Did the Prime Directive Matter?

[Bad Thoughts]

After watching the video that fellow member Bry_Sincliar posted, I imagined what the JJ movies would have been like with DS9's characters. Perhaps it wasn't a difficult exercise: ISB wanted Trek to look epic, which is at least one thing Abrams achieved. However, I realized the dissonance between one scene in STID and the ethics of DS9 over the Prime Directive. The scene, of course, is the one where Pike dresses down Kirk and Spock for their actions Nibiru. Their counterargument was that the Prime Directive acted as a limiter to productive humanitarian action, unnecessarily condemning species to their doom when positive measures could be taken to save them. I'm sure many applauded at this affirmation of life over simple cultural preservation.

The scene would make no sense in DS9. Memory Alpha lists nine episodes in which the Prime Directive in which the Prime Directive was at issue (as opposed to 15 in TOS, 16 in TNG, and 23 in VOY). Arguably, many of the DS9 episodes listed don't really have the Prime Directive as a central focus of the episode. As far as I can tell, there are fewer than 6 mentions of the Prime Directive. Only once does Sisko make an issue of it (and arguably, it would have been a non-issue had Tosk asked for asylum). In three other instances, it is another character--Picard, Bashir, a badmiral--who bring it up. Quark makes a joke about Fergengi quoting the prime directive. Bashir complains that Section 31's actions were against "the Federation charter", which is somewhat more nebulous. That's it. The Prime Directive had almost no impact on DS9's stories, let alone the overall development of the series. Sisko became deeply entrenched in Bajoran culture, becoming a figurative deity. He was literally willing to use this in an effort to affect the political direction of Bajor in Call to Arms. And there were the notorious episodes like For the Uniform and Pale Moonlight, in which the the Prime Directive was not only not mentioned, it was jettissoned.

Did DS9 ignore the Prime Directive? Was it present in other ways? Was this another dimensions of being the anti-Trek? Or did it simply not matter to the stories being told?

 

[BillJ]

Did DS9 ignore the Prime Directive?

Ignore it? No. The stories just weren't geared in a manner it needed to be on the front burner.

 

[BillJ]

Though I think assassinating Vreenak would fall under interfering with the internal affairs of another culture.

 

[TwoJakes]

But the Romulans are not a "pre-warp" civilization. The Federation might easily have rules and laws against what was done in that episode, but the prime directive isn't that law.

Bashir complains that Section 31's actions were against "the Federation charter"

Would have been interesting to have Bashir explain in depth how preserving the Federation's very existance is against the Federation's charter.

Would on the surface seem to be a strange concept to insert into any charter.

Maybe it's like in Bread and Circuses, everyone in the Federation agrees to die, in order to uphold the letter of the federation charter (kind of harsh).

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Sisko uses the PD in "Shakaar", telling Winn that because of it he can't send personnel to hunt down Kira and Shakaar as it would be interfering in the internal politics of Bajor. Other than that, can't really think of any other instances.

 

[suarezguy]

The Prime Directive is one of the things which Trek has been pretty inconsistent about but I think it's fair that Behr and Moore and the other DS9 writers (probably aside from Piller) had a lot of disdain for the TNG version of the Prime Directive if not for the principle in itself, they certainly preferred the original show interpretation that too much interference is probably preferable to too little. Humanitarianism justifies giving assistance to less-advanced civilizations and self-interest justifies interference with those equally advanced.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

The Prime Directive is one of the things which Trek has been pretty inconsistent about but I think it's fair that Behr and Moore and the other DS9 writers (probably aside from Piller) had a lot of disdain for the TNG version of the Prime Directive if not for the principle in itself, they certainly preferred the original show interpretation that too much interference is probably preferable to too little. Humanitarianism justifies giving assistance to less-advanced civilizations and self-interest justifies interference with those equally advanced.

Call to Arms goes far beyond returning to the TOS PD. We don't see it, but I assume Sisko talked to the Bajoran Council of Ministers, reminded them of his dream of locusts from a few months back, and tells them to make a deal with the Dominion, the Cardassians and their former oppressor, Dukat. TOS had a lot of moments where violating the PD was deemed ok because interference had already occured, as in Private Little War. I don't think Call to Arms can fit in the same category.

 

[kkt]

Bajor is not a pre-warp drive civilization either. There are clearly some sort of laws about what Sisko can do on the planet, probably governed by the agreement that let Starfleet onto DS9, but it's not even potentially a Prime Directive matter.

 

[BillJ]

Bajor is not a pre-warp drive civilization either. There are clearly some sort of laws about what Sisko can do on the planet, probably governed by the agreement that let Starfleet onto DS9, but it's not even potentially a Prime Directive matter.

The Prime Directive became a catch-all for any kind of interference as the shows progressed.

 

[kkt]

Really, I don't remember that. Although I'm mainly famliar with TOS and DS9.

