Based on Pike's comment in the latest movie "You understand what the Federation is,don't you? It's important. It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada." it's possible that Starfleet is more ingrained with the government that we've thought previously. It may be a part of the actual governing body rather than a department of the government. The Federation is probably structured unlike anything we've even imagined.
Another Lit Wish List Thread
- Thread starter ryan123450
- Start date
I don't find it very likely that Starfleet would have any involvement with the governing of the Federation. IMO having the military (please let's not start the whole SF isn't military debate again, please just go with me) would completely go against everything the UFP is based on. Sure there would have to be military adviors like in modern governments, but I couldn't see them taking part in the civilian aspects of the government.
As for The Voyage Home, I'd always assumed that was just a small number of members of the Council, mixed in with Starfleet reps. I like the Security Council idea myself.
As for The Voyage Home, I'd always assumed that was just a small number of members of the Council, mixed in with Starfleet reps. I like the Security Council idea myself.
Starfleet officetrs have various powers that allow them a fair bit of autonomy when dealing with new or far flung planets and are out of communication range or at least timely communications. They encompass such things as diplomatic relations and go beyond strictly military/scientific duties.
Like I said before, it's likely that the structure is something we have yet to concieve of.
It's telling that Pike tells Kirk that what he's about to say is important. It pretty much tells us that what Pike tells his isn't just an off the cuff remark but a thoughtful statement. He then says that "The Federation" is a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada. He's already mentioned Starfleet when so the choice of "The Federation" seems to be exactly what he was talking about. Exactly how an interstellar government would be an armada is the big question but it would appear to be the key to understanding the structure of the UFP.
Like I said before, it's likely that the structure is something we have yet to concieve of.
It's telling that Pike tells Kirk that what he's about to say is important. It pretty much tells us that what Pike tells his isn't just an off the cuff remark but a thoughtful statement. He then says that "The Federation" is a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada. He's already mentioned Starfleet when so the choice of "The Federation" seems to be exactly what he was talking about. Exactly how an interstellar government would be an armada is the big question but it would appear to be the key to understanding the structure of the UFP.
No, it's pretty clear the line was supposed to be a reference to Starfleet. And it was dubbed in late in the process; it wasn't in early versions of the scene made available online, and Pike is off-camera when we hear him say it. I figure Abrams realized at the last minute that the film hadn't adequately defined the Federation for new audiences, so he stuck the word "Federation" in that line when it really should've been "Starfleet." Or maybe it was originally written (for ADR) as a longer line that mentioned both institutions but it got cut down.
Besides, we know for a fact that Starfleet is separate from the Federation government -- otherwise Admiral Layton in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" wouldn't have needed to stage a coup to gain power over the government.
I don't see how you can say "It's an obvious mistake." It was what made it onto the screen. Much like Sybok's mother being called a princess when priestess would have worked much better with what we knew of Vulcans.
When Pike says "It's important" to me he's driving home the seriousness of what he is saying. To have him make such a fundamental mistake and not correct himself doesn't make sense. "This is important, listen to me and understand."
Having Starfleet as part of the government still works if it's a branch of the government, much like the house, senate or judiciary and one of those (the one with the weapons) shut down the others in order to impose their rule.
Half the fun is working out how to fit the odd or contradictory parts into a coheisive whole.
Perhaps what we saw in the chamber in TVH was the president with representatives of the branches of the Federation. Starfleet, the Federation Council (as distinct from the security council), and the Federation Assembly. To make T'Pau's status as the only person to turn down a seat on the Federation Council work, we could go with the Athenian Democracy idea that places are chosen by lottery from whatever groups is considered to be eleigble (age, experience, etc). The Federation could be the democratically elected body which represents all planets, colonies and outposts. Starfleet would be a voluntary organization (i.e. you join up, you're not drafted, appointed or elected.) The president could be chosen from all members and would also be consired to be the head of the judiciary. Not necisarrily the chief justice but in charge of that particular branch in some way.
When Pike says "It's important" to me he's driving home the seriousness of what he is saying. To have him make such a fundamental mistake and not correct himself doesn't make sense. "This is important, listen to me and understand."
Having Starfleet as part of the government still works if it's a branch of the government, much like the house, senate or judiciary and one of those (the one with the weapons) shut down the others in order to impose their rule.
Half the fun is working out how to fit the odd or contradictory parts into a coheisive whole.
Perhaps what we saw in the chamber in TVH was the president with representatives of the branches of the Federation. Starfleet, the Federation Council (as distinct from the security council), and the Federation Assembly. To make T'Pau's status as the only person to turn down a seat on the Federation Council work, we could go with the Athenian Democracy idea that places are chosen by lottery from whatever groups is considered to be eleigble (age, experience, etc). The Federation could be the democratically elected body which represents all planets, colonies and outposts. Starfleet would be a voluntary organization (i.e. you join up, you're not drafted, appointed or elected.) The president could be chosen from all members and would also be consired to be the head of the judiciary. Not necisarrily the chief justice but in charge of that particular branch in some way.
