I'm working out the kinks in the politics of my world.

Each city has elected senators. Several cities per province. Each province on my world has a chancellor. I'd like there to be a prime chancellor, in charge of all three provinces on the continent. So:

Three provinces on my continent, each has a ruling chancellor and several cities. Each city has numerous senators.

A prime chancellor (and perhaps governing body) over the entire continent.

Does this structure make sense? Are there any kerfuffles you spot? Like bad terminology. I think chancellor is vague enough to work for a vaguely-defined ruling position of power, on another world. I suspect the senators choose their provincial chancellor.

You can imagine all the people as elves if you like.

Question: Is it feasible that a continent with three provinces, each province with multiple cities, would have:

1. Elected city senators that, as a body, select a

2. provincial chancellor and there is a continental

3. prime chancellor, who has a larger scope of governance?

Edit: More detail: Each city has a senate. The senators are normally elected, but can be appointed, thus room for corruption. The senate writes the laws for their cities. There is no provincial senate.

The provincial chancellor is chosen by the senate bodies.

I researched Chancellor before posting. It has a long history and is used in many ways from the courts to the church to foreign affairs to head of state.

What I am trying to do is

avoid something that people will mock, for example:

"The queen is elected by the parliament."

While those words are to do with governance, many of us would think queen should be somewhat ceremonial and inherited (a bias, but good to be aware of it) and would wonder why the parliament was electing her. Why not have a prime minister to head parliament?

^ That's the sort of thing I'd like to avoid, and I am curious if my structure sets off those sorts of niggles.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You have senators - do you have a senate? Are those individual city senates, or more unified provincial senates? $\endgroup$ – Alexander Oct 11 '17 at 18:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sure, governments and titles are relatively arbitrary constructs and rely heavily upon acceptance by their users. If the elfish populace puts up with this, why not? $\endgroup$ – anon Oct 11 '17 at 18:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DPT's update, Honestly you don't need to really worry with this concept of contradictions "mock" in politics. At this point I think the majority of the human race (your readers) are use to associating politics and contradictions. Its not uncommon for essentially dictatorial countries to call their leader president so why not elect your queen. $\endgroup$ – anon Oct 11 '17 at 18:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right. And there are towns and villages that are in the wilds. No formal governance. The corporations (!!) are able to run the show. Is this too weird? It's sort of very right wing. $\endgroup$ – DPT Oct 11 '17 at 20:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So far, so good. Chancellor (and his office) should have the power to resolve disputes between the cities and residents of different cities. And cities should be (generally) willing to abide by those decisions. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Oct 11 '17 at 21:02

I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Around here we have Presidents everywhere, starting with the Villages' Presidents, who are elected by the people who live in the many neighborhoods in each village.

Then there's the Township President who is also elected by the people but has under him all the villages' Presidents.

Then there are regional presidents, who are always also elected by the people, and have under them the township Presidents.

And finally, the Republic's President, who is also elected by the people, and acts as a sort of mediator between all the other mess of Presidents, legislators, etc.

And when I say elected by the people I mean by the people directly. No such thing as allowing a college of magistrates to decide who will be President!

Either the people decide, or heads will roll.

Ooops... forgot the ministers. We have a bucket load of those as well. the prime minister and his immediate cabinet are also elected by the people and then nominate more ministers, they are the actual government who make most of the decisions. but the President is still above them and acts as a sort of judge, studying the laws to see if the ministers are not putting their feet in it. If a minister isn't doing well enough and the people complain a lot, "heads roll".

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, Portugal! It's always useful to have a perspective from someone who has a different political system. In your system the Republic's President is Head of State and presumably the Prime Minister is the executive head of the government. Is there a parliament too? That seems to be how the Ministers would be elected (I assume). Plus one for in enlightening answer. $\endgroup$ – a4android Oct 12 '17 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ @a4android yes, there's a parliament as well, but the ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, not the Parliament, and the President is the one who gives them the go-ahead... or not. usually the President just allows the Prime Minister to choose as he chooses. but if any minister misbehaves, the President can give them the boot. The Parliament is usually more of a discussion place where new laws are discussed and voted. It's a messy place. $\endgroup$ – shieldedtulip Oct 12 '17 at 1:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I like the idea of the President sacking misbehaving Minsters. I can see similarities to our Parliament & government here in Australia. Though sacking Ministers is done by the Prime Minister. Democracy is always messy. $\endgroup$ – a4android Oct 12 '17 at 4:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.