Political systems in Star Trek

[T'Girl]

Well, there is the President of the EU commission who isn't elected by the populace.

Yeah, but he's not the president of a state, he's the president of a committee of an intergovernmental organization. It's really not the same thing.

Towards the end of Spectre Of The Gun, Kirk said: "I speak for a vast Alliance of fellow creatures who believe in the same thing." You would have to twist things around pretty hard to believe Kirk wasn't speaking of the United Federation of Planets there.

A alliance is very much different than a sovereign state. Kirk could have easily used the term nation, or some other term. But the word he used was "alliance."

Was it ever stated that The Federation is a real state, though? The name alone does suggest that it's more of a federation of sovereign nations.

To the best of my knowledge, no one ever come right out and said the Federation was "A Sovereign State." It did have at least some of the trappings yes, but a Alliance can have a governing body too, and a (somehow) elected President as well.

Strictly speaking, the Federation is likely unlike any alliance we've ever seen here on Earth, in addition to Human organizational concepts, there would have been the input from the alien other founders of the Federation. Plus that of all the 150 plus species who joined over two centuries, whose influences would have shaped and changed the alliance So a direct Human comparison is impossible.

They would (certainly during TOS) seem to have a common currency, the frequently mentioned credit. Multiple sovereign nations today use the Euro. More than a few nations use the US dollar.

They possess a combined military (not a military, I know), this might be analogous to (but not exactly like) the NATO alliance, where there is a central command structure, but different than NATO in that the alliance collectively builds military units instead of contributing to it. Although they might do that too.

The alliance would seem to enpower the council with considerable authority, but any limitations, checks and controls on that power are unclear. The Federation council's power might be very narrow. Just what we've seen and nothing else.

Secure voting is probably fairly easy, too. Have a voiceprint or DNA recognition program that verifies your identity from a voter registration database when you go to vote

No reason we can't have accurate counts now, my comment was to, by canon there no indication the people within the Federation vote for President. True, it might simply have never come up, but again no canon.

-- no need to force anyone to buy a photo ID --

Force them to buy one in order to vote, no.
Force them to have one in order to vote, yes.

Most of the democracies in which the president isn't directly elected are ones where the president is only a ceremonial head of state

The sole exception I know of would be the United States, the United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive President. We the people (to use a phrase) directly elect electors, and they in turn directly elect the US President.

In our history, no American President has ever been elected directly by the American people.

(somebody tell Al Gore)

.

.

 

[indolover]

Real life poltical systems don't really apply to Trek.

I would say the Ferengi are a loose plutocracy. It seems the Grand Nagus is chosen by the prominent members in Ferengi society, who evidently would be the wealthiest. All male Ferengi have the same basic rights and duties, but given Ferengi culture (even religious beliefs) it would be the richest who rule.

As for Klingons, well as said, the nobility/Great Houses rule. I would say the Klingon Empire is an oligarchy but not a rigid one. Martok was not born in a noble house, but his family is essentially seen as noble or one with a lot of honour, given his success as a general.

Cardassians are totalitarian, essentially a military dictatorship IMO.

 

[T'Girl]

Maybe the Borg are more like a pre-civil war southern plantation. You have the masters (the queen or queens) and you have the slaves (the collective).

 

[Sci]

Well, there is the President of the EU commission who isn't elected by the populace.

Yeah, but he's not the president of a state, he's the president of a committee of an intergovernmental organization. It's really not the same thing.

Towards the end of Spectre Of The Gun, Kirk said: "I speak for a vast Alliance of fellow creatures who believe in the same thing." You would have to twist things around pretty hard to believe Kirk wasn't speaking of the United Federation of Planets there.

No need. One can simply presume he was simplifying for the sake of an alien culture that has no concept of multiple species uniting into a single sovereign state.

A alliance is very much different than a sovereign state. Kirk could have easily used the term nation, or some other term. But the word he used was "alliance."

To the best of my knowledge, no one ever come right out and said the Federation was "A Sovereign State." It did have at least some of the trappings yes,

No, it has all of the traits that characterize a sovereign state.

but a Alliance can have a governing body too, and a (somehow) elected President as well.

<SNIP>

They would (certainly during TOS) seem to have a common currency, the frequently mentioned credit. Multiple sovereign nations today use the Euro. More than a few nations use the US dollar.

They possess a combined military (not a military, I know), this might be analogous to (but not exactly like) the NATO alliance, where there is a central command structure,

1. Starfleet is nothing like the NATO command structure. NATO doesn't have its own military; it just coordinates the behavior of the unique militaries of numerous sovereign states that join, and can leave, its command structure as they see fit. The Federation Starfleet, on the other hand, is a single, Federation-wide military, with its own command structure, institutional ethos, and loyalty to the Federation.