Lots of mistakes make it onscreen. It's fiction. It's made up. Sometimes you can't take every last bit of it literally. If there's a special-effects mistake and a piece of the ship blinks out for two seconds, that doesn't mean it actually blinked out for two seconds. When Nimoy mispronounced "cryogenic" in "Journey to Babel," it didn't mean he was actually supposed to be saying "serogenic." It means somebody goofed. Watching intelligently means making allowances for the imperfections of the people creating the fiction.
It wasn't Pike's mistake. Pike is an imaginary character. It was the mistake of the filmmakers who dubbed in that line late in post-production to correct an oversight in the script and had to try to cram a complex concept into the few seconds that Bruce Greenwood was off-camera.
Of course mistakes happen as they do in anything. You have actors mispronounce words as in your example, Kirk's travelling blood stain in TWOK and others. However, that doesn't mean that every word or line should just be written off as a potential mistake. The line was added in post in order to add information to the scene. That alone tells me that it was important enough that Abrams thought it was necessary. Just because it's not easily reconcilable with what has come before doesn't necissarily mean that it should be dismissed out of hand. I prefer to see how it can be made to fit. It's not like we have a really good understanding of how the Federation is tructured or how it operates.
The character of Pike made the statement so it is his words we're hearing. It's not like he's going to say "The writers want me to say "It's important"". Within the story what the characters say is assumed to be their own thoughts, not given to them by some omnipotent overseer. When Sisko sold his soul and brought the Romulans intot he war we didn't dismiss it by saying "I can't believe what the writers made Sisko do". We were shocked that the character would do such a thing.
Some things are obvious errors and should be treated as such. Other things aren't as cut and dried and deserve greater consideration before being accepted or dismissed.
The character of Pike made the statement so it is his words we're hearing. It's not like he's going to say "The writers want me to say "It's important"". Within the story what the characters say is assumed to be their own thoughts, not given to them by some omnipotent overseer. When Sisko sold his soul and brought the Romulans intot he war we didn't dismiss it by saying "I can't believe what the writers made Sisko do". We were shocked that the character would do such a thing.
Some things are obvious errors and should be treated as such. Other things aren't as cut and dried and deserve greater consideration before being accepted or dismissed.
Originally the idea is from The Federation, a supplement for the FASA role playing system.
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Federation
Totally non-canon but an interesting read. Essentially, it supposes the Federation to be structured much like the United Nations with an assembly consisting of all members and various other bodies such as the Security Council. It also introduced the idea of different levels of membership such as Full Members, Associate Members and Colonies.
The idea that parts of the Federation are chosen by lot, as in an Athenian Government, is simply speculation on my part to explain the line about T'Pau turning down a seat on the Council. Vulcans don't strike me as the "write in vote" type. This is discussed more up topic including comments by Christopher and others.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I would put to much stock in anything that was written before TNG and DS9 were on the air, unless it was specifically mentioned in a later episode or book. I think the idea that people wanted T'Pau to run, but she chose not too works perfectly as a way to explain the line about turning down a seat on the Council. And books like the last couple A Time To... and Articles of the Federation, and the Destiny series did a pretty good of revealing how the Federation Government works. If you haven't read them you really should.
^Right. What we're seeing is not a consistent universe, but a bunch of independent stories from different people trying to construct a universe with the illusion of consistency. And that means sometimes what's implied in an earlier work is rethought or ignored in a later work. That's why you can't be too literal about every last teensy little sentence.
Anyway, the line about T'Pau turning down a seat on the Council can be interpreted consistently with a democratic election process. You just have to assume that the Vulcans choose their Council members similarly to how it was done in Arthur C. Clarke's Imperial Earth: that instead of candidates seeking to run, the most qualified candidates are identified more objectively and asked to run. Which, you have to admit, is more logical than selecting candidates for office merely on how much they want the job. (As Clarke put it, the people who want power are the last ones who should be trusted with it.)
Indeed, there's canonical evidence that such a system applies to some extent in the Federation: in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," President Jaresh-Inyo said that his fellow councillors asked him to run for president. It wasn't his idea. So if candidates for the presidency are nominated/invited by others rather than seeking to run themselves, maybe the same is true for councillors. Maybe the citizens of Vulcan selected T'Pau as their choice for Federation Councillor and she refused.
Anyway, the line about T'Pau turning down a seat on the Council can be interpreted consistently with a democratic election process. You just have to assume that the Vulcans choose their Council members similarly to how it was done in Arthur C. Clarke's Imperial Earth: that instead of candidates seeking to run, the most qualified candidates are identified more objectively and asked to run. Which, you have to admit, is more logical than selecting candidates for office merely on how much they want the job. (As Clarke put it, the people who want power are the last ones who should be trusted with it.)
Indeed, there's canonical evidence that such a system applies to some extent in the Federation: in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," President Jaresh-Inyo said that his fellow councillors asked him to run for president. It wasn't his idea. So if candidates for the presidency are nominated/invited by others rather than seeking to run themselves, maybe the same is true for councillors. Maybe the citizens of Vulcan selected T'Pau as their choice for Federation Councillor and she refused.
Having the President chosen from among the councillers is similar to Canada's system where the Prime Minister is an MP as well as the elader of the government. More closely, it's like the position of speaker who is chosen from all the MP's and does not necessarily have to be a member of the ruling party.
