Federation planets and internal revolution

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by montag01, Nov 8, 2012.

  1. montag01

    montag01 Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Hi all. I wanted to know if there were any episodes, books or other ST media that addresses this issue: hypothetically, what's supposed to happen if the government of a Federation planet collapses, resulting in the rise of a dictator or some other government that likely doesn't espouse Federation principles? Is that planet thrown out of the Federation? If I understand right, the Federation itself is not supposed to intervene in member planets' internal affairs. Thanks.
     
  2. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    TOS had The Conscience Of The King, and there was Tasha Yar's home world (whose name I forget).

    :)
     
  3. Sci

    Sci Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    I think the best way to answer this question is to ask what would happen if the government of one of the German länder, provinces of Canada, or states of Australia, were to be taken over by a dictator like that. They're all federations, after all. Would the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada, or Commonwealth of Australia tolerate such a state of affairs?
     
  4. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    If the revolution was a popular one with the planet's general population, that would be a factor. Should the new state fall too far outside the criteria for being a Federation member, the collective membership could decide to expel that world (or collection of worlds) from the Federation.

    On the other hand, if they do change to a significant degree, but they remain in close association with enough individual Federation members, say a group of regional trading partners, then they could hang onto their membership.

    :)
     
  5. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    I've actually wondered how the Federation would handle the issue of secession.
     
  6. The Overlord

    The Overlord Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Well the Maquis were eventually planning to become a separatist force, after they got rid of the Cardassians in the DMZ, they were planning on declaring those colonies in the DMZ a independent nation. I'm not sure what the Federation could have done to stop them.


    Well the province of Quebec has held two referendums on whether to become a sovereign nation, so there have been seperatists movments in one of the countries you mentioned.

    Also a colony or a Federation world need not become a dictatorship to have values that oppose the Federation's. The Maquis' ultimate plan was to have the colonies in the DMZ separate from the Federation, because they felt the Federation has failed to protect them. Would Eddington had been a dictator or started a democratic government in this new nation? We may never know.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
  7. Sci

    Sci Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    Democratic secessionist movements that seek to gain support through referenda are not the same thing as coups d'etat that result in dictatorships, which is what the OP asked about.
     
  8. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    I think a planet would lose membership in the Federation if its government collapses and be left alone to sort itself out. It's possible that a planet could re-apply for membership if it does so or be hands off if it doesn't, IMO.
     
  9. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    One may also want to consider that today's federal entities are geographically compact, whereas some key UFP colonies are spatially isolated from the "capital" or "core" worlds and may fall out of contact for an entire year before any action is taken. If the Falklands seceded from Great Britain, or Hawaii or Guam from the United States, much would depend on whether the motherland had the resources to force the issue - this in turn depending on who was backing the new government, overtly or covertly.

    The UFP might choose to save face by "throwing out" a colony that has de facto seceded and perhaps also moved to the side of an enemy the Feds dare not challenge over something this insignificant. OTOH, rebellion at a completely irrelevant colonial holding might warrant a major military disciplinary action if a powerful foe might otherwise gain key territory or make the UFP lose face.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  10. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Likely nothing, especial since (imo) they were never actual Federation members in the first place, but non-alined colonies with Federation citizens.

    Going back to the eighties, the (non-canon) technical manuals and the booklets that went with the role playing games often gave different numbers for the number of members in the Federation. Some had it as high as fifteen hundred members in the 23rd century.

    So, instead of the Federations membership gradually and steadily growing to the one hundred and fifty plus figure that Picard mentioned in FC, the Federation might have been considerably larger at some point in it's history, and then there were a series of secessions that eventually reduced it total membership to around one hundred and fifty.

    Some fans think that the Federation changed between TOS and TNG, becoming a more consolidated federal state, with a strong central organized government. (I never saw this) This might have driven out the majority of the sovereign minded, independant members leaving only about ten percent in the membership by the 24th century.

    Picard in a few episodes did seem to be actively recruiting for new members. And they were considering Bajor for membership, even through Bajor didn't seem to be able to bring much to the party. We also heard and saw the Federation fighting border wars to hang on to territory.