 

[BillJ]

From "Captive Pursuit":

SISKO: I've agreed to release him.
O'BRIEN: But sir, Tosk is an intelligent, living being.
SISKO: It's their custom, Chief. Under the prime directive, we have no right to interfere.
KIRA: What if Tosk were to request asylum?
SISKO: If he asks for it.

SISKO: Save it. You ignored your duty to Starfleet. You took off your comm. badge so you could ignore me. You even ignored the Prime Directive by interfering with their damned hunt. Another stunt like this and your wife won't have to complain about the conditions here anymore. Do I make myself clear?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Bajor is not a pre-warp drive civilization either. There are clearly some sort of laws about what Sisko can do on the planet, probably governed by the agreement that let Starfleet onto DS9, but it's not even potentially a Prime Directive matter.

From the mouth of Jean-Luc Prime Directive himself in the pilot:

Your job is to do everything short of violating the Prime Directive to make sure that they are [ready to join the Federation.

Presumably, it applies in some manner.

 

[kkt]

You're right. Good points. The PD is more nuanced that I thought (or writers got careless).

 

[Griffeytrek]

The Prime Directive is specifically and narrowly targeted to avoid interfering in undeveloped "pre-warp" situations. It is a rule governing exploration ships and crews.

Whereas DS9 was principally a fixed port in space. By the most basic definition the Prime Directive does not apply to anyone walking in the door. Even their first contact situations were almost always with advanced civilizations coming to them, or people that were already part of the galactic community.

In fact among the few times it is referenced in DS9 it would seemingly to have been done poorly. For example Tosk. Prime Directive should not have applied to him or those chasing him. They came to DS9. They don't get to bring their norms into Federation Space unchallenged. The Prime Directive would indicate that the Federation would not interfere with the Hunt on the aliens home world or their controlled space. But the Prime Directive does NOT mean they get to hunt outside those areas in F'ed space. It would not matter if Tosk requested asylum. As soon as he set foot on DS9 he and those chasing him were subject to Federation laws and protections. No asking required. The default "please don't hunt people" applied as soon as his ship cleared the wormhole. The writers screwed that one up. (They were still thinking in TNG terms.)

But yeah, it wasn't that it was ignored in DS9. It was simply that it did not apply frequently to their situation. Most stuff came to them, which immediately took the PD out of the conversation.

 

[Griffeytrek]

From the mouth of Jean-Luc Prime Directive himself in the pilot:

Presumably, it applies in some manner.

Like I said above. Early or initial DS9 they were still mainly writing for TNG. So they didn't quite grasp the nuance between active exploration, and those that come to you.

In the case from Emissary, the safe assumption is there are likely some provisions. Do Not Overthrow the local government or interfere directly in planetary politics. (Which honestly seems to be more a Federation Charter issue than PD.) the only ways the PD might apply would be regarding the transfers of advanced technology that could be weaponized. And even then that would seem to be more a "do not do this on your own. Wait for a government to government decision."

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's a ploy device. Some times the plot is breaking it. Sometimes it's about preserving it Either way we get some speechifying.

 

[Disco]

The prime directive does not specifically relate to pre warp civilisations. It is most commonly referred to in this manner but it covers interference in all other cultures. This gets slightly muddier when there are alliances and like Bajor the Federation has been invited to provide support.

If I remember correctly the Enterprise D couldn't directly interfere in the Klingon civil war due to the prime directive.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

It's a policy of non-interference in all cultures. In pre-warp ones it's so as to not pollute their development, whilst for warp-capable its to remain out of potential conflicts and political turmoil. If either of those mean that a species is decimated by natural or man-made means then that is just the way things were meant to go for them--that may sound callous but in the long run it would be the safest course of action for Starfleet.

Whose to say that the pre-warp culture Captain Smith saved, wouldn't become a power-hungry and barbaric race of conquerors who would go on to enslave hundreds of worlds for their own amusement.

 

[BillJ]

Whose to say that the pre-warp culture Captain Smith saved, wouldn't become a power-hungry and barbaric race of conquerors who would go on to enslave hundreds of worlds for their own amusement.

Whose to say that the kid you save from being hit by a bus doesn't grow up to be the next Hitler?

For me? You do the right thing in the here and now. Not based on what could happen hundreds or thousands of years from now.

 

[Takeru]

Whose to say that the pre-warp culture Captain Smith saved, wouldn't become a power-hungry and barbaric race of conquerors who would go on to enslave hundreds of worlds for their own amusement.

And who's to say they won't become a benevolent spacefaring species who saves hundreds of worlds from conquerors and unites them into an interstellar republic starting an era of peace and cooperation never seen before in the quadrant?

With your line of thinking starfleet could turn their sickbays into storage units. Why would you save people from death? It was meant to be and saving Ensign Ricky could lead to his grandson overthrowing the federation government creating an genocidal empire.

The prime directive as shown many times on post TOS Trek is callous bullshit, there's no nicer way to say it.