That doesn't mean that the MP's can simply offer a vacant seat to whomever they choose. Anyone that would want a vacant seat must still stand for election. Asking someone to run for a seat and having them turn you down doesn't sound like you're turning down a seat but rather you're simply declining to run.
I'd prefer that the Federation have a government structure a bit more complex and interesting that the Legislature of Nebraska.
Christopher, why ever do you find it necessary to make an out-of-the-box production argument to answer what had been, to that point, an in-the-box in-universe argument? That's bad debating form because you're changing the rhetorical footing to one better to your liking and changing the grounds of the argument just because you can. I also find it puzzling that you can denigrate Star Trek/LSH as an "imaginary story" for not fitting into the universe this week on the one hand, then dismiss DrBashir's in-universe arguments as "it's all fiction" on the other. If you're losing the argument and can't come up with a plausible explanation, just accept it, admit it, and move on. But inconsistent argument and altering the basis on which arguments are made does you no credit at all.
Part I.
I'd really hope that's not the case. Banning caste-based discrimination is such an obvious thing. That's like saying, "Well, the Federation never thought about banning slavery until they realized they'd let some slavers in..." The Federation and its founding Members should already have been more enlightened than that by 2161.
The President of the United Federation of Planets is democratically elected. The Chairman of the Board of Directors of Apple Incorporated is not.
I sincerely hope that the Federation not only does not emulate corporations, but has in fact abolished them as a legal entity.
2. The thing to understand about the South African Presidency is that it is unique as a presidency elected by the members of the lower house of the legislature because its current incarnation evolved from a parliamentary model. Originally, the Union of South Africa was still a constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm like Canada or Australia: Elizabeth II reigned as the ceremonial Queen of the Union of South Africa, represented in South Africa by a Governor-General, with real power falling to the Prime Minister.
The Afrikaner elite, against the wishes of English South Africans, later successfully pushed for a republic; the Union of South Africa was dissolved and the Republic of South Africa proclaimed in 1961. The country left the Commonwealth, and the new head of state became known as the State President of South Africa, elected by the Parliament. But the State Presidents were like the Governors-General: Ceremonial. Real power remained in the hands of the Prime Ministers.
In 1984, a new constitution was enacted, which created a "tri-cameral" Parliament for South Africa: One house for whites, one house for "Coloured" (the term used under apartheid for people of biracial descent), and one house for Indians, with the post of Prime Minister abolished and its powers granted to the State President (who would, in turn, now be elected by an electoral college comprised of 50 whites, 25 "Coloureds," and 13 Indians chosen by their respective houses of Parliament). This represented an attempt on the part of the white power elite to compromise with the "Coloureds" and Indians, while still completely excluding blacks and preserving apartheid in a modified form.
So the modern South African Presidency, while no longer a legal instrument of oppression, has evolved the way it has because of its roots in Westminster parliamentary model. They, in essence, took the role of Prime Minister and re-named it "President," and they've kept that ball going, because the South African Parliament has just always been the body that determined the head of government, from 1901 on to the present.
So it's highly, highly improbable that the Federation would adopt a model like that. South Africa represents a distinct aberration from the democratic traditions of modern states in that regard -- its president is non popularly elected to serve as head of state and government simultaneously like in the U.S., nor elected to serve as a ceremonial head of state like in Germany or Ireland, nor popularly elected to serve as a head of state who shares power with a Prime Minister, as in France. It makes little sense for any country to adopt the South African model, as it lacks the advantages of a true parliamentary system (possessing an apolitical head of state everybody can support, irrelevant of party) while retaining the disadvantages of a U.S. presidential system (lacking a mechanism to remove the head of government from office if he loses the confidence of the legislature).
But you've also got to ask yourself:
Why?
Why would the peoples of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri create and consent to a system that limits their democratic input into the selection of the President? Why wouldn't you want a direct, popular election?
I mean, hell, even in parliamentary systems, the people can indirectly vote for their head of government, since they know that a vote for this party's candidate or that party's candidate for local MP is also a de facto vote for the leader of that candidate's party to become Prime Minister. Federates wouldn't even have that, since the Federation apparently lacks UFP-wide political parties.
As important? Yes. As complicated? No.
And, further, it's not like there's a single set of Jurors that determine the guilt or not-guilt of every single person on trial in the United States; each Juror is charged with determining the guilt or not-guilt of the accused, based upon evidence admitted to the Court by the Judge, under the Judge's instructions of how to proceed, and then goes back to his or her life. It's a very different, much more limited, much more supervised, situation.
The second problem with that idea is that when you have a large population, it effectively becomes impossible for every citizen to serve a term as a legislator; there are just too many people and not enough time for everyone to serve before they die.
The third, and most fundamental, problem with that idea, however, is this:
No one elected them.
You're arguing that someone should be able to hold office and make law without the consent of the governed. That he or she should be able to hold office and make law with no democratic mandate.
That's not democracy. Frankly, Athenian democracy should not even be called such. It wasn't a democracy -- it was a plutocracy in which some of the plutocrats served on the basis of random chance. Expanding that set of eligible office-holders to the entire population rather than just a plutocratic elite doesn't actually make it democratic, since you still have people holding office without that individual's holding office being the clear will of the people.
