Research Case: Why Is an Interregnum Indispensable for the Survival of the State, Even as a Temporary Measure?

1. Question

Why is an interregnum-like system indispensable for the survival of the state, even though it is only a temporary measure to fill the vacancy of kingship?

2. Abstract

An interregnum-like system is indispensable for the survival of the state because a vacancy in kingship is not merely the absence of a top leader. When kingship is the center of the state, the king’s absence shakes the chain of command, legitimacy, public approval, and succession at the same time.

If the vacancy of kingship is left unmanaged, the state does not simply wait until the next king appears. Rather, the community begins to lose clarity about who may issue commands, who may approve those commands as public decisions, and how far the existing order remains valid. This creates the risk of private conflict, factional struggle, rule by fear, and usurpation.

Therefore, an interregnum-like system is not merely a convenient way to fill a gap. It is a survival device that prevents the interruption of kingship from becoming the interruption of the state itself.

Another important point is that an interregnum is not meant to become a permanent form of rule. The Senate is suitable for continuity and rupture management, that is, for preventing a break in kingship from becoming a break in the state itself. However, because it is a collective decision-making body, it tends to make decisions more slowly than kingship. Therefore, the interregnum should not be understood as the completed form of permanent senatorial rule. It should be understood as a transitional device that maintains the state until the next kingship can be publicly restored.

The state must not die immediately when it loses the king. At the same time, it must not remain forever in a temporary system.

3. Method

This study follows the three-layer structure of Three-Layer Analysis.

In Layer 1, this study organizes as facts the events in Livy, History of Rome, Book 1 related to kingship, assembly, augury, sacred rites, legal order, symbols of authority, and the establishment of the Senate.

In Layer 2, these facts are connected to structures such as kingship, the Senate, public approval and civic recognition, the heavenly order, and the founding phase of the state.

This study also refers to OS Organizational Design Theory R1.30.14. From this viewpoint, the interregnum is not treated as a mere historical episode. It is reinterpreted as a transitional operation in OS succession design. Its function is to keep the OS from stopping when the critical Role of king becomes vacant.

On that basis, this study examines why the interregnum is indispensable for the survival of the state, and why it cannot become a permanent system. This is considered from the viewpoints of OS succession design, Control Variables, Access Modes, and the structural limits of the Senate.

4. Layer 1: Fact

What Layer 1 confirms is that in Livy, History of Rome, Book 1, kingship is not left as mere personal rule.

The rule of Romulus is connected to divine will through augury. It also obtains public form through assembly and approval. After becoming king, Romulus establishes sacred rites, legal order, symbols of authority, and the Senate.

This means that kingship is not simply the position of one powerful person. It is constructed as the governing center of the state, supported by multiple devices.

This also means that a vacancy in kingship is not a simple vacancy in personnel. When the king disappears, the central circuits of command, approval, succession, and legitimation become unstable at the same time.

Therefore, the need for a temporary system during a royal vacancy is not accidental. Because kingship is built as the center of the state, the state also needs a device that fills the rupture of kingship before that rupture becomes the rupture of the state.

5. Layer 2: Order

In Layer 2, the Senate is defined as a higher-level decision-making body that strengthens kingship while also carrying its legitimation and continuity.

Its logic is that, in the founding phase, the Senate functions as an aid to the king and as an approval device. However, when the throne is vacant, it becomes the ruling center itself. Its interface clearly includes the interregnum.

This shows that the interregnum is not an accidental exception. It is an extension of the structural role of the Senate. In normal times, the Senate supports kingship. In times of rupture, it becomes a temporary center that prevents the interruption of kingship from expanding into the interruption of the state.

The Purpose / Value of the Senate is to prevent the rupture of kingship and secure the continuity of rule. This shows that the role of the interregnum is not merely to buy time. Its true role is to manage a royal vacancy inside the institutional order.

If the state can continue to act as a public order even when the king is absent, then the rupture has not become disorder. The essence of the interregnum lies in this management of rupture.

However, the Senate cannot become a permanent substitute for kingship. Because it is a collective body, the Senate tends to make decisions slowly. The rapid judgment, concentration of responsibility, and unified crisis response that kingship can provide are difficult for the Senate alone to reproduce.

