This is a lovely article. Sets a high standard for these country-specific social studies pieces, like my too-long in progress Japan/History. I have a couple of questions though. Between the vague CIA definition, and your very detailed definition, I think we should have a phrase that concisely summarizes Brunei's government, if only because it's so unusual. ( A GDP per capita of, what, 25,000 US? And not a democracy. ) Do you think that an "Effectively near absolute monarchy?" would be right? Or "effectively absolute monarchy?" Or is it even near-absolute? I'm not sure exactly how absolute it is, because all I've read just gushes over the fact that the Sultan built a free amusement park. And has a big house. I'm fairly sure there's no legislative body with any real degree of power, so I suppose the only thing standing in the way of absolute monarchy would be the Judiciary, of which I don't know much.
Actually, now that I read what I wrote, this seems to be more a question for my benefit than for the article's. Well I suppose that's just another plus of patronizing Wikipedia, eh?
Also, for the articles' sake, I've got something else. On independence under a British-written constitution ( that called for a government in the British mold ), didn't the Sultan immediately dissolve the parliament that the constitution mandated? Or maybe he stripped them of power. Whichever, it was in 1984 as I remember. I think that ought to get a mention if I remember the facts right. That's why I'm asking you, as matter of fact, because you seem to have a lot more of the facts a lot straighter than I do. I don't want to post anything too outrageously wrong.
Well, I do very much appreciate the vote of confidence, but I didn't write the article--I cut and pasted it from the Department of State website, which offers info in the public domain on various countries (unless it's got a copyright notice on that page; otherwise it's free/free). But so unfortunately I can't answer your question. I'm really not very informed about various countries; I just think it's a valuable resource to have on Wikipedia. Someone probably should go over them asking questions and starting discussions; I've only removed glaring biases and attempts at propaganda; I imagine there are several scattered throughout, a bit submerged.
BTW, there's more info on the porting here, if you're interested. I don't mind doing it myself, but I wouldn't mind additional help either. :-)--KQ
Oh, ah well. I suppose that means I'll have to look into it. I've been so busy lately though that I need to get this Japanese History article out of the way ( I just got back to school a few days ago. ) Porting seems like a good idea. This article is probably much more accurate than anything I can write. Especially to get things started up. This Japaneses history thing needs to get done first though.