That's really dangerous, really scary. What if someone like Jared Laughtner had been randomly selected to serve in Congress, for instance? Or David Duke? Or someone with severe mental retardation? Or just someone with a really poor grasp of economics, or foreign policy?
There need to be more safeguards.
And there are plenty of people who are not career politicians who enter the field, vowing one or two terms, but who are, clearly, power-mad lunatics. Just consider Nick Popoditch, a former United States Marine who challenged Congressman Bob Filner for his seat in California last year, lost... and then led a mob over to Filner HQ and had his people assault Filner and Filner's supporters. Not being a career politico is no guarantee of human decency.
And meanwhile, there are plenty of career politicians who are such because it's a field at which they excel, which allows them to do work they believe in, because they like helping people, and because, well, they like it. The idea that being a career politician in a democracy is a bad thing just makes no sense to me.
How is that democratic?
Which doesn't mean that abolishing the Denevan state or suspending its Federation Membership is right, either. It just presents an interesting dilemma about the nature of democracy.
In the canon? It hasn't. I'm making that assertion, right now, because if the Federation does not make liberal democracy a requirement for Membership, then it's a worthless union. Liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government.
Remember, the United States has evolved into a liberal democracy; it wasn't born one.
I'd really hope that's not the case. Banning caste-based discrimination is such an obvious thing. That's like saying, "Well, the Federation never thought about banning slavery until they realized they'd let some slavers in..." The Federation and its founding Members should already have been more enlightened than that by 2161.
No, there were all sorts of social issues to be addressed, including access to medical treatment, access to Stratos, giving the Troglytes a decent education, and generally reversing the perception that Troglyes were inherently mentally inferior to Stratos dwellers. The fundamental nature of Ardanian society was called into question.
False. A military junta is simply a situation where a group of military officers rule the state. They need not have seized power in a coup d'etat.
I think that's particularly flimsy evidence that's not backed up by anything. In particular. President Jaresh-Inyo in DS9 clearly wasn't wearing any medals, even if President Hiram Roth in ST4 was. So we can't conclude anything about those medals.
Then that throws out the first premise that started this discussion, that the Federation sometimes has its legislature conduct courts-martial of its military as a result of inheriting some legal traditions from worlds other than Earth.
Well, by that logic, Athens was not an Athenian democracy, since only a small plutocratic elite were eligible to be drafted.
I can think of few institutions in the world as un-democratic and un-accountable, and as fundamentally abusive and power-hungry, as the corporation. "Corporate democracy" is a joke and a lie. Corporations are democratic and accountable only on paper; in reality, they are accountable to no one but the plutocratic elite who control them.
The President of the United Federation of Planets is democratically elected. The Chairman of the Board of Directors of Apple Incorporated is not.
I sincerely hope that the Federation not only does not emulate corporations, but has in fact abolished them as a legal entity.
1. The Federation shouldn't need to adopt a model of a discriminatory state that embraced full, equal representative democracy, because the Federation should never have been discriminatory in the first place. Why would the Federation have been discriminatory in the past?
2. The thing to understand about the South African Presidency is that it is unique as a presidency elected by the members of the lower house of the legislature because its current incarnation evolved from a parliamentary model. Originally, the Union of South Africa was still a constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm like Canada or Australia: Elizabeth II reigned as the ceremonial Queen of the Union of South Africa, represented in South Africa by a Governor-General, with real power falling to the Prime Minister.
The Afrikaner elite, against the wishes of English South Africans, later successfully pushed for a republic; the Union of South Africa was dissolved and the Republic of South Africa proclaimed in 1961. The country left the Commonwealth, and the new head of state became known as the State President of South Africa, elected by the Parliament. But the State Presidents were like the Governors-General: Ceremonial. Real power remained in the hands of the Prime Ministers.
In 1984, a new constitution was enacted, which created a "tri-cameral" Parliament for South Africa: One house for whites, one house for "Coloured" (the term used under apartheid for people of biracial descent), and one house for Indians, with the post of Prime Minister abolished and its powers granted to the State President (who would, in turn, now be elected by an electoral college comprised of 50 whites, 25 "Coloureds," and 13 Indians chosen by their respective houses of Parliament). This represented an attempt on the part of the white power elite to compromise with the "Coloureds" and Indians, while still completely excluding blacks and preserving apartheid in a modified form.
So the modern South African Presidency, while no longer a legal instrument of oppression, has evolved the way it has because of its roots in Westminster parliamentary model. They, in essence, took the role of Prime Minister and re-named it "President," and they've kept that ball going, because the South African Parliament has just always been the body that determined the head of government, from 1901 on to the present.
So it's highly, highly improbable that the Federation would adopt a model like that. South Africa represents a distinct aberration from the democratic traditions of modern states in that regard -- its president is non popularly elected to serve as head of state and government simultaneously like in the U.S., nor elected to serve as a ceremonial head of state like in Germany or Ireland, nor popularly elected to serve as a head of state who shares power with a Prime Minister, as in France. It makes little sense for any country to adopt the South African model, as it lacks the advantages of a true parliamentary system (possessing an apolitical head of state everybody can support, irrelevant of party) while retaining the disadvantages of a U.S. presidential system (lacking a mechanism to remove the head of government from office if he loses the confidence of the legislature).
