You're a tribe leader. Your tribe has just arrived in an uninhabited territory with a wealth of natural resources. You're about to start a civilization that might last for a thousand years. What system of government will you choose for this new country? You can assume your tribespeople are bright or stupid, racially homogeneous or multiethnic, all transsexual or all male, Buddhist or Muslim - whatever you need to build your dream country.
I am curious as to your reasons of why you support Matriarchy. Keep in mind I am not trying to be an ass. I am genuinely curious to read your reasoning.
It depends on the size of the tribe. If our population isn't too large, then I'd do a direct democracy. Otherwise, I'd do a representative democracy.
It was a joke to kick off the debate. Overall, I'd say parliamentary democracy with a king/emperor, i.e. constitutional monarchy like in Britain, Norway, Japan is what I like the most. You have the prime minister as the head of government; he or she cares for short-term stuff, details, plays political games etc. But if they mess up then it doesn't hurt the country's image that much because people never elected them to be a shining example of a leader in the first place, they elected them just to do the job. The person who represents the country is the king whose family has been the symbol of statehood for hundreds of years. That kind of long-term relationship with the country I think leads people to responsibility to leave a good place to live for the following generations.
Adopted rulers are a good idea when my boi Augustus sits on the throne but it ain't so rosy when a crazy fuck like Nero does.
Okay I had a small feeling it was joke because of the meme but I wasn’t sure. To answer your question I would have to go with a Republic.
I believe in a direct democracy, overseen by a small group of ministers who plan and propose policies in accordance with a utilitarian, principle-based constitution.
I haven't studied government forms and won't pretend to know a lot about this but it seems to me that the problem with a monarchy is that a kingship can too easily become a tyranny Like Caesar said above, you get someone like nero you are screwed. That being said I'd go for a presidential democracy and the slow decline instead of the potentially great-or-awful monarchy. I like the checks and balances of power.
Problem with that is your average person doesn't have the time, will and energy to educate themselves on all political topics so a certain amount of votes will be a total blind-shot and superficial if there is mandatory direct-democracy in the creation of laws. It is much more practical to make direct democracy optional and allow it to reverse laws that have come out to be detrimental.