Good bad rulers

There will be anarchy and a mess - the herd needs a shepherd ... Jews will live even better - until the GOI revolts ...

I will repeat for the user above.
Only anarchy. There will be riots at the beginning, and then the leaders of the country will be identified and try to help.

Well ... Basically, the expected answer.
The question of what flock can live without a shepherd. German, Russian, American, Chinese ...?

Vanya Rygalov
No herd can live without a shepherd. People themselves are guided .... As a result, someone equally lonely accepts his rules and enters his game, they gather in groups, but they stand out. They have their own life positions and they do not obey the rules of life, they are trying to create their own state, where there are no rulers and subordinates, there are only independent people, but we forget that people who are strong in character cannot constantly live together, cannot share their space with Someone all people are like that, and sooner or later that leader appears who created a certain subculture. He created it, which means he dictates the rules, he leads everything, and these people who joined him become led only because they obeyed his laws .. As a result, everything will return to normal ...

As a result, everything will return to normal ...
Will a new shepherd be elected?
Let's try to create a logical chain.
A good, well-fed flock loses its shepherd. Chooses a new one and ...
begins to live better, worse, or as before?
A poor and hungry flock loses its shepherd. Chooses a new one and ....
starts to live better, worse or as before?

Is the quality of the herd itself taken into account when determining the degree of its welfare? Or does it all depend on the shepherd?

I don’t understand what is the essence of the question?
There TN rulers Presidents potentates, and has administrative staff (do not know what to call it correctly, but so be it.)
If you remove the first, in normal countries, de facto, nothing will change, because the established system, people in office work, and apart from small public unrest, it is unlikely that anything will happen. The second option is more difficult, but with sensible people it will throw the economy from side to side for a couple of years, but everything will return to normal. It is more difficult to predict with abnormal ones, because there any of the options may end in a way that cannot be imagined.

Vanya Rygalov
They are starting to live worse. And depends on the shepherd. In addition, it is very easy to destroy the old, but to create a new one ...

there will be a factor of surprise and a net for fear
finally, in a purely hypothetical situation, the wisest men will choose a new leader of the village and a shaman
and everything will become as before

SpoilerNot a herd can
do without a shepherd,
literally and figuratively.
A chicken coop is bad without a rooster.
Such thoughts arise.
The difference between people and the herd is that they choose a
shepherd for themselves
.
Mistakes in choice lead to trouble,
Or even to death push.
A person is gullible
By nature.
It is not difficult to deceive him.
Believing the political about the wagon
Will pull the strap of stupidity.
What's the use - The power to blame?
Believing - to take offense at someone.
Do you want to
live well, decently? -
Try to make mistakes less often.

Vanya Rygalov
"A good, well-fed flock loses its shepherd. Chooses a new and ... A
poor and hungry flock loses its shepherd. Chooses a new one and ...."
Not a single flock can choose a shepherd - this is the privilege of people. No one will ask the timidly bleating cattle which shepherd they would like to see guarding the order in the herd.

No one will ask timidly bleating cattle ...
Timid cattle? Is it not the one who, in one large northern country at the beginning of the 20th century, destroyed his shepherd along with his entire family?
And what, after that, life became better?
And this ... The people are a herd, the rulers are shepherds. I believe that everyone understands what an allegory is.

By the way, I would still like to read a well-known saying that is ideally suited for this hypothetical situation. In politics, we are all masters, but in life ...

Vanya Rygalov A
bull, too, can sometimes gore to death, while the rest, for the most part, will remain timid cattle.

Vanya Rygalov
"The question is - how will the life of the people inhabiting these countries change?"

Will not change in any way. Power is not one person, but a large group of people.

If we talk about individuals, let's say
In democracies, early elections will begin, and there will be different candidates from different parties. In dictatorships, internal party squabbles. The winner is the one who managed to transfer to his side all power structures such as the army and the secret police. In monarchies, it all depends from the presence of the heir, if he does not, all this will result in a change of regime, or a change of dynasty.

If we talk about the entire apparatus as a whole, it will depend on what the world in the country is built on.

There are no more people who can be praised or scolded for their standard of living.
Others will take their places. Or a war for people's power with their own people

In an absolute monarchy, of course, the king determines a lot. But all the same, the heir will inherit the ministers, advisers, and other important people. It is generally accepted that Peter 1 changed Russia. But in fact, he continued what his father did, and the older brother Fyodor who ruled before him. Contacts with the West did not begin with Peter 1. Russia has always been in Europe and the general European processes have always affected Russia, which has always participated in them, and "cut a window" is a cliché that does not correspond to history.

The townsfolk vote.

The first time I thought in this direction was when I read the memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. An important idea came to me. A leader cannot be a pro in all directions that he "supervises", but he can choose the right people who will be the very pros in exactly the places where they should be. Strictly speaking, these same pros will exist without a leader. Whether in those positions and in their places? Unlikely. The leader himself forms his environment. The standard of living will change from one ruler to another, and so on and so on.

What the army told me personally. Society is always a matter of power. One way or another, the leader will be.
If "leaders" don't become one good day, it's a "good day to die". The herd will be slaughtered. From the inside or outside.
Uncle Berkem, I think, will completely agree with me.

Well, if we imagine that the entire ruling vertical will not disappear at all. Those. not only kings, presidents, kings, but also dumas, rads, parliaments and local city mayors. Steampunk will begin, that's what will happen. In civilized countries, the city-forming corporations will start a war for the redistribution of spheres of influence. In the banana republics, the military will rule everything. Well, of course, if a manager or a military man is at the helm, whose goal is only power, loot and new territories, then for the common people this will not end well.

Protestant Knight
You got caught here.
"Well, if we imagine that the entire ruling vertical will not exist at all. That is, not only tsars, presidents, kings, but also dumas, rads, parliaments and local city mayors."
There will remain the head of the Church and comrades who sympathize with him, who will not miss the chance to organize a theocratic state.