Federation Democracy

[Nyotarules]

I think one representative per species/race is a better idea. If it was one vote per world all folks have to do is spread out their populations on different planets and have a huge voting block. I do find the Star Trek idea that colonies had only a few hundred folks on them unrealistic, where is the genetic diversity going to come from when there are only a few families around? I would expect there would be a more realistic minimum number of thousands of colonists allowed to start up a colony. Anyway all those empty M class planets dotted around the galaxy waiting to be inhabited by humanoids was another far fetched plot device for me.

 

[Sci]

I think one representative per species/race is a better idea.

I think that's a terrible idea. If a Tellarite is born on a mostly-Human Mars, he's raised within Martian culture, his economic interests are in the success of the Martian economy, his family is on Mars, etc. -- why should he have to vote for the "Federation Councillor for Tellarites," the majority of whose constituents live on an entirely different planet and may have entirely different, or even conflicting, cultural and economic interests? And those Humans who live on Mars may have totally different cultural and economic interests from Humans who live on Earth. Etc.

If it was one vote per world all folks have to do is spread out their populations on different planets and have a huge voting block.

So I think we gotta be more specific in our terminology.

It's all fine and dandy to equate "world" or "planet" with "Federation Member" when speaking informally. But if we're getting formal, I say we think about it this way:

The United States don't have the State of Hawai'i Island, the State of Maui, the State of O'ahu, the State of Kaua'i, the State of Moloka'i, the State of Lānaʻi, the State of Niʻhau, and the State of Kaho'olawe. Instead, even though they are separate islands, they are all part of one state -- the State of Hawaii. There isn't a separate State of Long Island -- it's part of the State of New York. Etc. Because membership in the federal union is not about geography per se -- it's about polity. About political organization.

So really, we shouldn't be thinking in terms of individual planets, since multiple planets may themselves be part of a single polity. It would be kind of silly for Luna to be its own separate Federation Member just because it happens to be a separate celestial body from Earth.

We should be thinking in terms of Federation Member States rather than planets, just like we think in terms of the State of Hawaii rather than individual islands.

There is a valid question about when the inhabitants of one planet or another ought to be considered as a distinct polity from whatever polity they previously belonged to. But I think that points to the question of, what ought to qualify a polity for Federation Membership?

 

[velour]

There is a valid question about when the inhabitants of one planet or another ought to be considered as a distinct polity from whatever polity they previously belonged to. But I think that points to the question of, what ought to qualify a polity for Federation Membership?

The admissions process for Federation membership would probably involve negotiations between the Fed and the applicant in order to resolve all of those issues. The Federation negotiators will have to determine which planets and which colonies of the applicant are to be included as part of the applicant's polity.

The Federation is not going to want to be bamboozled by the applicant. Didn't the USSR have 2 of its constituent "nations" (meaning getting a total of3 votes) admitted as separate members into the UN? The USSR probably made that one of the conditions in order for it to support and join the UN.

However representation is determined for the Federation Council -- the supreme one, as distinct from any lesser Federation councils -- it probably works better in theory, and on paper (the charter), than in practice anyway. The Council seems to be more analogous to the rather powerless EU Parliament than to the US Congress.

The real power -- as depicted in the shows -- in the Federation is Starfleet, and to a lesser extent, the Federation executive branch.

 

[Timo]

I do find the Star Trek idea that colonies had only a few hundred folks on them unrealistic, where is the genetic diversity going to come from when there are only a few families around?

From not marrying locally, I guess. Star travel is dirt cheap in Star Trek, after all, especially in the TNG era where we see the greatest number of these village-sized colonies. And even back in TOS, the families of the young Jimmy Kirk and Kevin Riley visited the reclusive Tarsus IV colony for whatever reason; colonies would be motivated to show hospitality to all potential donors of sperm and ova, just like here on Earth whenever geography creates divisions between populations.

Heck, that's one of the bestselling articles of traders like Harry Mudd!

I would expect there would be a more realistic minimum number of thousands of colonists allowed to start up a colony.

What's there to allow? Many, many colonies in Trek are countercultures, having been founded exactly because they weren't supposed to. Chartering a ship and moving a number of settlers seems eminently doable - and all the more so when the number of settlers is low rather than high.