2. Yes, it is true that there are some intergovernmental organizations or supranational organizations with some of the traits of a state. But there is none that possess all of the traits of a state the way the Federation does. You've drawn an analogy to non-state organizations that possess common currencies, governing bodies, and coordinating structures for militaries, but you have yet to account for the numerous other traits of a state the Federation possesses:

• a defined territory over which it possesses sovereignty, entries into which may not legally occur without authorization, the integrity of which it defends, and which it may trade to other sovereign states ("The Best of Both Worlds, Part I;" "Journey's End")
• a legislature that makes binding laws ("Forces of Nature")
• a President who formulates and implements foreign policy (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
• the authority to wage wars and concludes treaties (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; "A Call to Arms;" "What You Leave Behind")
• The authority to forge its own alliances with foreign states (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, "By Inferno's Light," "In the Pale Moonlight," "What You Leave Behind")
• its own unique military, possessing its own system of courts-martial, rather than a coordinating body for unique militaries ("Court Martial," "For the Cause," "Valiant," "Errand of Mercy," Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan)
• a Constitution that guarantees certain rights and freedoms to everyone within its territorial borders and aboard its starships ("The Empath") and which overrides local law ("Accession")
• the authority to declare states of emergency on its territory and put its military forces on every street corner in a state of de facto martial law ("Homefront"/"Paradise Lost")
• an extensive bureaucracy that is more powerful and important than local bureaucracies (We always hear about Federation bureaucratic institutions, almost never of local ones)
• its own internal security force with powers of arrest (Federation Security in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)
• its own system of grand juries and courts with powers of subpoena and indictment ("The Ascent")
• a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review ("Dr. Bashir, I Presume?")
• the authority to exchanges ambassadors with foreign states (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
• The possession of its own foreign intelligence agency in Starfleet Intelligence ("Chains of Command," "Honor Among Thieves")
• A monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory (as seen in the existence of Starfleet and Federation Security)

The Federation is not a sovereign state for possessing any one or two of those traits; an alliance, intergovernmental organization, or even constituent polity of a sovereign state may share a handful of such traits. The Federation is a state because it possesses all of those traits.

No reason we can't have accurate counts now, my comment was to, by canon there no indication the people within the Federation vote for President. True, it might simply have never come up, but again no canon.

1. I see no reason to restrict ourselves to canonical evidence. "Canon" is just a corporate decision made to let people writing Star Trek know which previous Star Trek works they have to stay consistent with, not a binding rule on what is "real" in a fictional universe.

2. As I've said, it's not IMPOSSIBLE that the Federation President is not directly elected, but it seems highly improbable.

Going back to a prior point...

They possess a combined military (not a military, I know),

No, Starfleet is clearly a military. It has been canonically referred to as a military more often than it has been referred to as not a military -- that only happened once, in "Peak Performance."

-- no need to force anyone to buy a photo ID --

Force them to buy one in order to vote, no.
Force them to have one in order to vote, yes.

What's the point of making people have a photo ID if a voter can just put her finger up to a DNA scanner and say, "Computer, recognize identity: Jane Doe, born Stardate 12345 in the City of Leran Manev, Planet Trill?"

Most of the democracies in which the president isn't directly elected are ones where the president is only a ceremonial head of state

The sole exception I know of would be the United States,

Pardon me. I should have said, "Most of the democracies in which the president is elected by the legislature are ones where the president is only a ceremonial head of state."

the United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive President. We the people (to use a phrase) directly elect electors, and they in turn directly elect the US President.

In our history, no American President has ever been elected directly by the American people.

Surely one of the most shameful aspects of American democracy, badly in need of rectification. I would hope a more enlightened democracy like the Federation wouldn't follow in our footsteps there.

ETA:

The United Nations is not a state in any sense of the term. They have no territory, they have no armed forces, they can't make binding law. The U.N. in fact explicitly describes itself as not being a state -- it calls itself a "tool" of its Member States.

I mentioned this in another thread, but the UN not being a global government is mostly a facet of there not currently being a need for a global government. Since we are (for all intents and purposes) alone in the galaxy, a global government has nowhere to represent us. We don't identify ourselves as citizens of Earth, because there is no one to whom we could identify ourselves as such.

Well, on an abstract, theoretical level, sure. On a more direct level, though, the United Nations -- which was originally called in English the United Nations Organization, and which is still called that in its French and Spanish names (Organisation des Nations unies and Organización de las Naciones Unidas, respectively) -- isn't a world government or sovereign state essentially because it was never meant to be. The Allied powers that set it up after World War II essentially designed it to perform two basic, sometimes contradictory functions:

1. To provide a neutral global mechanism through which all of the sovereign states of the world could be recognized, peacefully resolve disputes, and launch cooperative ventures; and

2. To provide a global institution with a sense of international legitimacy that could itself legitimize the global domination of the Allied powers over the rest of the world, particularly the United States and Soviet Union.

At no point was the United Nations Organization ever meant to be a world government -- although public opinion in favor of a world state was as high as it has ever been in the years just after World War II, and the U.N. did start to evolve a little bit in that direction under Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, who established a much more independent, pro-active, neutral direction for the U.N. than it ever had before or since.

If we ever do discover alien life, we would need a unified planetary government to represent our interests. The UN (or something analogous) could very well be that representative body.

