Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasm
IFor argument's sake let's give the Monarch an Administrative Rank 7, and a Member of Parliament an Administrative Rank 6.
|
I think that's where you've gone wrong. I'm arguing from analogy with the British system in the days when the Monarch had actual executive power. Basic Members of Parliament have nothing like that much Rank; they arguably do not have Administrative Rank at all, since they have no individual executive power, and are generally far less significant than members of the US Congress.
A Prime Minister may be "strong", with definite authority over his ministers, or "weak", first amongst equals in the senior ministers. One way to tell is if the senior ministers have a right to consult the monarch without going through the PM. The British system started with a relatively weak prime minister, but the role has gradually strengthened over two centuries.
That's another place where US experience is misleading: the authoritative US constitution was constructed in response to arbitrary behaviour by monarchs, at least in part. You won't find anything like that in a country with an executive monarch, and as a result, the actual, as opposed to formal, structures of government will evolve far more freely than they do in the USA.
I'd give a strong Prime Minister Administrative Rank 6, and his senior ministers Rank 5. Their junior ministers would have rank 4, as would the top levels of the civil service.
A weak Prime Minister still has Administrative Rank 6, and so do his senior ministers. Their junior ministers would have rank 5 or 4, as would the top levels of the civil service.
The actual operation of government is very strongly driven by influencing the monarch. A result of this is that the members of his household become important political positions.