    The federations boundries look to be farther out in the 24th century, but how much of it former interior was composed of former members? Hopefully friendly.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  11. Drago-Kazov

    Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Do we know why did Turkana 4 end up the way it did?
     
  12. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    It was called an "Earth colony", and was said to have "severed relations with the Federation". Sounds like it never was part of the Federation, but merely had relations with it - but this could be a fancy wording for secession, too.

    We know the government "fell apart" and gave way to a number of factions infighting in a way that destroyed the single known surface settlement. Two factions were subsequently supported by what remained of the government so that they could act as law enforcers. The original differences of opinion between the two factions were never explicated, but supposedly these would have reflected the differences that originally tore the government apart; presumably, one government faction supported one of the powerful gangs, another supported the other, and ultimately the gangs outgrew the need for an ostensibly joint government.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  13. Drago-Kazov

    Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Did a lot of women ran away from there? Otherwise idon't see why it would be famous about it's rape gangs.
     
  14. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Famous for its rape gangs? How so? Tasha Yar on one occasion said it had such, but that doesn't yet amount to any sort of "fame".

    Also, why would a witness to rape gangs' existence need to be a woman on the run?

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  15. Pavonis

    Pavonis Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Where'd you get that idea?

    First, the Prime Directive was a standing order for Starfleet personnel to not interfere with the development of primitive cultures, to basically not set themselves up as gods to primitive natives.

    Then, the Prime Directive became the Federation's foreign policy?! Don't interfere with Klingons. Don't interfere with the Romulans. Hell, Picard told Sisko that he couldn't violate the Prime Directive with respect to Bajor, even though Sisko's mission was to bring the Bajorans into the Federation! If that's not interference in the affairs of a world, I don't know what is!

    Now supposedly the Federation can't interfere with the affairs of its own members? What's the point of joining, then? Why does the Federation exist? What use is it if it can't do anything?
     
  16. The_Baron

    The_Baron Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Location:
    Bournemouth, UK
    Was there not a plan to have Vulcan secede from the Federation during the Dominion Wars in DS9?
     
  17. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Supposedly, the point is that Starfleet can't interfere. Which is rather sensible: soldiers should not be given the right to make policy decisions! But politicians probably can interfere at every level, including deciding that a certain primitive world is to be contacted. It's just that no Starfleet officer can make such decisions on his or her own.

    A ban on Starfleet interfering with Federation member world affairs was established in TOS already, in "Cloud Minders" where leader Plasus of the member world Ardana threatens to report Kirk's attempts at interference to Kirk's Starfleet superiors.

    Now, Starfleet also appears to serve as the sole police force of the Federation, making it a bit inconvenient that they can't "interfere"...!

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  18. Pavonis

    Pavonis Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    If the Federation doesn't want their Starfleet officers to set policy, they shouldn't let starship captains act as diplomats-at-large and wandering goodwill ambassadors.

    In the case of Bajor, if Sisko wasn't supposed to be in charge of organizing the effort to bring Bajor into the UFP, then there should've been a civilian official or officials from the government to take care of the details. But even at the signing ceremony for Bajor's entrance to the Federation ("Rapture"), we saw more Starfleet brass than civilian officials.

    Seems like the UFP is a Starfleet dictatorship, don't it?
     
  19. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Cloud Minders.

    If a member asks for help, then as a member they would likely receive it. Or if they are invaded or something along those lines. But if a member wishes to treat a problem as a internal matter, then the Federation should remain at a distance.

    High Councilor Plasus also said something like; "Federation council orders can not supersede a local government." Not a exact quote.

    Seem to me that Starfleet are the general errand boys, not just military operations and exploration, they basically do (almost) everything that need to be done.

    In Amok Time, Starfleet sent three (or was it four) Starship crews to a corination/swearing in ceremony on some planet.

    A little showing of the flag.

    :)
     
  20. Pavonis

    Pavonis Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    I dunno. If the trend of increasing the scope of the Prime Directive continues in-universe, as it seems to be doing out-of-universe (what with some fans assuming non-interference is the Federation's sine qua non) the Federation will see itself fall apart due to passiveness.