Well, I don't know if it's a given that humanity would need a unified planetary state to represent its interests if it encountered alien life. It would depend upon what kinds of interstellar political situations it encounters. If the aliens themselves are highly diverse and unified, for instance, no such unity may be necessary. If humanity encounters a system more akin to that of the Star Trek Universe, however, then, yeah, global unity would probably be necessary.

The U.N. could never become a planetary government at this point, though. It's been far too disempowered since Hammarskjöld's tenure; it's nothing more than the puppet of the permanent Security Council members on most issues, and impotent to act if those P-5 members disagree with each other. Star Trek got it right when it depicted Earth uniting under an entirely different global body.

I think the Federation government has to much power over the people to be called a true democratic power like we saw on TNG where they try to removed the colonists from the planet that was given to Cardassia Union inorder to achieve peace with them.

Well, it's unclear under what legal justification the Federation could do that.

AFAIK, the colony in "Journey's End" was exactly that: a colony.

Yeah, but what kind of colony? A colony that's part of the territory of a Federation Member, or a colony that falls directly under Federation jurisdiction? If it's a Member's colony, then the Federation may -- and I want to emphasize the word may, not must -- not have the authority to trade it away to a foreign state, if the Federation Constitution requires it to respect the territorial integrity of its Members within the Federation.

Since the planet Dorvan V would be legally considered Cardassian territory, I believe that after the area was redistributed to Cardassia, Federation citizens would have no right to be there - the Cardassians could demand their removal even if the Federation didn't want to. The colonists were only allowed to stay if they agreed to become Cardassian subjects. Not only did the Federation have the *right* to remove them, it had the legal obligation to do so.

The Federation would only have such an obligation to remove them if it assumed such an obligation in the treaty that handed ownership of the planet over to the Cardassian Union. Otherwise, all it means is that there's a collection of Federation citizens in Cardassian territory, and it becomes the Cardassians' problem what to do with them.

(All of which ignores the question of the Federation's MORAL right to do so, or the question of whether or not the Federation Constitution allows it to hand over inhabited Federation worlds even if it's legal to do so under interstellar law.)

Or are you questioning whether or not the Federation had the right to negotiate the handing over of the colony to Cardassia?

I thought the context made it clear that that was the issue, yeah -- does the Federation have the authority to hand over territory to a foreign state if that territory is inhabited by an established Federation or Federation Member colony? It almost certainly has the legal authority to do so under interstellar law; whether it has the authority to do so under its own Constitution is questionable. (To make a modern comparison: It is perfectly legal under international law for sovereign states to censor free speech, but it is illegal under, say, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canada to do so.)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm sure the Federation struggled mightily with the decision to hand over the colonies to Cardassia. The only thing I can think of is that the cost of not handing them over would have been far greater (we will never know specifically, since we never saw the negotiations). War with Cardassia could have resulted, and death on a large scale would likely result.

Plus, as we saw in the episode, the original goal was *not* to hand over the colonists themselves. It was their own idea to be Cardassian subjects. The Federation was quite willing to relocate them elsewhere in Federation territory, although I can understand why they rejected that, because they'd already built homes in the DMZ

Keeping the colonies in Federation territory might be good for the colonists who lived there, but not having the Federation blindsided by war would be a greater one. The greatest good for the greatest number, after all. At least that is the logic that I assume the Federation used.

 

[captcalhoun]

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, you mean?

 

[Sci]

I'm sure the Federation struggled mightily with the decision to hand over the colonies to Cardassia. The only thing I can think of is that the cost of not handing them over would have been far greater (we will never know specifically, since we never saw the negotiations). War with Cardassia could have resulted, and death on a large scale would likely result.

Well, the question of whether or not it was a wise or justified decision to hand over those planets is completely different with whether or not it was, a) legal under interstellar law, and b) legal under the Federation Constitution.

As it turns out, I would argue that the decision was bad. It just fed the appetites of Cardassian expansionists who would never truly be sated, thus convincing that faction that the Federation was weak and would keep submitting to Cardassian demands; it led to numerous Federation citizens stuck on the other side of the border ending up subject to Cardassian abuses; it led to a miniature Federation civil war when some of the Federates left on the Cardassian side began fighting back and then decided to seek their own state independent of the Federation; and, ultimately, it did not purchase peace with Cardassia.

Plus, as we saw in the episode, the original goal was *not* to hand over the colonists themselves. It was their own idea to be Cardassian subjects. The Federation was quite willing to relocate them elsewhere in Federation territory,

Yeah, and forced relocation -- especially, as in the case of Dorvan V, of a historically oppressed culture that has a history of being forcibly relocated -- is not a morally superior option.

 

[Paradon]

It seems the Federation council members, or whoever that was that made the dicision to hand over the planet to the Cardassians, didn't like the colonists for questioning their wisdom and dicision. And to further complicate things the colonists later defiantly opposed them and started a war with Cardassinas Union.

 

[T'Girl]

Was it ever stated that The Federation is a real state, though?

It has all of the traits of a state. It possesses a defined territory ....

Acticle six of the North Atlantic Treaty defines the NATO alliance's territories, if say the nation of Turkey were to join NATO, then the provisions of article six would be expanded. Just like if a new species joined the Federation, the Federation's territory would increase.