Could, maybe, possibly, sure. Could.
But you've also got to ask yourself:
Why?
Why would the peoples of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri create and consent to a system that limits their democratic input into the selection of the President? Why wouldn't you want a direct, popular election?
I mean, hell, even in parliamentary systems, the people can indirectly vote for their head of government, since they know that a vote for this party's candidate or that party's candidate for local MP is also a de facto vote for the leader of that candidate's party to become Prime Minister. Federates wouldn't even have that, since the Federation apparently lacks UFP-wide political parties.
Why not? Hell, the Federation Councillor from Janus in Articles of the Federation is a Horta!Where's the short, copper guys from Journey to Babel? Is this actually representative of the Federation in the 2280's?
As important? Yes. As complicated? No.
And, further, it's not like there's a single set of Jurors that determine the guilt or not-guilt of every single person on trial in the United States; each Juror is charged with determining the guilt or not-guilt of the accused, based upon evidence admitted to the Court by the Judge, under the Judge's instructions of how to proceed, and then goes back to his or her life. It's a very different, much more limited, much more supervised, situation.
The first problem with that idea, as I said before, is that legislating effectively requires a set of skills not equally distributed amongst the population; the people should be the judges of who is qualified, not random chance.
The second problem with that idea is that when you have a large population, it effectively becomes impossible for every citizen to serve a term as a legislator; there are just too many people and not enough time for everyone to serve before they die.
The third, and most fundamental, problem with that idea, however, is this:
No one elected them.
You're arguing that someone should be able to hold office and make law without the consent of the governed. That he or she should be able to hold office and make law with no democratic mandate.
That's not democracy. Frankly, Athenian democracy should not even be called such. It wasn't a democracy -- it was a plutocracy in which some of the plutocrats served on the basis of random chance. Expanding that set of eligible office-holders to the entire population rather than just a plutocratic elite doesn't actually make it democratic, since you still have people holding office without that individual's holding office being the clear will of the people.
That's really dangerous, really scary. What if someone like Jared Laughtner had been randomly selected to serve in Congress, for instance? Or David Duke? Or someone with severe mental retardation? Or just someone with a really poor grasp of economics, or foreign policy?
There need to be more safeguards.
I've never understood why the idea of a career politician is seen as an inherently bad thing. Sure, there are power-hungry elitists out there who become career politicians because of that. But there are power-hungry elitists who pursue positions of authority in every field because of that, from your local library (seriously, a good friend of mine is a librarian, and it's fascinating to hear him talk about intra-library politics) to a hospital to small diners to big corporations.
And there are plenty of people who are not career politicians who enter the field, vowing one or two terms, but who are, clearly, power-mad lunatics. Just consider Nick Popoditch, a former United States Marine who challenged Congressman Bob Filner for his seat in California last year, lost... and then led a mob over to Filner HQ and had his people assault Filner and Filner's supporters. Not being a career politico is no guarantee of human decency.
And meanwhile, there are plenty of career politicians who are such because it's a field at which they excel, which allows them to do work they believe in, because they like helping people, and because, well, they like it. The idea that being a career politician in a democracy is a bad thing just makes no sense to me.
So, in other words, unelected advisers would have actual power and setting policy, with the randomly chosen citizen as a figurehead?
How is that democratic?
I would certainly hope that the Federation had a ban on caste-based discrimination in its Charter/Constitution/Articles of the Federation/whatever-we're-calling-it-this-week when it was first founded (why wouldn't it have such a basic ban in its founding documents?), and I'd certainly hope that Ardana's admission represented an aberration from the Federation's normal practices, to be rectified once it was bought to the public's and/or the Council's attention.
Fascinating! Can you give us a hint as to who some of those Members were in 2270?
True. Though, to be fair, that does present a reasonable question about the nature of Federation democracy. If we assume that most Federation Members have more or less an equal population, it's all good -- but if you have a situation where the typical Federation Member has, say, 6 billion citizens, but Members like Deneva suddenly have maybe 1 million or fewer, you basically have a situation where a Denevan Federate's vote is much more influential, much more determinative, than, say, a United Earth Federate's. (A similar situation exists with the United States Senate today, where the vote of, say, a citizen of Wyoming is much more influential than the vote of someone from California, because there are so many more Californians than Wyomingites.)
Which doesn't mean that abolishing the Denevan state or suspending its Federation Membership is right, either. It just presents an interesting dilemma about the nature of democracy.
In the canon? It hasn't. I'm making that assertion, right now, because if the Federation does not make liberal democracy a requirement for Membership, then it's a worthless union. Liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government.
That's a function of the fact that when the United States was formed, it wasn't a democracy -- the qualifications for being able to vote were determined by the states, and each state required that to vote, you be a property-owning white male of a certain age. It was a deeply repressive system designed to exclude women, blacks, Indians, and the vast majority of white men. It was, frankly, little more than a republican plutocracy.
