Well, lets take a look at history (yes, i know that Civ-3 is a game - not a history lesson, but a look of it anyway). Imagine yourself as an roman Caesar, who wanted to abolish both slavery and gladiator-games, and also tried to introduce democracy. First of all you would never come into question as an potential Caesar with these ideas. And if you nevertheless did, you be a laughing stock (at best) or, if you persisted; probably murdered. The "sign of the times" simply not mature enough for these ideas to grow.

On the other hand, history also tells us that if any civilization, however temporarily successfull it may be at the time - doesnt follow the slowly, but progressively changing time/era-related premises; it is bound to decline.
The premises im talking about is for example, the general historic progression from despotism to democracy; from warlike to anti-warlike feelings, and so on. There have been numerous backlashes, i know (Hitler/Stalin), but these are exceptions from the overall rule, often born out of extreme circumstances. The end result has often been an anti-climax: even more determantly anti-warlike, democratic, and so on.

Developing a Civ-3 civilization should also be just like that. Trying to balance your way trough this chancing premises. Pay to much attention to civilized development/government in early barbaric times, and you be unceremonisly replaced (murdered) by your own people. Your are considered being out of touch with the general ideas of any leaders main purpose: guiding hes people trough warlike conquering with militaristic honour/glory.
On the other hand, if your are too warlike (ancient- and medievel-style, there conficts sometimes seemed to be as regular as soccer-seasons) in modern eras you should running the severe risk of being replaced by your own people, as being a president who are out of touch with the general anti-ware mode.

quote: On the other hand, if your are too warlike (ancient- and medievel-style, there conficts sometimes seemed to be as regular as soccer-seasons) in modern eras you should running the severe risk of being replaced by your own people, as being a president who are out of touch with the general anti-ware mode.

I've just got one point - doesn't the powerful civs of the time define how the world's like? So if you brought up your civ to be militaristic and fundamentalist, then even in modern times your people should not then revolt against you - even if the rest of the world was completely democratic.

Besides, I think the idea could be a little to hard to implement the game...