[fc417fc802]

Perhaps absolute would be a better wording. After all there are also very few absolute democracies, absolute free markets, etc, etc.

Of note about Saudi Arabian guest workers is that if I understand correctly the mistreatment isn't officially condoned it just isn't prevented in practice either. At which point I wonder about other localized abusive working and living conditions in many supposedly more developed and civilized countries.

> with hereditary power transfer

Getting slightly tangential, but is that even necessarily a feature of a monarchy? It seems to me that the defining characteristic is a single authority figure. Hereditary power transfer is just a natural consequence of basic self interest under those circumstances.

[cyberax]

> Perhaps absolute would be a better wording.

It's a term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy

> Of note about Saudi Arabian guest workers is that if I understand correctly the mistreatment isn't officially condoned

Of course it is. The laws (as they are) are set to allow that.

> Getting slightly tangential, but is that even necessarily a feature of a monarchy?

Yes. It's _the_ main characteristic of monarchy. Without it, you have run-of-the-mill autocracy (e.g. Putin in Russia or Saddam Hussein in Iraq). Hereditary power transfer means that the monarchy is an institution, with its own support structures (feudals, court, etc.).

The saying: "The king is dead, long live the king!" is not hypocrisy. It's a sign that the monarchy is an institution and can survive an individual monarch's death.

For example, if Putin dies tomorrow, who is going to gain the power? We don't know. There's going to be a power struggle with unpredictable results. There is no line of succession for the true power.

[fc417fc802]

Sure but, in theory at least, who says you need the official mechanism to be hereditary? An institution could define that however it wanted, and if it works then it works.

Admittedly it's possible that might run afoul of a dictionary definition or three. I'm not sure. I suppose it's all largely pointless speculation anyway since someone with a long enough term is going to be incentivized to modify the system to officially become hereditary if it isn't already.

> Of course it is. The laws (as they are) are set to allow that.

Officially though?

Contrast with your other example, North Korea, where many of the abuses are indeed officially recognized.

There's plenty that the laws (or at least enforcement) in the western world fail to stop. In many cases you can argue that it's intentional (and I might even agree with you). But that doesn't make it official in that it isn't what's written down or what the electorate explicitly agreed to.

[cyberax]

> Sure but, in theory at least, who says you need the official mechanism to be hereditary? An institution could define that however it wanted, and if it works then it works.

The thing is, regular autocracy has to destroy the institutions of power transfer. If there's a presumptive successor, then the autocrat can never feel secure in their power. So hereditary transfer is the only model that is at least tolerable for autocrats.

But building the institutions of power transfer requires people who are invested in them. So you need feudal lords who derive their power and wealth from their relation with the monarch. These feudal lords _themselves_ are interested in power transfer to make sure their heirs can be secure.

That's why, historically, elected kings turned into hereditary kings with only one exception, Vatican (for obvious reasons).

> Officially though?

Yes, they have laws that make it hard to pursue labor violations in court and the penalties are basically nothing ( https://www.migrant-rights.org/2024/02/saudi-arabia-reduces-... ).

[olddustytrail]

> For example, if Putin dies tomorrow, who is going to gain the power? We don't know.

Mikhail Mishustin. The Prime Minister of Russia takes over in the event of the President being indisposed and acts as temporary President until the President recovers or a new one is elected.

[cyberax]

That's why I specified "real power". Mishustin doesn't have it.

[olddustytrail]

Does he not? I'm not any kind of expert on Russian politics but would you have said the same of Putin when he was PM?

[cyberax]

Putin is holding his power because he set himself up as the final arbiter in conflicts between powerful "clans". This is largely unofficial power, that he holds personally (not due to institutions).

He is preventing anyone else from gaining similar levels of influence. For example, Mishustin's power was cut down by the changes Putin pushed into the Constitution in 2020.

Side note, this situation is 100% typical for autocracies. And once the autocrat dies, the country very often descends into chaos, simply because there are no institutions that are capable of resolving conflicts between groups without violence. Example: Libya.