Anyway all those empty M class planets dotted around the galaxy waiting to be inhabited by humanoids was another far fetched plot device for me.

Humanoid existence in the Trek Milky Way is old. The first humanoids we know of lived four billion years ago - and they found themselves more or less alone and unopposed, apparently. Even without any sort of FTL drive, there would have been time for them to terraform every single rock planet in the galaxy a thousand times over to their liking. And if some rocks were left unturned, or backslided when left to fallow, future species evolving on such worlds would be motivated to continue the good work, until only a tiny minority of planets were of types other than Earthlike. Especially since those first humanoids had taken godlike steps to ensure the emergence of future humanoid species specifically.

Now, there is no galactic empire there. (There supposedly was a billion years ago, as per TAS "The Slaver Weapon", but that went down in flames.) Something wipes out humanoid civilizations with humanoid motivations. That this happens without terminal damage to most of the planets the civilizations lived on is not particularly difficult to accept. It might well be in humanoid nature to leave planets empty for the next taker, through conflict, evolution, self-inflicted disaster or whatever. And apparently, it has happened in Trek...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tenacity]

The real power -- as depicted in the shows -- in the Federation is Starfleet, and to a lesser extent, the Federation executive branch.

I disagree on that last, the Council would seem to be the body in control.

We only heard of the president on a few occasions, at times during the federation's history the office of president might have been completely powerless, or even dissolved for multiple decades before being reestablished. During the time of the TOS series there may have been no president.

With new member's entering the federation (and old ones leaving), power will have shifted and shifted again. New members would bring with them different ideas on how the federation government should be organized and structured. Newly created voting blocks would put these new ideas into place.

Constitutions and charters can be amended and even completely rewritten.

 

[Unicron]

Non-canonically, I was reading some stuff recently in the old FASA sourcebook for the Federation. One element I always kind of liked was the idea that much of Federation space, at least within the era of TOS/Movies, included a number of worlds who were either associate members (some benefits but not full membership with its unique rights) or worlds that had not yet chosen to become members, but were mainly political allies. In part, the latter has to do with having to accept Federation laws over those of planetary ones in the case of conflicts of interest, as well as economic standards and trade rules. I'd have to look at it again to get more details.

 

[velour]

I disagree on that last, the Council would seem to be the body in control.

We only heard of the president on a few occasions, at times during the federation's history the office of president might have been completely powerless, or even dissolved for multiple decades before being reestablished. During the time of the TOS series there may have been no president.

With new member's entering the federation (and old ones leaving), power will have shifted and shifted again. New members would bring with them different ideas on how the federation government should be organized and structured. Newly created voting blocks would put these new ideas into place.

Constitutions and charters can be amended and even completely rewritten.

As far as I could tell, the one constant throughout the shows is that Starfleet is the most influential and substantial institution within the Federation. Without Starfleet, the Federation wouldn't amount to much.

Captains and admirals of Starfleet seem to have an inordinate amount of discretion and influence. As a practical matter, captains of starships can start wars or make peace with other galactic powers. In the DS9 eps "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost", it was Starfleet officials (i.e. Leyton, Sisko) whose voices were the most powerful and influential in getting the Fed President to declare a state of emergency.

Btw, DS9 is run by a Starfleet officer, not a civilian Federation official.

Constitutionally, Starfleet is subordinate to the Federation civilian leadership. But it seems that in practice, Starfleet steers Federation policy (foreign and defense and in some cases, like those DS9 eps, a planet's domestic affairs) more so than any civilian institution.

 

[Timo]

Btw, DS9 is run by a Starfleet officer, not a civilian Federation official.

...The interesting question then is, who runs those giant mushroom space stations - the commander of the local starbase, or a civilian Mayor or President who just graciously allows the starbase to reside in the west and northwest wings of decks 200 through 300, as long as they don't make noise?

