Does TNG depict the federation as a military dictatorship?

[pallas]

While I haven't re-watched all of TNG recently, from what I recall, there's never a suggestion that there is a civilian government or that the federation is a democracy. As far as I remember, the important decisions seem to be made by Admirals, without any suggestion that they are taking orders from some sort of elected representative or that they are answerable to the civilian population at large.

I realize there's a reference to a president in DS9 and elsewhere, but is there ever a suggestion that the federation is a democracy in TNG itself?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There’s no indication the Federation controls local governments.

 

[XCV330]

There’s no indication the Federation controls local governments.

Until you have starfleet putting New ORleans under martial law

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Until you have starfleet putting New ORleans under martial law

Didn’t the elected president sign off on that?

 

[Christopher]

No, it's not a military dictatorship; it's just selection bias. The only view we get of the Federation is through shows that focus on its military, so of course we only get to see its military side. If your only exposure to the United States were through shows like Baa Baa Black Sheep, Gomer Pyle, M*A*S*H, and JAG, you'd probably think the US was a military dictatorship.

And of course, the whole plot of DS9: "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" is about a Starfleet admiral scheming to lead a coup against the existing civilian government and replace it with a military dictatorship. So it bewilders me when some people cite that as "evidence" that the dictatorship already existed.

 

[pallas]

No, it's not a military dictatorship; it's just selection bias. The only view we get of the Federation is through shows that focus on its military, so of course we only get to see its military side. If your only exposure to the United States were through shows like Baa Baa Black Sheep, Gomer Pyle, M*A*S*H, and JAG, you'd probably think the US was a military dictatorship.

You might be right... it's a bit odd though that the show does show us that the Romulans have a democracy and senators, but there's never a suggestion that the federation has senators.

 

[Christopher]

You might be right... it's a bit odd though that the show does show us that the Romulans have a democracy and senators, but there's never a suggestion that the federation has senators.

Of course there was -- just not under that title. The Federation Council was established way back in "Amok Time" and has been frequently referenced ever since.

 

[pallas]

Of course there was -- just not under that title. The Federation Council was established way back in "Amok Time" and has been frequently referenced ever since.

Is the federation council ever referenced in TNG?

 

[pallas]

Never mind, I checked memory alpha and it was.

 

[Christopher]

The Council has been referenced in every series except TAS and (obviously) ENT:

http://scriptsearch.dxdy.name/?page=results&query=({line|federation council,})

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Not a military dictatorship but there’s the definite impression job postings are given by some central civilian authority.

 

[Timo]

The funny thing here is that the only UFP election we ever hear about is that of the UFP President in "Homefront". We never learn who would get to vote there, either.

There's also a voting process in "Journey to Babel", in which "Ambassadors" convene to argue over "politically complex issues" and then parties including "Sarek of Vulcan" cast a vote, in what is described as "vitally important council". Is this completely ad hoc, or part of the regular decisionmaking process of the UFP? If the latter, why the odd location for the meeting?

How exactly the UFP democratic process works is thus utterly unknown. But it being a democratic process is in little doubt at least in the mind of Jim Kirk, who in "Errand of Mercy" exclaims that "We're a democratic body!" in distinction from the Klingons. But he is the only person in all of Star Trek to do so: nobody else considers democracy a UFP virtue worth mentioning.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[StefanM]

There are a lot of Federation Council references on TNG.
I copy a few of them from memory alpha:

In 2366, the Council was called into emergency session when a Romulan defector provided information on a possible Romulan invasion fleet arming near Nelvana III. They determined that the USS Enterprise-D, the Starfleet ship on site, should assume anything Admiral Alidar Jarok said was a lie. (TNG: "The Defector")

In 2369, the Federation Council promised Ambassador Ves Alkar safe passage back to his homeworld after bringing peace to Rekag-Seronia. Alkar expected Picard to fulfil that agreement, regardless of his, Alkar's, crimes. (TNG: "Man of the People")

In 2370, the Council would decide on the Cairn joining the Federation. Ambassador Lwaxana Troi was preparing the Cairn for their meeting with the Council. (TNG: "Dark Page")

Later that year, the Council imposed a warp 5 speed limit on all Federation vessels and vessels within UFP territory, except in dire circumstances. This law was revoked when improvements in warp drive were achieved. (TNG: "Force of Nature")

Shortly thereafter, the Council began debate on the ratification of the Federation-Cardassian Treaty. It rejected a request by a Human representative to re-negotiate the status of Dorvan V and ordered the evacuation of all Federation citizens from the planet. (TNG: "Journey's End")


You see, the political decisions are made by the council, such as the Cardassian Peace Treaty, the Warp 5 speed limit, or decisions about federation memberships.

