel are another decent real-world example.

	For anyone interested in writing a socialist society, I would highly recommend B.F. Skinner's book Walden Two. Skinner, a behavioral psychologist, explores what a working socialist commune might look like. He's not the best writer in the world by any means, but the ideas are thought-provoking. (Just ignore the romance and you'll be all right. :))

Federations

Federations are organizations of multiple governments. There are some loose laws (guidelines?) that govern every member nation/country/state, but each nation/country/state is also autonomous where those rules are not concerned. The United States of America is technically a federation, although the national level has considerably more control than what a standard federation would have. The United Nations is also a federation, although with considerably less control, since they have no way of enforcing what they want member states to do.

	Okay, you knew it was coming...the Federation from the Star Trek universe. I'm mostly familiar with The Next Generation, so that's the particular series I'll focus on here. The Federation is a group of intelligent races which work together in relative harmony and peace. The Vulcans and homo sapiens are two of the races involved. The Federation sets forth some rules for space exploration (i.e., the Prime Directive, which states that member citizens won't interfere in the natural development of pre-faster than light civilizations), but lets the rulers of each planet govern their own planet with little interference.

Anarchy

Anarchy is really the anti-government. In theory, every person in an anarchist society governs him- or herself. This may not be the case in practice, since your ability to rule is generally tied to your ability to enforce your rule, and so those with more resources often come to have power over those without. Completely unregulated anarchies will never last too long, as some people will start to gain more power than others have, and use that power to gain even more. Somewhat regulated anarchies have a slightly better survival rate, since it takes longer for individual people to gain power.

Anarchy is a slippery term, too. Some use it to describe the set of conditions where no ruler lasts for a long time or has much power, i.e. Europe just after the fall of the Roman Empire. This isn't completely true, since there were power structures in place; there were just no overarching governments.

Because of this tendency for anarchy to break down, you should be very careful to explain how this works and why your characters prefer it (or hate it).

	The society of Anarres in Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed is called anarchist by its inhabitants. It bears a lot in common with socialism, except that there are no people in charge at all, not even a rotating random leader as in Walden Two. Instead, resources are controlled by groups called syndicates, which anyone can be part of if they have the necessary skills (at least in theory). Anyone can be called at any time for labor projects if hands are needed. Anarres is really a blend of anarchism and socialism, but if you're interested in how it works, I would suggest the book.

No matter what kind of government you pick, you'll have to do the same thing you do for everything else: ask why it is the way it is, and integrate it into the rest of your world. The government will affect the smaller power structures in your society, the interactions of your society with others, the attitudes of your characters... Again, every choice you make in world-building impacts all the others. Be careful and be informed.