We see UFP colony leaders who must bow to starship captains, typically because there's a military emergency, but tellingly with the captain being the one with the authority to decide whether a state of emergency exists (say, "This Side of Paradise"). We see UFP planetary leaders who tell captains their careers will be over if they try to meddle (say, "Cloud Minders"). Is there some sort of a population threshold that gives local civilian leadership authority? Or is it just a matter of sufficient arrogance - say, as with a certain Mr Brack all alone holding Starfleet at an arm's length? The legal angle on this is quite unclear.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

Station K7 appears to be civilian run and their didn't appear to be anyone to guard the grain as Kirk was asked to post guards, and then more guard once the Klingons arrived.

 

[Tenacity]

but tellingly with the captain being the one with the authority to decide whether a state of emergency exists (say, "This Side of Paradise")

In the case of This Side of Paradise, Kirk initially offered and implored the colony leader to evacuate, but the colony leader said no and he had the (legal?) option of not leaving, Kirk didn't seem to have the power to forcefully remove those colonists.

But it seems that in practice, Starfleet steers Federation policy

In one episode (Angel One?), Picard tells a planet's leader that Starfleet would like the planet to join the Federation.

It sounded weird the way he phrased it, Starfleet wants, not the Federation wants. It's not impossible that while under civilian control that Starfleet does have it's own agenda.

 

[velour]

Station K7 appears to be civilian run and their didn't appear to be anyone to guard the grain as Kirk was asked to post guards, and then more guard once the Klingons arrived.

K7 did have a civilian administrator. Kirk butted heads with that guy in the Tribbles episode. Then again, Kirk had a tendency to squabble with civilian Federation officials (eg "The Galileo Seven" and "Taste of Armageddon").

It seemed that the role and power of Starfleet actually expanded during the TNG era. I don't remember episodes where Picard had to tow around a civilian Federation authority figure who used their position to override Picard's authority, like what happened to Kirk, in those TOS eps that I mentioned above.

In "The Price", a Starfleet officer, Riker, represented the Feds in a bidding negotiation for a wormhole. It seemed odd that a civilian Federation negotiator wasn't the one to represent the Fed in that situation.

Back to the K7 DS9 comparison, DS9 wasn't exclusively a military facility like K7. Having a civilian administrator for DS9 might have been more appropriate if only for public relationships purposes. The Bajorans had just gotten rid of their Cardassian military occupiers, only to be replaced by a military Starfleet administrator.

You still could have had a powerful Starfleet DS9 commander who had autonomy from civilian control. It might even have made for good DS9 stories, the constant tension between Sisko and his civilian counterpart.

 

[The Old Mixer]

In "The Price", a Starfleet officer, Riker, represented the Feds in a bidding negotiation for a wormhole. It seemed odd that a civilian Federation negotiator wasn't the one to represent the Fed in that situation.

There was one, Seth Mendoza. He was incapacitated by the Ferengi, forcing Riker to step in.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

DS9 wasn't exclusively a military facility like K7. Having a civilian administrator for DS9 might have been more appropriate if only for public relationships purposes. The Bajorans had just gotten rid of their Cardassian military occupiers, only to be replaced by a military Starfleet administrator.

IIRC, the Bajorans specifically asked for Starfleet to run the station.

And that makes sense, too. Being as battle-weary (from years of occupation) as Bajor was, they certainly recognized the efficiency of having the station run along military lines. So a race as war-hardened as the Bajorans, is not likely to ask for their station to be run by civilians.

 

[Timo]

The Bajorans certainly specifically asked for Starfleet to help Bajor. The issue of how Starfleet ended up running the station was sort of glossed over in dialogue, although it seemed clear nobody on Bajor thought that the station had any significance or use. And by the time it did, it was too late, as Starfleet was already in command.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[velour]

There was one, Seth Mendoza. He was incapacitated by the Ferengi, forcing Riker to step in.

Riker was chosen to replace Mendoza because of his poker skills, as though good poker instincts necessarily translated to good negotiating skills. I know it made for a good Riker story line, but really, couldn't the Feds have just replaced Mendoza with another qualified civilian diplomat who was already up to speed on the issue?

Besides, wasn't the Premier inclined to favor the bidder with a tradition of peace? Having a person in a military uniform (Riker) sitting across a negotiating table from the peace-minded Premier wouldn't seem to be the smartest negotiating tactic.

