A technocratic military junta is the best system of government

> 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?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea#Military
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

> 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

Why? There are often those unfit to serve in the military, who may be some of the most fit to serve in government, while at the same time this bans others who worked in different often more important sectors from ever having a say on policy, military Soldiers and even officers are often totslly unfit to run a country themselves, it's why military juntas are so often aligned with economics, and industrial tycoons.


>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)

See above, how does military service make one for to govern, or give any expertise in any of the fields you listed, and with the council meeting a consensus, those with no knowledge of certain fields will be voting on issues they have no knowledge of, in practice this is as poor as the democracy you'd wish to see this replace.


> 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

Having this general figure achieves nothing, other than having a cult of personality, which can be used to distract the populace from corruption.


> the military is inseparable from the state, unlike religious and corporate interests, and is therefore more resistant to corruption

How does this make corruption less likely, state departments are often some of the most corruption organisations to exist, what different is this from any other modern state controlled military?

>and any decision must be unanimous for the government to proceed with it
You just fucked up.

the best systems of government never create the best nations

Sounds like the pipe dreams of an edgy 16 year old.

This, the wank over the military being resistant to change in social values sealed it

Your idea is too retarded to bother dissecting.

As far as I can see this government's only real strong point (if you would consider it one) is maintaining ideological conformity among the populace without straight-up oppression. It seems like OP tried to thinly veil this goal behind a dopey oligarchic system

> when you play Stellaris and think it's a base for real-life political systems

>without straight-up oppression
>everyone must [spend at least 5 years in a bootcamp] to be considered a proper citizen

Eritrea tried to this shit, it's why young men are so desperate to flee the godforsaken country.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea#Military

>the military is resistant to changes in social values


Yeah that's why we have sexual assault prevention and transgenders and gays can serve when they couldn't before

Yes, and many in the military dislike this, especially the senior staff. Almost always, it takes a concerted political effort to change the military's stance, another example being Erdogan's subversion of the Kemalist military.

Social change needs to be imposed on the military. If there was nobody above to impose it, these changes would be much rarer.

There's a difference between "an indefinite conscription period" and one that is clearly defined. By no means do I suggest having people stuck in shitty conscript-level slavery equivalent positions for their entire lives.

>Why has this never been tried historically, Veeky Forums?

The USSR and China both run /ran a technocratic system. Turns out, the problem of managing a whole society is way too complicated for anyone, be they expert or lay, and all attempts to do so fall well short of free markets.

> everyone must serve at least 5 years as a professional soldier to be considered a proper citizen
How will this be paid for?

Soldiers are given full room and board and receive free education in a useful career they show aptitude and enthusiasm for, and they are not paid any further than that.

>not letting the free market allocate scarce resources in an economy

Also I agree representatives from the armed forces should play a role in politics but this is a bit too much tbqh lad

My only concern with a free market is that corporate bodies may amass too much power and misdirect the state to their own interests - which is too much of a risk to allow. I wouldn't say a fully planned economy is the proper path of action but I am honestly not informed enough to go into the specifics - in any case the path to advancement in this society should ideally be through the military.

Why the fuck is this on Veeky Forums? Go to /pol/ if you want to discuss hypothetical governments, retard.

Fair enough, you'd want to prevent monopolies and large trade unions from forming in that case but that wouldn't be too difficult to do

So... people who don't wish to(or can't, for various reasons) become soldiers will be stuck in poverty unless they have money to fund their own education?

There is no education allowed except via the military. Otherwise you could get a wealthy upper class that is not contained by the military structure, which is disastrous for .

If someone is not willing to go into the military, too bad. They have to if they are physically capable. If they're not, then they can receive free education past secondary (which would be available to all anyways) and work in a lower administrative position, but not climb through the ranks. If they are not mentally capable of being properly educated, they work as serfs. If they are not capable of that, then they are either provided for by their own families on their dollar or they are executed.

>which is disastrous for .
It's disastrous for the integrity of the governmental system and nation at large.

I'd imagine this kind of retarded autism get a small following back in the day.

> what were the falangist movements
> what was the government of Paraguay
> what is the government of Eritrea today
Nice try, but the unconventional nature of the idea doesn't preclude it being valid. Communism still has a large following and its never been practically implemented.
Besides, everyone's calling the idea idiotic. It still has a small following today.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion ;)

military dictatorships are usually shitty stagnant regimes

It's not a dictatorship tho

Much like the USSR reminded everyone of the glory of communism, Imperial Japan reminded everyone how good military rule is.

For other marvelous examples, Burma, and the three countries you just mentioned.

Francoist Spain wasn't that bad, nor was Imperial Japan, unless you happened not to be Japanese.

Military rule still has a better track record than Communism.

Being Japanese sucked too.
The Japs lost more soldiers to starvation than enemy forces. Troops were expected to source their own rations in the field.

That only happened once submarines destroyed their supply lines. It could have happened to any army that had to control a lot of occupied maritime land.

Latin America is more than enough proof that Military Juntas are just a nation-wide Stanford prison experiment. Abuse will come from the simple position of power, no matter how well-intentioned they are.

If abuse of power is inevitable, then why even bother discussing different systems of government in the first place?

Furthermore Latin American military Juntas are actually very different from the variant I propose. The military merely hijacked the state apparatus, and appointments were not made on a technocratic basis nor was the social structure changed at all.