> everyone must serve at least 5 years as a professional soldier to be considered a proper citizen, and 10 years to be involved in the government apparatus
> a council of military ministers helps rule the nation, being in charge of select branches of government, like economy, culture, legislative etc. Decisions are made by consensus of the council and commander-in-chief (see next point)
> the council works alongside a general, who is the head of state and the most senior of the conventional military infrastructure. He is the commander-in-chief and the symbol of the nation, but equal in level with other ministers in terms of decisionmaking and debate - and any decision must be unanimous for the government to proceed with it
> the council + the military leader have absolute power and can change laws at will - once again, as long as agreement is unanimous
> the military is inseparable from the state, unlike religious and corporate interests, and is therefore more resistant to corruption
> the military-industrial complex encompasses every single industry
Militaries are great at instilling their common values into recruits, and very resistant to change in social values, while generally being open to and demanding of technological progress and accumulation of power. This means that any society under this system of government would be highly stable and united and committed to increasing the state's power.
Why has this never been tried historically, Veeky Forums?