So the form of government I have in mind and need name for is that the nation itself has an all powerful ruler (Emperor) However, s/he is no tyrant (If it matters) and the day to day politics and law making is run by a parliament of sorts with people chosen by the emperor because of their skills in various areas to complement his/her rule so the nation may prosper.

So is there a name for a governmental form such as this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government

If I understood half of it and if any of them where any clear cut I would, thus making this thread a bit redundant don't you agree

this is a political discussion, but it sort of sounds like a system used in England, if slightly different..

That sounds like a dictatorship to me. It's not a monarchy because the leader is not placed based on bloodline, but if a successor would have to be a blood heir, then it would be a monarchy.

You're describing a benevolent dictator. That a dictator lets others run affairs under him in a parliament-type structure is irrelevant if he picks who gets to hold those parliamentarian positions.

Very different, because the Queen has barely any power at all except for ceremonies.

Autocracy, I would think.

exactly, and i'm not sure if she appoints members to Parliament, it is close, but not the same...

:facepalm:

We elect our members of parliament. Its not a dictatorship.

Rohugh was in here before so I think this is skirting the borders some. But I don't see any harm in asking for help in naming the above described form of government if that is what we all stick to. Which as mature people I'm confident that we can

Edit: Please keep it on track people :foodndrink:

Yep, that's what I would say.

exactly.

Constitutional monarchy.

You could model it on what the Estates General of the French imposed on Louis XVI by giving him the right of veto. As long as the monarch is sound of mind and is able to control or at least wield some sort of bargaining power over the parliment, this can work. Alternatively, you could go the route of the English consitutional monarchy. Whatever you do, do not go down the route that Russia went - the Duma was a joke and it took until Soviet Order Number 1 to bring some sort of regularity to the shambling mess that was the Russian government.

A monarch that can rule under this system is essentially a figurehead though. Much of the action, as it were, happens between elected members of the houses. The French Estates General consisted of equal parts nobility, clergy and elected deputies. These deputies finally revolted and formed various parties, killed people, instigatived the Convention, the Assembly and finally the Committee before finally setlling on Consuls. First Consul for Life, General Bonaparte was pretty famous.

Yes, I think it would be a Constitutional Monarchy. Although most modern ones are democratic, they don't necessariliy have to be in order to be one.

Hmm... Well the emperor is more or less the focal point of his people. If you speak to the emperor you speak to the people. And as long as they are happy, he and his family can still rule. If not their run out. But I think that's more of a revolution thing.

Edit: Typo

Edit #2: Could you call Theocratic rules and laws a constitution if they dictate what one can and cannot do as a ruler? If so a Con-Mon is perfect

You're after a form of government where a single individual ultimately has all the power, but he/she/it chooses a group of people to run the country for them, yes?

If so, then I'm pretty sure that falls into the category of 'Autocracy'.

Well I talked to some other people I know and Constitutional Monarchy it is because of the religious laws that dictate how he/she rules cannot be overturned and basically form the nations constitution.

Well then that's settled. Thanks for the help, people

OK, so before this drags down into politics proper we will apply the power of the moderators and close it.