Disclaimer I in know way sanction or advocate creating tyrannies or totalitarian dicatorships. This is a thought experiment only.
As students of history and economics I ask what methods are the most successful in maintaining a Tyranny if those tyranny’s goals are 1) staying in power; 2) self-aggrandizement (i.e. my any means possible); and 3) maximzing the longevity of the state? Have at it.
This thought expirement can serve two purposes: 1) by brainstroming possible routs to tyranny one can spot them in politicians and seek to thwart then and 2) one can find the weaknesses in even the strongest tyranny to bring it down. You need to imagine the strongest tyranny possible and if one can eliminate that than one can eliminate any tyranny.
The “strongest tyranny possible” is one where a single mind controls everything. And I mean everything. A kind of arrangement like this would immediately break down.
States are like parasites. The most successful parasites are the ones that go unnoticed. Thus, if longevity is the concern, it is in the state’s interest to be as little of a burden to society as possible.
Create a democracy. This is the best long term way to convince people that they are free when really they are living under a totalitarian state. No body will really throw you of power our when they think they can throw you out by voting.
Make it obvious that the fall of your tyranny would bring to power a faction even more dangerous and cruel than your own regime. Then people will be compelled to protect your power.
No man is an island, even the king. To really hold onto power, your dynasty would have to be rooted in family ties/relations for reasons I explain here. I’ve been casually studying royalty since I wrote that article and I think there’s a lot more that can be learnt from it. Basically, the Royal families are the centers of a Club of rent-seeking and war-making elites (Nobility). Nobility can, but rarely does, become Royalty. The common man cannot become Noble or Royal, except perhaps through military service or some other extraordinary achievement. The Royals control the gates to the Club, that is, the conferral of noble title. It is the most important duty since the selection of new Nobility is what controls the quality of the Club’s gene pool. Which is to say that marriage is strictly confined within the Club. This serves several purposes. First, it keeps accrued wealth within the Club. Second, it controls the size (population) of the Club. Third, as already mentioned, it maintains the genetic quality of the Club. But entrance into the Club is a “don’t call us, we’ll call you” situation. Appearances aside, it is no different today than it was before the “modern” era.
The Nobility benefit from the existence of a Royalty because the Royalty provides executive leadership and vision. Royalty cannot exist without a phalanx of Nobility surrounding them, either. The Nobility share in the power of the Royals and help project that power outward and downward onto the commoners. Some of the Nobility serve administrative roles, receiving a steady income in exchange for stewardship work. Your average government bureaucrat is modeled on the administrative Noble. The most important Nobility, however, hold title to a share of the Crown’s property and earn their revenues from this. Think of this as kind of like “sub-letting” the Royal rents.
Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution have made life more challenging for the old order because merchants are accruing vast sums of wealth outside of the official network. But the death of the old order has been prematurely announced. With time, the Royalty and Nobility have adapted. Some have perished but the ones who survived have learnt their lessons. They now own businesses of their own. They are diversifying their holdings from just holding territory. Extraordinarily wealthy businessmen are frequently among those granted entrance to the Club.
Governments come and go. The Royalty and Nobility stay.
A constitutional monarchy would seem to me to offer the best chances for a long-term milking of the population. Pure democracies are far too unstable and tend to break down.