 

[Christopher]

It saddens me that it even has to be pointed out that the Federation has a civilian government. Obviously it does. Gene Roddenberry was a WWII veteran who fought against military dictatorships, so of course he didn't create an idealized future built around the very thing he fought against in the war. That should be obvious on the face of things.

The people who trot out the "UFP was a dictatorship" argument every now and then are just trying to be ironic and cynical and tear down something positive -- the same as the people who argue that Batman isn't a hero but a sociopath acting out his childhood traumas and that he does more harm than good to Gotham. They think they're being clever, but it's a willful refusal to accept the premise of the fiction. The whole reason for stories like these is to inspire, to offer hope. People can nitpick the implausibilities in the stories and twist them into arguments that there's a dark underbelly to the whole thing, but that should not be mistaken for the actual intent of the creators of the work.

 

[pallas]

It saddens me that it even has to be pointed out that the Federation has a civilian government. Obviously it does. Gene Roddenberry was a WWII veteran who fought against military dictatorships, so of course he didn't create an idealized future built around the very thing he fought against in the war. That should be obvious on the face of things.work.

I prefer to stick to what's on the screen. It appears the consensus in this thread is they have a civilian council, though aside from a one liner in TOS there's nothing to suggest the federation is a democracy, they could be modeled on China's one party government for all we know. They certainly appear to be communist since we're told there is no money, but it's not the modern version of communism either or any version that's been tried in human history.

As for whether TNG is hopeful... well, yes, in many ways to me it is. But it's also a bit disturbing, because to some extent it's based on the modern or pre-modern military, and the federation is highly hierarchical, so it's not clear that the crew will behave like good people if they have a bad captain. Are they only as civilized as the person at the top of the totem poll?

For example, in All Good Things, Picard basically orders the crew to commit suicide by flying into the anomaly. He does not explain to them why this is necessary, to it's kind of disturbing the crew might kill them-self because the captain says so. If Picard was wicked or senile or suicidal, he could have killed a lot of people and families without any check on his power.

Also in All Good Things, admiral Riker appears to start a war with the Klingon to save a federation medical vessel that entered contested Klingon space at Picard's say so. That's also kind of disturbing.

I think Star Trek would be more hopeful without the pew pew pew, but of course it would be much more boring.

 

[Christopher]

I prefer to stick to what's on the screen. It appears the consensus in this thread is they have a civilian council, though aside from a one liner in TOS there's nothing to suggest the federation is a democracy, they could be modeled on China's one party government for all we know.

Of course they aren't. It was a 1960s commercial TV show! It would never have been allowed on the airwaves if it had endorsed anything other than American-style democracy! Ditto for TNG, which premiered while Reagan was still in office.

They certainly appear to be communist since we're told there is no money, but it's not the modern version of communism either or any version that's been tried in human history.

That is not at all what communism means. Just having one single attribute roughly in common with communism doesn't make a system communist, any more than a kitchen table is the same thing as a horse because it has four legs. The 24th-century Federation is moneyless because it's a post-scarcity, replicator-based economy. Communism is no more applicable to a post-scarcity system than capitalism is, because both those economic theories are predicated on the assumption that wealth is finite and requires labor to produce it; they only differ in the question of how it should be distributed. They'd both be rendered obsolete by replicators.

And of course the economic system in TOS/TAS was explicitly capitalist -- Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones were both pursuing wealth, successful miners (as in "Mudd's Women" and "The Devil in the Dark") were considered rich, Carter Winston was a businessman/philanthropist who made multiple fortunes and gave them away, several episodes mentioned that Starfleet officers were paid or had money invested in their training, etc. The "no money" bit wasn't introduced until ST IV and wasn't really embraced until TNG and DS9.