Remember, the United States has evolved into a liberal democracy; it wasn't born one.
Part II.
Well, that's a pretty good reason right off the bat. And there's also a very simple fact: Anarchy is just as oppressive as authoritarianism. If there is no government, life becomes nothing less than the rule of the strong over the weak. The exercise of naked power becomes the only law. That quickly degenerates into elitism, deprivation, poverty, tyranny.
If you want a good luck at an anarchic state today, look at Somalia. Somehow I doubt they'd qualify for Federation Membership.
Make no mistake: Any dictatorship, of any sort, inherently requires abuses of human rights (in the Star Trekkian context, I suppose we'd call them sentient rights). Any dictatorship inherently means violating the inherent right of the people to choose their own government democratically. It inherently means being unaccountable to anyone. It inherently means that there is no rule of law, only the rule of the dictator. And because it is impossible for a dictator to hold onto power without doing it, it means suppressing dissident movements, stifling free speech, and violating the right of freedom of association.
There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. All dictatorships are inherently tyrannical.
Nope. That's a democracy. A republic is, as Allyn notes, a state whose government is not led by a monarch, that's all. (He's wrong about it being any state not led by a hereditary monarch, though. The State of the Vatican City is an absolute monarchy; the monarch is the Pope, but the Papacy, of course, is non-hereditary. Nonetheless, the State of the Vatican City is not a republic.
)
To be fair, there are a number of nominal "republics" that are, in reality, hereditary monarchies in all but name. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, aka North Korea, is obviously a hereditary monarchy by any objective standard -- it was founded by Kim Il-sung, currently controlled by his son Kim Jong-Il, and it's looking like Kim Jong-il wants his son Kim Jong-un to take over after he dies. It really might as well be called the Kingdom of North Korea. Same with Syria.
Eh, yes and no. The federal judiciary is appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate, and some states' judiciaries are appointed by the Governors with the consent of the state legislatures. But at the end of the day, the federal judiciary and appointed state judiciaries are as highly politicized as the elected judiciaries. This is a function of U.S. political culture becoming more and more highly divisive and politically divided more than it is a function of how judges are chosen.
I'd be more inclined to suspect that, if those people in the bleachers of the Federation Council Chamber in ST4 were Federation Councillors, that we were seeing the Federation Judiciary Council, the Federation Council's standing committee on their judicial system.
Sad but true. Democratic elections for the judicial branch are very ineffective.
That's entirely possible. Though you only partially remember correctly. The Federation Security Council, the standing committee of the full Federation Council dealing with Federation security concerns, is comprised of 13 Federation Councillors: The Councillors from each of the five founding Members of the Federation (Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri), and eight Councillors chosen by the President and ratified by the full Council.
(No word on how Andor's secession has affected Federation Security Council membership.)
I doubt anyone from DTI would have been there. The court-martial seen in ST4 dealt entirely with Kirk and Company's actions during ST3: The hijacking of the U.S.S. Enterprise, the sabotage of the U.S.S. Excalibur, illegal entry into the Genesis Sector, and the destruction of the Enterprise. Any charges stemming from the H.M.S. Bounty's trip to 1986 would necessarily have to be tried in an entirely separate court-martial.
Why do you keep trying to turn the Federation into a military junta?
Seriously, Pike was obviously mis-speaking. Starfleet is an armada. The Federation is a sovereign state and a democracy.
This was also true of the Royal Navy during the "Age of Sail." That didn't make the Royal Navy a branch of Parliament.
Exactly. If Starfleet were more than just the Federation's military arm, then Sisko's argument that the Federation's Member worlds wouldn't stand by while "their President is replaced by a military dictator" would hold no weight.
Because people are always completely coherent when they're frustrated with one-another?
No. But taking the universe seriously for the purposes of a debate doesn't mean taking every little line as being absolutely sacrosanct, either. Disregarding an obvious error is perfectly reasonable.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, I hope the Federation wouldn't be organized like the ridiculous, undemocratic world body that's designed for the primary purpose of legitimizing the rule of "great powers" over the rest of the world which is the United Nations.
Well, the first thing I'd point out is that there are plenty of instances where people approach potential candidates with the idea of running first.
The second thing I'd ask is: On what basis would such candidates be chosen? By whom? Who gives those people the authority to determine who may stand for election? I haven't read Imperial Earth, but that sounds very ominous to me.
So we don't know who asked him to run -- only that "they" did. This isn't unheard of in real life, either. There's a reason Aaron Sorkin had Leo McGary talk New Hampshire Governor Jed Bartlet into running for President in The West Wing, after all.
But that raises the question of why he's called the President of the United Federation of Planets rather than the Prime Minister of the United Federation of Planets.
Oh, hogwash. Stepping out of the in-unverse box to point out an obvious production error and saying we should disregard that error in speculating about how things work in-universe is perfectly reasonable.
Well, that's a pretty good reason right off the bat. And there's also a very simple fact: Anarchy is just as oppressive as authoritarianism. If there is no government, life becomes nothing less than the rule of the strong over the weak. The exercise of naked power becomes the only law. That quickly degenerates into elitism, deprivation, poverty, tyranny.
