The Military's Head
I think the military's chief commander (one who is not the country's head) is one of the more complex positions to box in developing countries. You could argue that the military's chief commander holds the most might in the land. When the military's chief commander is not the land's head (president/king/emperor/prime minister), the position is difficult to control because it is one coup away from being the land's head (NB: in developing countries) & unfortunately a land usually only has one army. Developed nations don't have the problem of military coups because most people are satisfied with how things are in the land & their military is often paid well.
It is important for the land's head to either be the military's head or for the land's head to be on good terms with the military's head. In some lands, you'll find that the land's head makes the military's chief commander their brother or in older & more tribal days, the emperor would have a highly equiped & trained military regiment made up of just his family that might act as his bodyguards or backup military should all else fail or if the imperial army fell under leadership of a rebel chief commander. The above is why I think all monarchs should have a career in the land's military.
Mthoko M. Mpofana
COULD A TRIUMVIRATE WORK IN TODAY'S WORLD?
In the beginning stages of the Roman Empire it was said to be governed by a triumvirate i. e. three heads. This sounds like a good idea, if one king/emperor strays out of line, the other two could bring him back. The problem with this is that it would take the three heads reaching a conclusion before anything was done in the land which may not even be that long seeing as kings often consult with even more than two advisors at a time. We've heard of a land being run by two princes & most lands either have a president & vice president or both a prime minister & president. Three heads are better than two, it would not be a parliament within a parliament but rather a more consistent & lasting form of governance. If one leader dies or cannot rule, the other two remain & bring in the third ruler. In the case all three perish, the son continues from where the father left off. Three is also better than four or five because with four kings ruling the land, power becomes almost too delegated to the extent that many might not know who's running what or who is the head. A triumvirate is apt. If we borrowed the concept of democracy & Africanised it, a rule by triumvirate can equally be Africanised. Sure, one leader may stand out & the legislature around this type of monarchy may be complex but it is more solid, consistent & lasting from my perspective. Should there be any quarrels between the three kings, they could be solved in private by the extended royal family or even in parliament should the dispute be on national matters. One other factor to consider in this triumvirate rule is that there would almost be no need for a prime minister. A strong triumvirate could make for a ferociously strong land & even a divided triumvirate could be better because it's still three heads.
Mthoko M. Mpofana