You can't just say, "Ignore the fact that everyone agrees our government is a republic. We're really a theocracy, honest!"
No one is ignoring it. If it was simply ignored I'd agree with you.
Because it has not been ignored, FR has had to change many of its policies. Basically, they are telling SA "We were wrong, we're sorry, mea maxima culpa, can you please tell us what we need to do to to get back in your good graces?"
And the Elders of SA have come up with a set of rules, using the occasion to try to impose those rules on other theocracies also (but that's another story that will only resolves when someone tries to call on those rules).
The Elders of SA could keeping coming up with rules, all more rigid and unreasonable than the last, as long as it is kept IC and SMA. After all these rules are just RPed rules within the religion. They have no game mechanic effet.
There are characters who don't want the sets of rules to apply to FR. That's fair. They could argue "Because FR was founded as a republic, I refuse to recognize them as a theocracy". That's a fair argument, and we could see where it leads IC. By bringing the "game mechanics trumps RP" card, the actual gameplay is stifled for no good reason. No one is suggesting to ignore any game mechanic. What is suggested is to extend a set of RPed religious rules to a republic because its ruler is willing to humour the religious Elder. No game mechanics comes into play in that.
"Hold a rebellion against yourself to change the DB" can't be one of these rules. It's not SMA. It would probably be against the rules for them to do that. I reiterate that "stop having elections" would be a perfectly fair rule. "Your ruler must step down" would also be one. "We will only consider it if the knights of Golden Farrow would spill the blood of the ruler to cleanse the realm" would also work. It's IC. But those who ask for that would have to live with it ICly; they don't get to say "game mechanics says no, so hey, not my fault!".