If you want a good luck at an anarchic state today, look at Somalia. Somehow I doubt they'd qualify for Federation Membership.
There is absolutely no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. The entire concept is self-contradictory and absurd.
Make no mistake: Any dictatorship, of any sort, inherently requires abuses of human rights (in the Star Trekkian context, I suppose we'd call them sentient rights). Any dictatorship inherently means violating the inherent right of the people to choose their own government democratically. It inherently means being unaccountable to anyone. It inherently means that there is no rule of law, only the rule of the dictator. And because it is impossible for a dictator to hold onto power without doing it, it means suppressing dissident movements, stifling free speech, and violating the right of freedom of association.
There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. All dictatorships are inherently tyrannical.
Nope. That's a democracy. A republic is, as Allyn notes, a state whose government is not led by a monarch, that's all. (He's wrong about it being any state not led by a hereditary monarch, though. The State of the Vatican City is an absolute monarchy; the monarch is the Pope, but the Papacy, of course, is non-hereditary. Nonetheless, the State of the Vatican City is not a republic.
)To be fair, there are a number of nominal "republics" that are, in reality, hereditary monarchies in all but name. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, aka North Korea, is obviously a hereditary monarchy by any objective standard -- it was founded by Kim Il-sung, currently controlled by his son Kim Jong-Il, and it's looking like Kim Jong-il wants his son Kim Jong-un to take over after he dies. It really might as well be called the Kingdom of North Korea. Same with Syria.
Eh, yes and no. The federal judiciary is appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate, and some states' judiciaries are appointed by the Governors with the consent of the state legislatures. But at the end of the day, the federal judiciary and appointed state judiciaries are as highly politicized as the elected judiciaries. This is a function of U.S. political culture becoming more and more highly divisive and politically divided more than it is a function of how judges are chosen.
Memory Alpha has a pretty good run-down of who's who in that scene here.
I mean, that's possible, but it seems improbable to me. The National Security Council is essentially just an organizing mechanism for advisers to the President, nothing more. It's certainly not a constitutional body like the legislature.
I'd be more inclined to suspect that, if those people in the bleachers of the Federation Council Chamber in ST4 were Federation Councillors, that we were seeing the Federation Judiciary Council, the Federation Council's standing committee on their judicial system.
Sad but true. Democratic elections for the judicial branch are very ineffective.
That's entirely possible. Though you only partially remember correctly. The Federation Security Council, the standing committee of the full Federation Council dealing with Federation security concerns, is comprised of 13 Federation Councillors: The Councillors from each of the five founding Members of the Federation (Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri), and eight Councillors chosen by the President and ratified by the full Council.
(No word on how Andor's secession has affected Federation Security Council membership.)
I doubt anyone from DTI would have been there. The court-martial seen in ST4 dealt entirely with Kirk and Company's actions during ST3: The hijacking of the U.S.S. Enterprise, the sabotage of the U.S.S. Excalibur, illegal entry into the Genesis Sector, and the destruction of the Enterprise. Any charges stemming from the H.M.S. Bounty's trip to 1986 would necessarily have to be tried in an entirely separate court-martial.
Why do you keep trying to turn the Federation into a military junta?
Seriously, Pike was obviously mis-speaking. Starfleet is an armada. The Federation is a sovereign state and a democracy.
Doubtful. We've already gotten a broad outline of how it works canonically, and it's not that fundamentally different from the basic constitutional setups of modern democracies. The real differences in the Federation would be in areas outside of the basic constitutional skeleton -- how its economy works; how a society that has no class system would function; how would a democracy with no Federation-wide political parties function; how would Federation Members relate to one-another and to non-Federation states; what kinds of laws might govern intra-Federation immigration; etc.
This was also true of the Royal Navy during the "Age of Sail." That didn't make the Royal Navy a branch of Parliament.
No, it doesn't. It tells us that Pike is frustrated because he thinks Kirk isn't listening to him.
Uh, no. It's obviously a character mis-speaking. "The key to understanding the structure?" Nonsense, and contradicted by 40 years' worth of canon. Starfleet is the armada, the Federation is the sovereign state.
Exactly. If Starfleet were more than just the Federation's military arm, then Sisko's argument that the Federation's Member worlds wouldn't stand by while "their President is replaced by a military dictator" would hold no weight.
Because people are always completely coherent when they're frustrated with one-another?
How could it be? A government inherently only has three branches: The legislative, judicial, and executive branches. By definition, an organization that does the things Starfleet does -- enforce the law ("Let He Who Is Without Sin..."), explore, conduct diplomatic negotiations in the absence of an accredited ambassador, and wage war -- is inherently part of the executive branch, since it, well, executes policies!
Federation Assembly?
No. But taking the universe seriously for the purposes of a debate doesn't mean taking every little line as being absolutely sacrosanct, either. Disregarding an obvious error is perfectly reasonable.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, I hope the Federation wouldn't be organized like the ridiculous, undemocratic world body that's designed for the primary purpose of legitimizing the rule of "great powers" over the rest of the world which is the United Nations.
I really don't think that requires any more explanation than that she either would certainly have won an election but declined to stand, or that she declined an appointment by the democratically-elected Vulcan government.
