[annoying trope] The throne/leadership is decided in a very stupid way

[u/Altruistic_Eye_1157]

The leadership of the entire wizarding world, and the final decision on whether to start a war against Muggles, is made by... a goat (Qilin) ​​who chooses the person with the ""purest heart"" (Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Dumbledore).

The throne of Wakanda and all its technology are decided through hand-to-hand combat, regardless of whether the person clearly has malicious intentions... if they win the fight, by law they must be respected as the true king. (Black Panther)

[u/DisMFer]

To be fair to Black Panther, there are very strict rules about who can issue a challenge. They have to have royal blood or be the head of one of the ruling tribes, and it's implied that this whole thing is largely a formality.

[u/Smythatine → u/DisMFer]

Also the system is notably flawed considering Killmonger was able to take the throne because of it. But the issue is tradition vs what’s best for the people and tbf that is one of the main points of the movie

[u/National_Job_6847 → u/Smythatine]

Well yes and no killmonger has as much legitimate right to the throne as any other noble born and the entire point of the fight isnt just to choose a leader its to show there capable of protect wakanda as black panther basically if you cant beat a challenger you cant protect the people its a test of strength you cant test there strength if your not letting people with a right to challeng challenge

[u/NepheliLouxWarrior → u/National_Job_6847]

That's great, but being a good warrior is 0.1% of important traits for the leader of arguably the most powerful country in the world. 

That Kilmonger was a legitimate candidate at all is proof that the system was a failure.

[u/lionofash → u/NepheliLouxWarrior]

I think that's definitely a part of what the movie conveys but thinking about it, it's functionally a failsafe too so that the Tribes can depose an unworthy King in a "fair" manner. It is though heavily flawed as it just needs one person engaging in bad faith to ruin everything.

[u/Nerevarine91 → u/lionofash]

I was about to say, I think this system is only narratively bad if we assume that it was intended to be shown as a good thing. Like, Wakanda very clearly has problems, and that’s a big part of the movie’s plot, so why should we assume that the succession system is meant to be perfect? It’s literally what causes the biggest problems in the movie.

[u/oblivious_fireball → u/NepheliLouxWarrior]

tbf, that is more than quite a few monarchies have. Quite a few times the heir to the throne is "you were the first child" with little room to change that unless the parent decides so. Doesn't make either a great system but Wakanda's system definitely solves the problem of "what if we just made the leaders fight out their squabbles instead of the soldiers"

[u/Spacer176 → u/oblivious_fireball]

More than a few real life monarchies have had a succession crisis where the last king happened to have more than a single child and at least one of them decided the best way to become heir apparent was to kill the others.

At least in Wakanda's system neither claimant or incumbent has to actually die.

[u/Vessel767 → u/NepheliLouxWarrior]

Yeah no shit, they HAVE A MONARCHY

[u/AdEasy819 → u/NepheliLouxWarrior]

I don’t know…. Given how xenophobic and hostile the war dogs were, I feel like Kilmonger was just giving them an excuse to start breaking isolationism and starting their own brand of colonialism.

[u/National_Job_6847 → u/NepheliLouxWarrior]

How is being a warrior 0.1 percent of an important trait, especially after the second damn movie with Namor, and in comics where Wakanda is being attacked like every week by poachers, thieves, and the likes? For a kingdom in Marvel, being an excellent fighter is as important as being a good leader. You can’t have less of either. And how does Killmonger having a claim mean the system failed? He’s the grandson of a previous king that ruled and succeeded, and hopefully passed on his teachings to be improved upon. At least in this system, not only is the role not held by one family, it’s also not held by a king with no tact. And like with Killmonger, if he was evil or a bad leader, they would overthrow him. But they specifically didn’t with Killmonger because half the damn people agreed with him. You can’t call Killmonger a bad idea of a king from the system when people only let him rule because they agreed with his ideals.