*** Edit - I screwed up, Turkey is a member of NATO ***

it can declare states of emergency on its territory

If the membership of the alliance decided to vest the federation President with that ability, solely on the world that held both the alliance governance, and the Starfleet HQ, then under certain criteria he would be able to declare such.

There's no evidence the Federation President could declare a state of emergency on any other world.

and put its military forces on every street corner in a state of de facto martial law

It's unlikely Starfleet had the capacity to literally place three uniform Starfleet personnel on "every street corner" on Earth. Or three of such outside every restaurant on Earth, far more likely the acting head of Earth Security placed those three men outside his own father restaurant by his own direct order. And not in any way by the order of the Federation's President.

Leyton's "I can start getting men on the streets immediately." was realistically quite limited in world wide scope, and likely outside only select official installations.

Also, President Jaresh-Inyo declared a state of emergency, and not "de facto martial law." Possibly because he lacked the official authority to do so.

Kirk said: "I speak for a vast Alliance of fellow creatures ...

Kirk could have easily used the term nation ...

No need. One can simply presume he was simplifying for the sake of an alien culture that has no concept of multiple species uniting into a single sovereign state.

Seriously? Kirk had already made reference to the United Federation of Planets early in the episode. The Melkotians knew of the existence of aliens, that why they placed the buoy. How would they have an easier time with a multiple species alliance, over a multiple species "nation?"

The "United Federation of Planets" is a "vast Alliance."

The authority to forge its own alliances with foreign states (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ...)

But the Federation has members (Vulcan) who directly communicate with foreign governments (same movie you sight), and who exchange embassies with foreign powers, not exactly "just like" a modern sovereign state.

a President who formulates and implements foreign policy (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

And why would the head of a interstellar alliance not be able to undertake foreign policy, should that be one of his assigned duties?

its own internal security force with powers of arrest (Federation Security in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)

The United Nations (not a sovereign nation) has as part of it's organization the UN Security and Safety Service. They have a limited legal ability to hold people, prior to turning them over to civil authorities.

Ten years ago, the service petitioned Secretary-General Kofi Annan to change the name of "United Nations Security and Safety Service" to "United Nations Diplomatic Police, "a title which those in the service thought more adequately reflects their work and function.

its own internal security force with powers of arrest (Federation Security in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)

After Federation Security escorted McCoy out of a bar in TSFS, he was placed in a holding facility, exactly who the holding facility belonged to unclear. Federation security, maybe. But there was a uniformed Starfleet security guard present.

And the others (different uniform) were displaying the Starfleet arrowhead on their clothing, and not the Federation oval with laurel leaves and star field.

The agents who were on the way up in the "side elevator" could have been from a Starfleet security and law enforcement agency, with civilian special agents. And the facility could have been theirs. Or it simply could have been the local Starfleet stockade.

It's unlikely McCoy was under arrest by the Federation, given the insignia displayed.

A monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory (as seen in the existence of Starfleet ...)

And at least two Federation members (Vulcans and Betazed) possess their own military forces. The Vulcans have armed starships. What monopoly?

its own system of grand juries and courts with powers of subpoena and indictment

A expanded verison of Earth's international court.

an extensive bureaucracy ...

The United Nations possesses over sixty three thousand employees.

a legislature that makes binding laws ("Forces of Nature")

Okay, they only set a speed limit.



The American Second Continental Congress from the years of 1775 through 1781, of the (lower case "u") united States of American very much did not represent a sovereign state, but instead more a confederacy or alliance of nations. Inspite of that they raised armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and made formal treaties with foreign powers.

The important Treaty of Alliance with France, was a defensive alliance between France and the united States of America in the year 1778.

 

[captcalhoun]

uh, Turkey IS in NATO.

maybe you should try looking at a map of NATO nations AND THEN add one, like Belarus or Ireland or the Ukraine...

 

[Sci]

Was it ever stated that The Federation is a real state, though?

It has all of the traits of a state. It possesses a defined territory ....

Acticle six of the North Atlantic Treaty defines the NATO alliance's territories, if say the nation of Turkey were to join NATO, then the provisions of article six would be expanded.

The problem is that NATO doesn't have any territory. Its member states have territories; NATO does not.

By contrast, we've heard numerous references to "Federation territory" and "Federation space." NATO could never have traded away its members' territory the way the Federation Council traded away Federation territory to the Cardassians, for instance.

it can declare states of emergency on its territory

If the membership of the alliance decided to vest the federation President with that ability,

Show me an alliance that has the authority to put the territory of its sovereign members under a state of emergency and land troops on its streets. Seriously. You think NATO could put Brussels under a state of emergency? It could not; only the Kingdom of Belgium could do that.

Alliances don't get that authority.

solely on the world that held both the alliance governance, and the Starfleet HQ, then under certain criteria he would be able to declare such.

The notion that the Federation President can only declare a state of emergency on Earth itself has no evidence from the canon or from the novels to support it.

There's no evidence the Federation President could declare a state of emergency on any other world.