Well, the first thing I'd point out is that there are plenty of instances where people approach potential candidates with the idea of running first.
The second thing I'd ask is: On what basis would such candidates be chosen? By whom? Who gives those people the authority to determine who may stand for election? I haven't read Imperial Earth, but that sounds very ominous to me.
I don't think that's a reasonable argument at all. Plenty of people want power for specific purposes, not just for the sake of having power.
Actually, his exact line was, "I never sought this job. I was content to simply represent my people on the Federation Council. When they asked me to submit my name for election, I almost said no. Today I wish I had."
So we don't know who asked him to run -- only that "they" did. This isn't unheard of in real life, either. There's a reason Aaron Sorkin had Leo McGary talk New Hampshire Governor Jed Bartlet into running for President in The West Wing, after all.
If the nominating process is completely open and wholly democratic, I like that idea. I just get nervous when people start implying that deciding who gets to run is the purview of a small group.
But that raises the question of why he's called the President of the United Federation of Planets rather than the Prime Minister of the United Federation of Planets.
Except that the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada is supposed to run the House of Commons in an impartial manner. He or she is merely the presiding officer of that house of Parliament, not the head of government.
Why? Complexity in constitutional set-ups tends to confound democratic accountability.
Oh, hogwash. Stepping out of the in-unverse box to point out an obvious production error and saying we should disregard that error in speculating about how things work in-universe is perfectly reasonable.
So, assuming that we're free to declare certain lines to be in error, what if we say that Kirk actually meant to say was Monarchy rather than Democracy in Errand of Mercy. There's exactly as much evidence for eliminating that line as there is for swapping Federation and Starfleet in Pike's statement in ST09.
The problem is that everyone assumes that we've got the perfect system of government, or at least, the absolute best we can currently hope for. If we knew of a better system, we'd be using it already. Should we assume that interstellar corporations buy and sell candidates support as easily as they do today? Are the People of the 23rd & 24th century as frustrated with the petty bickering between political parties? Have we simply transplanted our own system into the future and slapped a light coat of paint and a couple of peel and stick labels to it?
In regards to the Federation being based, at least in spirit of the UN, that was the original feeling that Trek was going for. Different races instead of different countries but coming together to work out their differences as an alternative to war and to work together to improve life for everyone. Has the UN fallen short of those goals? Of course, what human endeavour hasn't? Does that mean we should disband it and go back to forming petty power blocks and getting into wars over who's god has the bigger genitals?
Am I to take this that you don't support having 1/3 of the government being selected by the people? What other way would you suggest? Having them selected by someone else? Who would decide? Should the people get to vote, perhaps by a simple ratification of the nominee? Sound more democratic than it is now. If you want it to be totally democratic, get rid of the requirements to have a law degree. Let anyone run for Chief Justice. (of course, I'm being sarcastic. Just showing how sometimes you really do want people to have certain miminmum standards. They're already applied to the judiciary. What if, if the future where everyone is highly educated, the standard has changed? After all, 10 year olds learn calculus in the 24th century. Imagine what the educated citizens are like after 20, 30, 40 years. I imagine the learning never ends.)
Requireing all alien civilizations to follow 20th century Earth governing structures sounds like imperialism. "You'll do things exactly like we do or you cannot join our alliance and we'll prevent you from spreading beyond your home plant" Keeping the universe safe for democracy.
The problem is that everyone assumes that we've got the perfect system of government, or at least, the absolute best we can currently hope for. If we knew of a better system, we'd be using it already. Should we assume that interstellar corporations buy and sell candidates support as easily as they do today? Are the People of the 23rd & 24th century as frustrated with the petty bickering between political parties? Have we simply transplanted our own system into the future and slapped a light coat of paint and a couple of peel and stick labels to it?
In regards to the Federation being based, at least in spirit of the UN, that was the original feeling that Trek was going for. Different races instead of different countries but coming together to work out their differences as an alternative to war and to work together to improve life for everyone. Has the UN fallen short of those goals? Of course, what human endeavour hasn't? Does that mean we should disband it and go back to forming petty power blocks and getting into wars over who's god has the bigger genitals?
Am I to take this that you don't support having 1/3 of the government being selected by the people? What other way would you suggest? Having them selected by someone else? Who would decide? Should the people get to vote, perhaps by a simple ratification of the nominee? Sound more democratic than it is now. If you want it to be totally democratic, get rid of the requirements to have a law degree. Let anyone run for Chief Justice. (of course, I'm being sarcastic. Just showing how sometimes you really do want people to have certain miminmum standards. They're already applied to the judiciary. What if, if the future where everyone is highly educated, the standard has changed? After all, 10 year olds learn calculus in the 24th century. Imagine what the educated citizens are like after 20, 30, 40 years. I imagine the learning never ends.)
Requireing all alien civilizations to follow 20th century Earth governing structures sounds like imperialism. "You'll do things exactly like we do or you cannot join our alliance and we'll prevent you from spreading beyond your home plant" Keeping the universe safe for democracy.
I think this thread is starting to prove that we need another Star Trek: Articles of the Federation book from KRAD!!!
