[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

When the opinion of a sole man is all that matters, headway can be much more quickly made if that man has the right ideas. The trade-off between Monarchy and Democracy is fundamentally between efficiency and representation. I'd argue, though, that it was Charles' very lack of power that lead to the oppression of Britannia's conquered countries.

Britannia was supposed to be a nation built on merit: fundamentally, the strong should be rewarded. On a national level, this was expressed through Britannia conquering other countries and stripping them of their names and their cultures: as Britannia triumphed over them, their policies/culture were stronger, and thus participating citizens were forced to acknowledge this and join the system as 'Honourary Britannians'. In conception then this should have been an absorptive process: by converting the economies/militaries of conquered countries to the superior standard of the Britannians, both Britannia and the conquered country itself are strengthened. Honourary Britannians, having abandoned their past pride and national identity, become fully indoctrined in the Britannian 'system of merit' and blend seamlessly into their society.

However, the obstacle to this sort of system lies in the inherent human instinct of self-preservation. Notably exemplified by the practice of 'inherited nobility', once people have obtained wealth or power, rather than continuing to strive for merit to warrant their rank and status, they turn to sabatoging and oppressing those below them in order to protect their own position. This corruptive influence leads to a setup where those in power are not truly strong, and do not truly work to benefit the nation, but rather desperately and insinuously act solely for self-gain and preservation. It is only in the interest of these people that oppression and inequal treatment of conquered citizens continue (less competition).

Charles is the architect of these policies. It's not his lack of power that creates oppression. He created it himself upon coming into power. You can't blame others for what he created. In this case the man in charge was in no way going to abide by equal rights and all that.

Furthermore, Honorary Britannians aren't the same as full citizens. They don't have the same rights or opportunities. They aren't folded in, just given a slightly decent life. They're turned into grunts that aren't even allowed to carry guns (in other words , fodder).

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

Charles' enemy was the self-serving behaviour and ideologies of the aristocracy. Aside from that, he (and more fundamentally Britannia) supported an idealogy of merit that would reward anyone, no matter their class, who could benefit the nation. Equal opportunity for those who had submitted to the Britannian system would thus be a good thing; there is no reason why Charles would have opposed the SAZ. To the contrary, in the past, Charles very likely would have pursued reforms in precisely this vein of thought only to eventually despair and be crushed by the self-interested resistance by the aristocracy. That's why, in the Britannian monarchy, I'd say that it wasn't that Charles had too much power, but rather too little of it.

I don't see where you're getting these ideas from. Charles was the one supported the unequality, so much so that he outright preaches it and mocks the EU for practicing the reverse. It wasn't any lack of power. He had all the power. His whim is their command. ("Conquer the Chinese Federation? Sure thing." More or less.) Even though Charles may not have believed in such ideals at his core, he more than happily ran with them in pursuit of his own goals.

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

As for the success of the SAZ: by principle of merit, Suzaku rose up to become Euphemia's knight. By principle of merit, Zero was also offered a chance to lead it. Under the banner of Suzaku's 'numbered Knighthood' and Zero's hero of justice, the entirety of Japan could have been rallied to engage in building a future within Britannia. From the Britannian side, Euphemia has the protection of the Governor General of Japan, her sister (who, even if she disagreed with the principle, would never allow the achievement Euphemia surrendered her right of ascension for to be destroyed by petty political sabotage), and the Prime Minister of Britannia, Schniezel, who equally (as a leader) believes in rewarding merit over self-interest. With her 'knight' Suzaku defending Euphie from assassination and Lelouch as a navigator through the depths of political intrigue, the SAZ could well have survived, and eventually opened a path to widespread reform (especially if they got Charles onboard).

Merit didn't land Suzaku in the Lancelot, luck did, and from there on he has a super-advanced death machine and is mostly outside the chain of command. He couldn't go anywhere but up, because no one had any say in how he was chosen. The system would never allowed him to pilot the Lancelot normally. Friendship with Euphie landed him the Knight spot more than skill did. Euphie wasn't giving Zero the chance to lead the SAZ, she wanted his help in making it work. Furthermore, merit isn't what motivated this, it was family matters.

Cornelia was only helpful to the extent that she felt her position demanded. She was not in any way happy about it. She's also staunchly supportive of Britannia's policies. Schneizel was only helpful to the extent that it served his interests to be. Neither of these people would fight tooth and nail to keep Euphie's SAZ alive in the face of opposition unless there was significant benefit to do so. If placating the opposition proved a more advantageous move than inciting minor terrorism, Schneizel would roll with it.

Even assuming it did get under way, they would never have gotten Charles on board. This isn't a man who is tolerant with concession. They lost one battle against the Black Knights in the Chinese Federation and he demanded the entire country. There's also no incentive to implement it anywhere else. Japan may be getting uppity, but the rest of their territories know when to bow down and it would not serve their interests to reward them.

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

As I said, the incentive is economic growth and public peace. If you take terrorism as a function of the discontent of the people, then obviously there should be less terrorism where opportunities like the SAZ are available, and more where there isn't. Even if the terrorism is no longer of the organized sort like Zero lead that threatened to disrupt their hold on the entire nation, it would still be infinitely better to have no terrorism at all.

But, as is demonstrated, Britannia is ok with a certain level of discontent. Arguably it even serves their purposes. It makes them seem strong to crush these losers. Zero was a bother because he was a threat. Remove the threat and the regular discontent is something they'd put up with precisely because they could put it down.