There's no evidence Earth has any special status with regards to Federation-declared states of emergency.

and put its military forces on every street corner in a state of de facto martial law

It's unlikely Starfleet had the capacity to literally place three uniform Starfleet personnel on "every street corner" on Earth.

Whether or not there were officers literally on every street is irrelevant; the relevant point is that no sovereign state would allow a mere alliance to mobilize alliance-loyal troops onto a controlling pattern in its territory. That would be a direct assault on their sovereignty.

So either Earth isn't sovereign, or Earth is really shitty at protecting its own sovereignty within its mutual defense alliance.

Or three of such outside every restaurant on Earth, far more likely the acting head of Earth Security placed those three men outside his own father restaurant by his own direct order. And not in any way by the order of the Federation's President.

Uh, no, "Homefront" explicitly established that the Starfleet officers who were appearing on the streets of New Orleans were doing so because the Federation President ordered it to happen. Seriously; the penultimate scene had President Jaresh-Inyo signing the order, and then the last scene had the troops appearing.

Also, President Jaresh-Inyo declared a state of emergency, and not "de facto martial law."

You are directly contradicting the episode now.

LEYTON
(confident)
Mister President, we can use the
Lakota's transporters and
communications system to mobilize
every Starfleet officer on Earth
in less than twelve hours.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Homefront" - 11/04/95 - ACT FIVE 54.

50 CONTINUED: (3)

This is a surprise to the President, who had no idea Starfleet had such capabilities.

LEYTON
We've been preparing for something
like this for a long time. We
have stockpiles of phaser rifles,
personal forcefields, photon
grenades, enough to equip an
entire army. I can start placing
troops in the streets immediately.

JARESH-INYO
What you're asking me to do is
declare martial law.

It's very clear: The state of emergency Jaresh-Inyo declared is a de facto state of martial law.

The authority to forge its own alliances with foreign states (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ...)

But the Federation has members (Vulcan) who directly communicate with foreign governments (same movie you sight), and who exchange embassies with foreign powers, not exactly "just like" a modern sovereign state.

I don't believe I said the Federation is "just like" a modern sovereign state. It clearly is not -- its very interstellar nature marks it as distinct from modern sovereign states in some respects, and that's certainly one.

And, indeed, it makes sense; after all, it's really not reasonable to think that the Federation would even be capable of conducting all of the necessary foreign relations of 150+ different planets. It's far more likely that it would grant to its Members the authority to conduct certain aspects of foreign policy, which directly affect those Members, themselves, under whatever general guidelines for foreign policy the Federation Council adopts. For instance, it's reasonable to presume that the Federation Council may not want to spend its time ratifying treaties specifying exactly how much plomeek soup Vulcan gets to export to the Klingon Empire, but it's still going to be illegal for Vulcan to violate the trade embargo against the Romulan Star Empire.

Bottom line:

It's not that the Federation is "just like" a modern sovereign state. It's that it is a sovereign state, even if some of the ways it functions differ from modern ones.

And why would the head of a interstellar alliance not be able to undertake foreign policy, should that be one of his assigned duties?

And why would the head of a interstellar alliance not be able to undertake foreign policy, should that be one of his assigned duties?

Because there's no way in hell a sovereign state would delegate that authority to an alliance of which it is a member. Do you think the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization gets to make foreign policy for the United States? That the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations gets to make foreign policy for the United Kingdom? That the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States gets to make foreign policy for the Federative Republic of Brazil?

Let me assure: They do not. Alliances are functions of sovereign states' foreign policies, not formulators.

its own internal security force with powers of arrest (Federation Security in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)

The United Nations (not a sovereign nation) has as part of it's organization the UN Security and Safety Service. They have a limited legal ability to hold people, prior to turning them over to civil authorities. [/quote]

And they cannot operate outside of U.N. facilities, and, as you noted, must turn people over to civil authorities. You know, the same way mall security does.

The Federation Security officers we saw in STIII weren't operating inside Starfleet Headquarters or a Federation installation. They arrested McCoy in a civilian bar. That's a police force, not building security.

It's unlikely McCoy was under arrest by the Federation, given the insignia displayed.

The insignia of the arresting officer is clearly Federation.

A monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory (as seen in the existence of Starfleet ...)

And at least two Federation members

Yeah, Federation Members. Meaning, they're part of the state.

And at least two Federation members (Vulcans and Betazed) possess their own military forces. The Vulcans have armed starships. What monopoly?

Plenty of U.S. states have their own State Defense Forces. The State of Ohio maintains its own Naval Militia. The State of New York maintains its own Guard. The Commonwealth of Virginia maintains its own Defense Force. And every state has its own Army and Air National Guard, with each Governor serving as its commander-in-chief.

This does not mean that the United States does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. It means that the states are not separate from the U.S. when they join the Union.

its own system of grand juries and courts with powers of subpoena and indictment

A expanded verison of Earth's international court.

You have no evidence to support that supposition, and it goes against the logic of international courts. International courts don't have grand juries, and they don't investigate petty issues like mere organized crime syndicates. (The Federation grand jury in "The Ascent" was convened over the Orion Syndicate.) That's like saying the International Criminal Court would convene to investigate Tony Soprano; it's absurd.

an extensive bureaucracy ...

