This is a thread about Federation politics and not about Trek-Lit. I came across a interesting entry at MemoryBeta by hitting 'random page.' Damiano is a Federation Member World. It is the homeworld of the Damiani, a three-sexed species characterized by horns that grow from their temples. Damiano joined the United Federation of Planets in 2341 ... ... Ra'ch B'ullhy, who took office in 2371 [snip] served as both governor and Federation Councillor for several years to follow. (TNG comic: Perchance to Dream) Now the way it's phrased it could be saying that Ra'ch B'ullhy was first the Governor and and then subsequently a Federation Councillor. But it could also be saying that the individual was both at the same time. How would the latter work? The position/title of Governor is the Damiani planetary leader and would be engaged in running the Damiani government, being the Damiano Federation Councillor would likely involve being away from Domiano for protracted periods of time to be on Earth attending to the Federation's governance. Would it be possible to be both? Now Ra'ch B'ullhy as Governor might be only the official Federation Councillor, with another designated individual actually carrying out those duties as Ra'ch B'ullhy proxy. Or something else might be going on, what say you? http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Damiano .
I think it's possible to be both leader of your people and a representative of your people to the Federation. In an age of faster-than-light subspace communications, the need for some Council members to attend actual meetings on Earth may only be for very important sessions now & then.
I would guess that either one of those positions (Governor or Councillor) would make someone very busy. Ra'ch probably didn't have time to be both of them at once. I'm sure she was employed in one role and then the other one.
Probably not very well. As Mr. Laser Beam mentioned, both jobs are probably demanding enough that trying to do both at the same time means neither gets done well. Does it ever happen that a state Governor also has a seat in the U.S. Congress at the same time? That would be the same sort of situation.
One might actually argue that both jobs are already impossibly demanding to start with (for humans anyway), and must only be doable because the person at the job gets massive help from futuristic organizations or systems. And if we accept that, we might just as well accept that this exotic help actually can be scaled up enough to allow one and the same person to both rule a world and rule an interstellar empire, plus practice Olympic-level swordsmanship on the side. I think the bigger problem is the conflict of interests. Surely planetary governors must be seen as beneficiaries of the federal government, so B'ullhy both applying for an aid packet to keep the tastybeest farms of Damiano going and then approving this packet with his deciding vote in the UFP Council is a likely yet supposedly unacceptable scenario. Timo Saloniemi
In my mind the Federation Council mouthpiece works directly for the planetary government and gets their marching order from that body, naturally they would vote in Council for measures that benefited their political masters (first) and their homeworld (second). What's good for the Federation as a whole would come further down their list of priorities, but make no mistake it would be on the list. Somewhat similar to the ambassador the US President send to the UN general assembly. Federation Council = UN general assembly.
I doubt it would be both. Federation law probably prevents any one individual from holding that much influence. And it would be too much of a hassle to do both simultaneously.
The problem with this question is that how the Federation government actually runs isn't all that clear. People just work to better themselves, well ... what's that mean? It's too broad a statement to address things like why someone would want to work as a hair stylist, when they have the potential to be an engineer and why that hair stylist isn't living in a mansion, instead of an apartment, when there is no money in this culture. How does one govern such a people? As unorthodoxed as all of it seems, really, then my answer to the original post's question is a resounding "yes." The lines are simply too blurry to make a solid case, either way.