Yarvin's vision of "monarchy" is more aptly described as "CEOism"; that is, a chief executive officer presides over the country (or corporation, or social group, or church, or non-profit), subject to a oversight by a board of directors (which has the power to remove the CEO). To mix it with democracy---and since salus populi suprema lex esto---it's a good idea to have a periodic "approve or disapprove" election, a plebiscite on the CEO/(King). The board of directors would be obligated to replace the CEO if the plebiscite yielded a thumbs-down decision by the people. This is the type of system Russia appears to have now, as does El Salvador. There are other examples out there.
Whether this was ever the system Russia was in, it's certainly not the system it's in now. United Russia is not a real political party. They're a group of lickspittles incapable of independent thought or action. They were founded as such. The only reason the party exists was to keep Putin's predecessor out of prison.
Yarvin's vision of "monarchy" is more aptly described as "CEOism"; that is, a chief executive officer presides over the country (or corporation, or social group, or church, or non-profit), subject to a oversight by a board of directors (which has the power to remove the CEO). To mix it with democracy---and since salus populi suprema lex esto---it's a good idea to have a periodic "approve or disapprove" election, a plebiscite on the CEO/(King). The board of directors would be obligated to replace the CEO if the plebiscite yielded a thumbs-down decision by the people. This is the type of system Russia appears to have now, as does El Salvador. There are other examples out there.
Whether this was ever the system Russia was in, it's certainly not the system it's in now. United Russia is not a real political party. They're a group of lickspittles incapable of independent thought or action. They were founded as such. The only reason the party exists was to keep Putin's predecessor out of prison.