The United Nations possesses over sixty three thousand employees.

The United Nations did not provide me with the FAFSA when I went to college. When I was out of a job, the U.N. didn't provide me with unemployment insurance benefits. When the highways needed repaired, the U.N. did not repair them, nor set the speed limit. When my boss opened a business, he didn't get a license to operate from the U.N. When my best friend decided to get married, she didn't seek a marriage license from the U.N.

By contrast, the Federation maintains an extensive bureaucracy, with authority over all sorts of things, including:

• an Archaeological Council
• an Astronomical Committee
• a Bureau of Agricultural Affairs
• a Bureau of Industrialization
• a Bureau of Planetary Treaties
• a Central Bureau of Penology
• a Department of Cartography
• a Department of Temporal Investigations
• a Naval Patrol
• a Science Council
• a Science Bureau
• a military called Starfleet
• a Terraform Command

That level of authority over that many different aspects of life means it's a sovereign state in its own right.

a legislature that makes binding laws ("Forces of Nature")

Okay, they only set a speed limit.

Dude, that's huge. Intergovernmental organizations and alliances don't get to set speed limits.

The American Second Continental Congress from the years of 1775 through 1781, of the (lower case "u") united States of American very much did not represent a sovereign state, but instead more a confederacy or alliance of nations. Inspite of that they raised armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and made formal treaties with foreign powers.

Yes, and under the Articles of Confederation, it was plagued by an inability to function, an inability to pay for itself, an inability to coordinate policy, an inability to enforce law, an inability to enforce foreign policy -- to the point where foreign governments were wondering if they should even be bothering with going through the Confederation government at all instead of going straight to the states. The Confederation Congress was barely functional and the Union almost fell apart; its authority all existed on paper and not so much in reality.

That's why the Articles of Confederation was replaced with the United States Constitution: Because alliances that try to exercise the authorities of sovereign states inevitably dissolve, because sovereign states don't give those authorities up so long as they remain sovereign.

ETA:

For the record: The novels have explicitly established the Federation to be a sovereign state.

 

[T'Girl]

uh, Turkey IS in NATO.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake, no excuses.

. There's no evidence Earth has any special status with regards to Federation-declared states of emergency.

Except it is the only world we know of to ever had a state of emergency declared on by the Federation President.

... and put its military forces on every street corner

Whether or not there were officers literally on every street is irrelevant

Then why did you say it?

Also, President Jaresh-Inyo declared a state of emergency, and not "de facto martial law."

You are directly contradicting the episode now.

SISKO: Mister President, as acting head of Earth Security, I must advise you to declare a State of Emergency."

JARESH-INYO: What you're asking me to do is declare martial law.

LEYTON: What I'm asking you to do is let us defend this planet.

It's very clear: The state of emergency Jaresh-Inyo declared is a de facto state of martial law.

No, the President was asked for a state of emergency by Sisko, that's what he authorized. If Sisko wanted a state of martial law (assuming one could be authorized) he would have asked for one. It wasn't what he wanted, nor what he received.

And they cannot operate outside of U.N. facilities, and, as you noted, must turn people over to civil authorities. You know, the same way mall security does.

And McCoy, when we saw him in a holding facility, was VERY obviously in Starfleet custody.

The insignia of the arresting officer is clearly Federation.

And where in the movie did the security guy "arrest" McCoy? The most he did is hustle McCoy out of a bar.

Yeah, Federation Members. Meaning, they're part of the state.

Nope, meaning their planets are part of a "Vast Alliance of Fellow Creatures."

an extensive bureaucracy ...

The United Nations possesses over sixty three thousand employees.

The United Nations did not provide me with the FAFSA when I went to college. When I was out of a job, the U.N. didn't provide me with unemployment insurance benefits. When the highways needed repaired, the U.N. did not repair them, nor set the speed limit. When my boss opened a business, he didn't get a license to operate from the U.N. When my best friend decided to get married, she didn't seek a marriage license from the U.N.

And of the thing you mentioned, how many of them did we see the Federation do? One, set a speed limit.

The American Second Continental Congress ... more a confederacy or alliance of nations.... they raised armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and made formal treaties with foreign powers.

Yes, and under the Articles of Confederation, it was plagued by an inability to function ...

The point is, it did all the things I listed and more, without representing a unified sovereign state. So none of the things they accomplished can be solely and exclusively attributed to a sovereign state. Because an alliance of thirteen nations did those all those things too.

For the record: The novels have explicitly established the Federation to be a sovereign state.

The novels have no more place in canon, than the Star Trek stories I wrote when I was eight years old. They "establish" nothing.


.
.

 

[horatio83]

You can't run an entity like the Federation as some kind of lose federal system. Sure, it started out with trade and then became an alliance of planets to fight off the Romulans and afterwards space exploration and space security was put together but political unification is always the necessary last step.
This happened in the US, this has to happen in Europe and the fictional UFP is no different.

