Secondly, the title of "Caliph" is not some mythical position, ANYONE who rules the Muslims and takes charge of their affairs after the passing of the Prophet (saw), is technically his deputy/successor whether you call him "king" "sultan" or "president".
How do they succeed the position of Mohammad in what sense? In the sense of his spiritual authority: no. In sense of his religion authority: no.
But we have one last thing to check: Do they have the same political authority as the Nabi?
And I would say no, since you can question a political command of ruler per Sunnis and say it is not according to Shariah right?
So the ruler ends up being necessarily one that people must agree is implementing Quran and Sunnah or per your words, you can disobey him and must replace him if he is against Quran and Sunnah.
This shows it is more a job and is not holding the authority of the Prophet in either the matters of safety and peace regarding religion or political matters but rather is just entrusted to implement the will of the people as far Quran and Sunnah goes in their interpretation.
The question is government really suppose to be looked at something that is the position of a Prophet in any sense of the word?
From what I look at. There is two possible times for humans.
1) When infallible leader is present among them in their land and time and place and outwardly manifest.
2) When he is hidden.
I don't see any person having a portion in any authority of the Prophet which is divine authority.
Governing and ruling is more like a social contract. This is true whether people are duped into giving this contract out of fear or misguided or it is based on truth.
In this sense, I incline and agree with democratic anarchy. I think we have to see power for what it is, it is given by the people and hence it is people responsibility.... and people shouldn't look at as a top down thing.
The exception of course is the light of God and his command. That is an authority we have to obey. And a Messenger has proof of that authority, and so to succeed that, whether politically, religiously or spiritually, you have to proof that God gave you that position.
And that is one of the meanings of "King" and Talut (as) talk, is that Quran in a true sense, rejects kings except those who God chosen.
That is why Imam Hussain is careful in his words and says "those with knowledge (of the religion) are suppose to entrusted over the affairs of people" but didn't say they are kings or authorities.....
It is the same with an official or battle commander, they have a job to do, but if people see one of the governor during Mohammad time tell them to do something evil, they are suppose to disobey and tell the Rasool.
That is why really it is more of a job, and judging same thing, it's not that a judge on behalf of Rasool, has the same authority as Rasool. That is absurd. Not even a portion.
Rather he has a job to fulfill.
And people with knowledge should be responsible over the affairs of people, and when people who know leave it to ignorant people, darkness rules, and when people who know take responsibility, then the light is obeyed through their help.
But those who hold Authority of Moses in his people for example, they were those who had been made to be vicegerents and inherit the earth by God's proofs, and they were given the same manifest authority as Moses.
Anyways, carry on..... You don't have to respond if you don't want to.
But from what I read of good democratic anarchy. I agree, and I think Quran agrees with them when no manifest leader from God is present in many respects but they are still wrong in how knowledge should be sought and spread in society....