 

[Jedman67]

How exactly the UFP democratic process works is thus utterly unknown. But it being a democratic process is in little doubt at least in the mind of Jim Kirk, who in "Errand of Mercy" exclaims that "We're a democratic body!" in distinction from the Klingons. But he is the only person in all of Star Trek to do so: nobody else considers democracy a UFP virtue worth mentioning.

How often do you refer to the United States as a democracy? (ok, a representative republic. Close enough)
Unless an episode is specifically dealing with the consequences of an election, it's almost never going to be mentioned.
TNG's dissolution of money was meant to indicate that Earth had moved to a post-scarcity society. No longer was money needed for food, transportation or housing; all that was freely available as needed (and kind of makes no sense, a number of episodes contradict each other on that point and there is very little in current economic theory to explain how that would actually work).
Jobs, employment and work was done to provide for the human need to do (and explore) not earn money.

 

[Timo]

How often do you refer to the United States as a democracy?

About thrice per sentence if the idea is to promote the US to outsiders. Which is what most of Trek dialogue on the UFP is all about...

Unless an episode is specifically dealing with the consequences of an election, it's almost never going to be mentioned.

Any episode pitting the UFP against alien scum is likely to deal with the facts that make the UFP preferable to the competition. Oddly enough, democracy isn't among those. But what things are?

- Freedom?
- Protection?
- Prosperity?
- Dental care?

Generally, our heroes just let the villains dig themselves in deep enough a hole by their actions. When Kirk actually makes the pitch in "Friday's Child", his one and only selling point is UFP laws that guarantee that the planet will always remain the natives' own. Which is sort of the antithesis of democracy: the locals don't get representation, they get freedom from governing, whether it be through representation or oppression or whatever.

Other heroes also readily bring up the Prime Directive, even though it doesn't have a direct relationship to UFP membership or alliance or anything.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Spot261]

It saddens me that it even has to be pointed out that the Federation has a civilian government. Obviously it does. Gene Roddenberry was a WWII veteran who fought against military dictatorships, so of course he didn't create an idealized future built around the very thing he fought against in the war. That should be obvious on the face of things.

The people who trot out the "UFP was a dictatorship" argument every now and then are just trying to be ironic and cynical and tear down something positive -- the same as the people who argue that Batman isn't a hero but a sociopath acting out his childhood traumas and that he does more harm than good to Gotham. They think they're being clever, but it's a willful refusal to accept the premise of the fiction. The whole reason for stories like these is to inspire, to offer hope. People can nitpick the implausibilities in the stories and twist them into arguments that there's a dark underbelly to the whole thing, but that should not be mistaken for the actual intent of the creators of the work.

I don't think "inspiring hope" is remotely what trek is about to be honest. Causing people to ask questions is much closer to what the best trek does and that's much more valuable. That being said, GR didn't set out to create some perfect utopia, he simply wanted to make an exciting action adventure show based in space which would make lots of money, everything else came later. Let's call a spade a spade here.

The same applies to Batman, yes people are often simply attempting to deconstruct an icon when they make such comments but it doesn't alter the fact that that is what is portrayed. Batman is a violent sociopath, he is deeply traumatised and irrational. He is selfish in many ways and his actions are deeply criminal. We're supposed to overlook all that because he's the hero but a genuinely publicly minded individual could find much more positive ways to achieve his goals without simply using that crusade as a quasi legitimate outlet for his rage.

 

[Tenacity]

Gene Roddenberry was a WWII veteran who fought against military dictatorships, so of course he didn't create an idealized future built around the very thing he fought against in the war

But during TOS Roddenberry wasn't creating a idealized future.

aside from a one liner in TOS there's nothing to suggest the federation is a democracy

And in saying "we're a democracy" was Kirk speaking of the Federation or Earth?

It was a 1960s commercial TV show! It would never have been allowed on the airwaves if it had endorsed anything other than American-style democracy!

TOS didn't seem to be endorsing any form of government as far as the Federation was concerned. References to the Federation's exact form of government were absent.

Until you have starfleet putting New ORleans under martial law

That was the Federation President, who apparently could place all of Earth under martial law by his sole decree. So maybe not a military dictatorship, but still a dictatorship.