The Maquis stories in DS9 showed why the UFP cannot be as federal as it sounds (to effectively conduct foreign policy) and also showed the high price you gotta pay for this (loss of personal freedom for colonists). It's just like with United Earth, this is not a place for folks who love direct democracy, low-level decentralized organization and so on. You don't want good, modern, centralized, progressive rule? Then get lost and join the space hippies or mine dilithium for us Feds.

 

[Paradon]

Don't forget capitalism...

 

[Sci]

You can't run an entity like the Federation as some kind of lose federal system. Sure, it started out with trade and then became an alliance of planets to fight off the Romulans and afterwards space exploration and space security was put together but political unification is always the necessary last step.
This happened in the US, this has to happen in Europe and the fictional UFP is no different.

I suspect you and I are operating on different definitions of "a loose federal system." A "loose federal system" is still a sovereign state in its own right, with distinct authority over its constituent polities and local governments. You seem to be arguing that "loose federal system" is an adequate way of describing what T'Girl is arguing the Federation is -- an alliance. It is not. I'm arguing that the Federation is a loose federal democracy, not T'Girl.

Having said that, I tend to agree that even in a federal system, the preponderance of power tends necessarily to shift to the central government.

The Maquis stories in DS9 showed why the UFP cannot be as federal as it sounds (to effectively conduct foreign policy) and also showed the high price you gotta pay for this (loss of personal freedom for colonists).

Well, no. Those colonists did not lose personal freedom per se. They lost their homes, and then the Federation retaliated against them for launching attacks on the Cardassians. But they wouldn't have necessarily lost personal freedom, per se, had they simply relocated as the Federation wanted them to. And once the Federation paused from its institutional inertia and realized how abusive the idea of a forced relocation was in "Journey's End," it allowed its citizens the option of staying on the worlds that had been transferred to Cardassian rule if the Cardassians would allow it.

It's just like with United Earth, this is not a place for folks who love direct democracy, low-level decentralized organization and so on.

Well, direct democracy, except for a handful of referenda on key issues in a given year, doesn't work well on any level beyond local government. It's certainly not a practical way to run anything larger than a small city.

ETA:

. There's no evidence Earth has any special status with regards to Federation-declared states of emergency.

Except it is the only world we know of to ever had a state of emergency declared on by the Federation President.

That is not evidence that Earth has any special status.

Whether or not there were officers literally on every street is irrelevant

Then why did you say it?

Because the relevant issue is the landing of officers on any streets at all, not the exact number of streets. Alliances can't do that; they don't get to maintain their own militaries, and they don't get to put their own militaries on their members' streets.

You are directly contradicting the episode now.

SISKO: Mister President, as acting head of Earth Security, I must advise you to declare a State of Emergency."

JARESH-INYO: What you're asking me to do is declare martial law.

LEYTON: What I'm asking you to do is let us defend this planet.

No, the President was asked for a state of emergency by Sisko, that's what he authorized.

Yes, and he himself admitted that his state of emergency amounted to a de facto state of martial law.

You understand what "de facto" means, right? The state of emergency doesn't need to be a de jure state of martial law (which is what you're arguing) to be one de facto.

If Sisko wanted a state of martial law (assuming one could be authorized) he would have asked for one.

Once again, you are confusing de jure with de facto.

And they cannot operate outside of U.N. facilities, and, as you noted, must turn people over to civil authorities. You know, the same way mall security does.

And McCoy, when we saw him in a holding facility, was VERY obviously in Starfleet custody.

Ah, so you concede that Starfleet is a military of a sovereign state and that the Federation, which operates Starfleet, therefore constitutes a civil authority in the same way that, say, the United States of America or the Commonwealth of Australia do.

And where in the movie did the security guy "arrest" McCoy? The most he did is hustle McCoy out of a bar.

Uh, you can't force someone out of a bar with you unless you're putting them under arrest. Anything else is kidnapping.

Yes, and under the Articles of Confederation, it was plagued by an inability to function ...

The point is, it did all the things I listed and more, without representing a unified sovereign state.

Yes. And then it collapsed after less than 15 years, because no entity that tries to fulfill all those functions without being a sovereign state can actually last. Certainly it couldn't last as long as the Federation has -- 218 years as of NEM.

For the record: The novels have explicitly established the Federation to be a sovereign state.

The novels have no more place in canon,

So what? It's all equally fictional, and there's no reason to exclude the novels from consideration -- especially since they've been the only source of new Trek for most of the last six years. "Canon" is a corporate decision about what stories new stories need to be consistent with in order for CBS to let them be published, not a decree about what is "true."

than the Star Trek stories I wrote when I was eight years old.

The stories you wrote when you were eight years old weren't reviewed and authorized by Paramount, and, then, CBS Studios, the owners of STAR TREK.

 

[Paradon]

You can't run an entity like the Federation as some kind of lose federal system. Sure, it started out with trade and then became an alliance of planets to fight off the Romulans and afterwards space exploration and space security was put together but political unification is always the necessary last step.
This happened in the US, this has to happen in Europe and the fictional UFP is no different.

