[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-... ).