Going ALL the way back to the OP, on page 1, I had to smile a bit. First, the author gives a thoughtful, detailed treatment of how government systems have been implemented in the games in the Civ franchise. Next, a proposal which shares some (not all) of the key points that our verbose colleague has made: the will of the people expressed as demands for changes in policies or government elements. I hadn't read it thoroughly until today. I would welcome the "feedback" of the governed as a possible feature in the political system in Civ7. It should not be SO tied to real world history that it affects the fun of the game.
Way back in post 249, I articulated a similar idea with fine-grained attributes for each of the game's population points, where they might revolt or might need to be mollified/satisfied. All through this forum, many people have advocated for fine-grained choices in governments and policies. Several people noted the differences between civics, ideologies, economic policies & models, and leadership models.
Each of these items, indeed, each of these choices affects the fun that players have with the game. Sid intended the franchise to have the player make interesting decisions. Player agency is a key part of all video games. With too much complexity, new players whose first Civ game is Civ7 will face a learning curve. With too little variety in the civics or policies that may be chosen, the political system becomes much less important. My favorite example is Civ3, where most players make exactly one government change in any one playthrough.