Jokes aside but what necessarily can be called a 'traditional' form of government?
I'm a bit confused as this society both distrusts mob rule and central government power. Then what it's between? Some form of libertarian minarchy? An 'every town its own republic' type deal where the government offloads as much a decision making as possible to its lower tiers?
Skallagrim is talking about monarchy here, or at least the Roman variant on it. The Princeps essentially wielded a lot of power but not absolute power, as is much the same for other monarchies. Indeed, until the Enlightenment, monarchical states had far less power than modern governments.
Tradition, especially in a macro-historical context, is "those cultural, social and political forms to which we always return". Human civilisational history being the product of human nature, you can discern the perennials. Some form of monarchy (whether referenced by that name or not) is practically the norm. Democracy, as understood nowadays (meaning
mass democracy) is invariably a brief exception that results in demagoguery, and then despotism.
Absolute monarchy, however, is likewise an exception, as is 'pure' aristocratic rule. (The reason, very briefly summarised, is that unchecked kings become tyrants, and unchecked aristocrats become plutocrats -- in both cases, the lack of balance upends the system.)
Throughout history, the norm for political primacy has been a balance between monarchs and nobles. That's historically 'normal', and therefore it is the 'traditional' form in practically every society. Of course, the ways in which this can be set up do vary, and generally speaking, the most stable forms are the most legitimate ones. In the West, our culture, the
basis of government remained remarkable legitimate for a thousand years. That's a good track record. This was done without veering into an unbalanced situation. Dynasties were replaced, bordes were shifted, and crowns changed hands -- but the underlying system and its assumptions remained acknowledged by most everyone.
Two secrets to this success. One, the Church. It provided a third leg, making a tripod, which is really very stable. If the monarch or the nobles or the clergy made a play for
too much power, the other two would unite against the too-ambitions one. This is a self-balancing system. Two, the relative 'openness' of the elite. Western aristocracy was more open to entry than most examples. commoners could ascend through their deeds, and be ennobled. More easily so than in most of history. This keeps the aristocracy honest. The same, by default, was true of the Church, whose clergymen weren't appointed by the secular power, either, and could (at least in principle) come from any background.
This remarkable stability was upset by the Reformation (which would have been a good thing, if it'd actually been a
reformation, rather than a
schism), because that opened the door for secular influence over the ecclesiastical power. balance was lost. Three centuries later, the world violently collapsed into an age of revolution-- in whose wake we still live.
Traditional government, then, is the rejection of the 'modern' ideas of government, and a return to stability. No more mass democracy, but keep in mind that an 'open aristocracy' and a 'noble republic' can be practically indistinguishable. This suggests that a more tradtional conception of republicanism can easily be retained; in fact, that's probably inevitable. It's not like all of the last centuries will be erased. The notion of decentralism and lots of local governance is right on the mark. The citizenry has a voice in local affairs, and most affairs are local. Meanwhile, at the 'top end' of the system, all politics are court politics, and they rarely interfere in the daily life of regular people.
That links to the distrust of both mob rule
and central government power. Right now, mass democracy is heading towards a crash. It also goes hand-in-hand with an ever-expanding government, that is involved in your daily life to an unprecedented degree. That involvement is still
relatively benign at present, but when the gloves come off, it'll be something you
don't want. (Think of China's social credit system.) So when this has finally run its course, I'm pretty sure the people will welcome a distant ruler that they never have to meet; whose taxes are not too burdensome; whose involvement in their daily existence is frankly minimal.