I suspect you and I are operating on different definitions of "a loose federal system." A "loose federal system" is still a sovereign state in its own right, with distinct authority over its constituent polities and local governments. You seem to be arguing that "loose federal system" is an adequate way of describing what T'Girl is arguing the Federation is -- an alliance. It is not. I'm arguing that the Federation is a loose federal democracy, not T'Girl.


Having said that, I tend to agree that even in a federal system, the preponderance of power tends necessarily to shift to the central government.

I believe that the Federation do have some sort of Constitutions to govern the country, but it doesn't seem as centralize as what we see in the U.S. I tend to think what T'Girl thinks because any members of the UFP could leave whenever they want....I'm guessing. But if you look at the U.S., no states can leave the union because they all made The United States of America. And I don't think the federal government really has much authority over other members of the UFP, but then you see them handing over the colonist planet over to the Cardassian Union. What bullshit is that? [laughing]

 

[horatio83]

You can't run an entity like the Federation as some kind of lose federal system. Sure, it started out with trade and then became an alliance of planets to fight off the Romulans and afterwards space exploration and space security was put together but political unification is always the necessary last step.
This happened in the US, this has to happen in Europe and the fictional UFP is no different.

I suspect you and I are operating on different definitions of "a loose federal system." A "loose federal system" is still a sovereign state in its own right, with distinct authority over its constituent polities and local governments. You seem to be arguing that "loose federal system" is an adequate way of describing what T'Girl is arguing the Federation is -- an alliance. It is not. I'm arguing that the Federation is a loose federal democracy, not T'Girl.

Having said that, I tend to agree that even in a federal system, the preponderance of power tends necessarily to shift to the central government.

I agree with you, the Federation is more than an alliance.

The Maquis stories in DS9 showed why the UFP cannot be as federal as it sounds (to effectively conduct foreign policy) and also showed the high price you gotta pay for this (loss of personal freedom for colonists).

Well, no. Those colonists did not lose personal freedom per se. They lost their homes, and then the Federation retaliated against them for launching attacks on the Cardassians. But they wouldn't have necessarily lost personal freedom, per se, had they simply relocated as the Federation wanted them to. And once the Federation paused from its institutional inertia and realized how abusive the idea of a forced relocation was in "Journey's End," it allowed its citizens the option of staying on the worlds that had been transferred to Cardassian rule if the Cardassians would allow it.

Personal freedom was a bad choice of words. What I meant is that in a more federal political entity colonies would have relatively more power which means that their special interest to keep their homes would be weighted stronger in the political decision process than the general desire for peace.
I am a strong advocate of more centralization but this trade-off cannot be denied, centralization is not cozy but necessary. The big problems of our century force us to work closer together on a global scale for the first time in history. The equivalent of climate change, overpopulation and financial disarray in the fictional history of Trek is the Romulan War.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I am also inclined to wonder, in a political entity like the Federation in which there is vast quantities of available living space, doesn't the "forced relocation" lose some of its evilness? I agree that in the real world instances where such a thing has occurred, there has been horrible abuse, but is this the case here?

Like I said, I understand why the colonists insisted on staying. They built homes there and didn't want to leave them. But the fact that the Federation was going to relocate them is not an automatic indicator of abuse or evil. That may have been the case in our own world where these things have happened, but real world governments have not had anywhere near the abilities and the available space that the Federation has. Assuming the colonists had accepted the offer and were given brand spanking new homes on unspoiled planets where they had free rein, is it hard to imagine why the Federation would consider that an acceptable trade?

To put it another way: How is this different from an efficient use of eminent domain as we practice it? You might not want to abandon your home if they want to build a road through it, but assuming you are given the means to secure a new one and are well off in it, does this mean you have been abused?

 

[Paradon]

I think some of the laws are outdated like eminent domain and forcibly drafting people into the milatary. Drafting people is another form of slavery.

 

[T'Girl]

I tend to think what T'Girl thinks because any members of the UFP could leave whenever they want....I'm guessing.

One of the defining differences between a alliance (or a confederation) and a federation is that continuing membership of the member states in a alliance/confederation is voluntary on the part of the member, while the continuing membership in a federation is not.

One of the things that changed Switzerland from a confederation, into a federation was when several of the members (cantons) were denied the ability to exit the confederation and set up a separate alliance. The resulting civil war removed that particular right.

Certainly it couldn't last as long as the Federation has -- 218 years as of NEM.

Switzerland was a confederation for what? Five and a half centuries.

Because the relevant issue is the landing of officers on any streets at all, not the exact number of streets. Alliances can't do that; they don't get to maintain their own militaries, and they don't get to put their own militaries on their members' streets.

In WW II, allied soldiers were in "the streets" of France and the Netherlands, those governments (in exile) had previously provided their permission to the alliance to do so.

Yes, and he himself admitted that his state of emergency amounted to a de facto state of martial law.

More a case Sci, of the the President being erratum circa materiam of Martial Law.

You understand what "de facto" means, right?

And you have understanding of erratum circa materiam? My fourth grade teacher was quite fond of the phrase.

That is not evidence that Earth has any special status.

And yet no other Federation member had a state of emergency (or martial law) declared upon them by the Federation President during the Dominion War. Not even Betazed.

.