The Senate is strong in securing continuity. But it has limits in rapid decision-making, especially in a founding state or in a crisis. Therefore, the interregnum does not mean that the Senate has made kingship unnecessary. Rather, because the Senate alone has limits in the rapid operation of the state OS, an interregnum is needed as a transitional device until the next king can be established.

The structure of public approval and civic recognition also supports this transitional character. Public approval and civic recognition function as an approval device that transforms rule into the will of the community. A royal office or public position gains public form through civic approval.

From this viewpoint, the interregnum is not only a device for filling a vacancy. It is also a bridge that allows the next kingship to appear through public form rather than through usurpation. Its important function is to keep royal succession within institutional continuity instead of returning it to private struggle.

From the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory R1.30.14, this is the core issue of OS succession design.

When a User in a critical Role is replaced, the Role, Responsibility Area, Control Variables, and Access Modes must be safely transferred to the successor. A vacancy in kingship is the moment when this succession design is most exposed to danger.

If there is no succession design, the Control Variables attached to kingship can easily fall apart. These include Strategic Awareness, Information Flow Architecture, Human Resource Governance, and Decision-Criteria Validity. In other words, A, IA, H, and V may lose their operating center.

The interregnum can be understood as a temporary operation that prevents these Control Variables from dispersing completely. It maintains the minimum central function until the next king is formally established.

The same point can be seen from the viewpoint of Access Modes. Kingship enables rapid decision-making through Exclusive Control. However, when the king dies, that Exclusive Control is interrupted. If there is no device to respond to this interruption, the state OS loses central access.

In such a situation, the state may fall into one of two dangers. One is a state of no authority. The other is excessive private seizure of authority by a usurper.

The interregnum reduces this danger by creating a path of Shared Control, Corrective Access, and temporary centralization. It does not exist merely because “there is no king.” It exists as a safety device that allows the state to survive even when the exclusive center has disappeared.

6. Layer 3: Insight

An interregnum-like system is indispensable for the survival of the state because it prevents the rupture of kingship from becoming the rupture of the state.

A vacancy in kingship is not merely the absence of one person. It is a crisis in the central structure of the state. Command, approval, succession, and legitimation are all shaken at the same time.

The interregnum manages this crisis inside the institutional order. It preserves the minimum functions of succession, approval, and central rule. It also prepares the way for the next kingship to be restored through public form.

At the same time, the interregnum is only a temporary measure. The Senate can preserve continuity, but it cannot permanently replace the rapid decision-making function of kingship. Therefore, the interregnum is not the final form of senatorial rule. It is a bridge that keeps the state alive until the next formal center of rule can be rebuilt.

This is why the interregnum is temporary, yet indispensable.

7. Implications for the Present

This point also applies to modern organizations.

Modern examples include an interim CEO system, board-led transition management, and temporary executive structures during corporate reconstruction. These systems are necessary when the top leader is absent. Their role is to prevent the organization from stopping.

However, if the temporary system is mainly based on collective decision-making, it may be good at preserving continuity, but weak in speed and strong command. Therefore, in modern organizations as well, an interim system should not be treated as a permanent substitute for the formal governing center.

It should be designed as a transitional device until the next official center can be rebuilt.

In terms of OS Organizational Design Theory, this is a problem of succession design and Access Modes. What matters is not only that the OS does not stop when the top leader is absent. It is also important that the temporary system does not continue too long and reduce the response speed of the whole organization.

The interregnum shows both the necessity and the limits of a temporary governing center. This gives an important lesson not only for founding states, but also for modern organizations.

8. Conclusion

An interregnum-like system is indispensable for the survival of the state because a vacancy in kingship is not merely the absence of a top leader. It is a rupture crisis in the governing center itself.

The interregnum functions as a buffer that manages this crisis inside the institutional order. It prevents the interruption of kingship from becoming the interruption of the state.

However, senatorial rule tends to be slow because it is based on collective decision-making. Therefore, the interregnum cannot easily become a permanent system. It is not the completed form of senatorial rule. It is a transitional device that maintains the state until the next kingship can be publicly restored.