This episode reinforces the idea that Starfleet plays as big, if not a bigger role, in foreign affairs and diplomacy than civilian Federation diplomats.

 

[MacLeod]

[QUOTE="Sci, post: 11829592, member: 1225"
God I hope so. People may not like them, but political parties are essential to the ability of a democracy to function. As Matthew Yglesias wrote at Vox when discussing the European Union, "To save itself, the European Union is going to need a real opposition political party: one that can formulate a coherent alternate policy agenda and give dissatisfied voters the opportunity to “throw the bums out” without tearing down the entire institutional edifice they inhabit.... The notion of a 'loyal opposition' is in many ways the key innovation in the institutionalization of democracy. The idea is that an organized political movement may object stridently to the agenda of the current governing regime without being seen as disloyal to the state or the nation. This means that incumbent rulers face meaningful electoral accountability. If voters are displeased with their performance, a rival team waits in the wings ready and eager to take over."[/QUOTE]

Oddly enough in the UK the party which holds the 2nd most number of seats is in the House of Commons is offically known as His/Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.

 

[velour]

With new member's entering the federation (and old ones leaving), power will have shifted and shifted again. New members would bring with them different ideas on how the federation government should be organized and structured. Newly created voting blocks would put these new ideas into place.

Constitutions and charters can be amended and even completely rewritten.

I am curious if there has ever been any non-human Federation (old or new) member species that has challenged humanity's dominant position within the Federation. By challenge, I don't necessarily mean a shooting civil war.

I wonder if any non-human Fed species has ever attempted to gain real power and influence in the Federation (or supplant the human's dominant position) by increasing their numbers within the ranks of Starfleet and Starfleet command, since Starfleet is the most important and influential institution in the Fed.

In TUC, the Klingon chancellor's daughter pointed out that the Federation is "no more than a homo sapiens only club". We occasionally saw a Vulcan Starfleet admiral in TNG. Otherwise, Starfleet command is almost exclusively human. I don't know how well that situation sits with all the members. But I guess, apparently, the Andorians, Tellarites, etc. are ok with it since they don't seem to complain about it.

I read in some other thread that there was speculation that the post-Dominion war Cardassians may have been offered Federation membership.

If the Cardassians ever did become members, I could not envision the Cardassians being passive members. The Cardassians, with their military fleet and imperial history, probably would challenge the human position within the Federation. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to offer a species, like the Cardassians, Fed membership. I am not sure there would be room for two numerically large assertive species within the Federation.

 

[Nyotarules]

Before Star Trek ENT the Star trek universe gives the impression the Federation was a human organisation and then they invited others to join. ENT set the canon the Federation was started by 4 founding species. We only see the aspects of the starships and the politics where humans are involved, I doubt the other species let humans have as much sway as the onscreen portrayal, it would not make much sense from an in universe perspective.

 

[Tenacity]

Starfleet command is almost exclusively human. I don't know how well that situation sits with all the members

It's possible that the majority of the Members view the Humans in Starfleet as "willing cannon-fodder" and are just fine with the arrangement.

Some Members might be intellectually incapable of violence (eg Pierson's Puppeteers) and therefor would useless when violence was called for, violence occasional being one of Starfleet duties.

Some Member could be philosophical pacifists, they could be Members of the Federation which is occasionally involved in violence, but being the actual instruments of violence would be a step too far.

 

[Voth commando1]

The federation is basically a pseudo-socialist military dictatorship with hints of technocracy and post scarcity.

Seeing both TOS and DS9(with Voyager and TNG as well) show admirals with an inordinate amount of power over presidents, captains who can launch war, conduct diplomacy, order operations with little to no civilian oversight.

Furthermore I get the impression the federation citizenry(at least on earth) seems to believe Starfleet is amazing and wonderful and can do no wrong and everyone one wants to meet Janeway or Picard.

In Enterprise in the bar in the terra episode you see people clearly hostile to Starfleet officers as a result of the xindi attack.

It seems by the Voyager era there is hardly an anti-Starfleet opinion in existence.

I doubt say in the pale moonlight or any other less the savory things Starfleet has done is public knowledge oh and I forgot their is no investigatory journalism in the federation either.