Harry Potter Year 4½: The Missing Chapter

[Gaith]

Let's not forget that Harry Potter was originally intended for children. In that context, of course there's more detail about sports than politics.

Ah, but I hate kids. That's why my OP bemoaned the fact that the series didn't have the portentousness of Crime and Punishment, the many digressions of Moby-Dick, the complex language of Paradise Lost or the sexual depravity of Things Fall Apart.

Oh, wait... no, it didn't. I suggested that in a seven-book series running thousands of pages, as well as a spin-off Quidditch booklet, Rowling might have gotten around to merely mentioning whether or not this Wizarding Britain has any kind of legislature.

Ah, whatever. Let's just call me a grumpy old kid-hater.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The whole "HP books are for kids, so ..." argument doesn't hold true for the series. The first book was most definitely "for kids." But every book thereafter was written to be a little more mature and "grown up" as the characters grow and become more mature. So yeah, there didn't need to be a description of politics in Book1. Or even up to Book 3. But Book 4 literally throws open the door onto the Wizarding World at large and introduces several political and government figures as well as the notion of uniting very diverse and disparate people to fight evil.

The point its, Rowling herself expands the HP world, to include the interactions and inner workings of wizarding governments and institutions. There was a whole big to-do about the courts and about the inner rivalries of the Ministry of Magic. We even learn a great deal about how you enter the Ministry of Magic itself. But despite tiptoeing round the subject matter, Rowling neglected to explain the fundamental workings of the way wizards are governed.

Whether or not this matters depends on the reader, but it's an entirely valid point to make. Especially if its done with a little bit of humor ... by someone who hates kids.

 

[Gojirob]

While I do wish that this hole had been filled at least somewhat, certain things can IMO be inferred from what we do know and see.

1 - The MfM's position seems to be a vague one, vacillating somewhere between autonomy and some manner of deference to the Muggle PM.

Excuse me, but did you actually read The Half-Blood Prince? There's no deference whatsoever to the Muggle Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gets a vague courtesy alert about things that might affect Muggles, and that's it. He's treated with constant disdain and disrespect otherwise.

2 - Like Muggle Britain (AFAIK), there is no First Amendment-like guarantee of Free Speech, only a 'Gentleman's Agreement' that the government will stay out of most speech, but can impose dictatorial restrictions where it deems it necessary.

I don't agree. The Wizengamot seems to have absolute power in this regard -- there's not even any reason to think there's any sort of free speech convention like there is in Muggle Britain.

That said, on the other hand, it should be tons easier to sue the likes of Rita Skeeter for slander, so the libel standard must be more like the US, where a supposed absence of malice can excuse some slurs.

Considering that when Harry was tried for using magic in front of a Muggle, it was by the full Wizengamot, with no jury, no defense counsel until Dumbledore used his political clout to intervene, and the Minister for Magic himself serving as prosecutor, I doubt there even are well-developed libel laws. And if there are, they're probably only enforced as much as the Wizengamot and/or Minister for Magic want them enforced. You'd probably have to persuade the Wizengamot to support you if you sued Rita Skeeter for libel -- which means your victory would rest solely on your political popularity. It's a fundamentally corrupt system, the Ministry of Magic.

Yes, I actually did READ it. I said deference, but I meant more the courtesy calls, but its all still vague, leading to abuse. The Muggle PM could have been dead or Imperius Cursed by the time they elected to make him aware. IIRC, even Harry's being accused stank of the worst sort of bigotry. It was only because he and other Muggle-born (or dwelling with) young wizards were not surrounded by Magic that the MoM even stood a chance of detecting it.

In a way, the WW is ruled in the worst way possible. There sort-of is a real government in the Muggle world, but not really for them. It calls itself a Ministry, what we in the US call a Department. So this group of people do not have a true government. They have a section of a government with no compulsion to answer to the supposed larger government and with absolute power over their lives. I can only guess they put up with it so long as things ran smoothly and quietly. Like the Ba Sing Se storyline in AvatarTLA, the price paid was that when real totalitarians came along, the mechanisms for running things dictatorially were already in place. I hope the Big Three used their influence to change things in the Post-Book 7 years, but I don't envy them reaching their hands into that toilet.

 

[Thestral]

Here's a question: can anybody tell me, without resorting to tie-in material, how the United Federation of Planets is governed? Is there a legislature? Multiple houses? Elected officials from the various planets? Joint Chiefs of Staff for the UFP military? And remember there's been a lot more Star Trek than there has been Harry Potter.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I think it is very relevant. It's one of those let's ignore the obvious or otherwise the story won't work moments these books are filled with.

No, not really. In the books, society at large believes Fudge. That includes any presumed opposition parties. So whether or not they exist isn't relevant. She could have included a scene of the opposition parties siding with the government in the legislature, but that changes nothing in how the plot goes. There are mentions of some members of the Wizengamot resigning in support of Dumbledore, but that's the extent of the disagreement.

Well, where there are several people, there are opposing parties. Where there are opposing parties, there is an opposition! That means, like fuck is everyone going to believe him.... unless it is a dictatorship. It's sloppy writing and doesn't make any sense.

Like Voldemort. If he's so bloody clever and all powerful, then why oh why has ne never come to the conclusion that killing Harry with a wand is virtually impossible? Why not use a knife, a gun, poison....a frying pan? Were's supposed to buy this "one option to kill them all" gig, but it doesn't take a genius to come up with a plan b.

In Potterverse, nobody does. Ever.

 

[Sci]

Oh, wait... no, it didn't. I suggested that in a seven-book series running thousands of pages, as well as a spin-off Quidditch booklet, Rowling might have gotten around to merely mentioning whether or not this Wizarding Britain has any kind of legislature.

She did. It does. It's called the Wizengamot. (A pun on the name Witenagemot, the pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon English institution that was a precursor to the Parliament.) It featured rather prominently when Harry was tried before it in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and was also mentioned on numerous other occasions.

In a way, the WW is ruled in the worst way possible. There sort-of is a real government in the Muggle world, but not really for them. It calls itself a Ministry, what we in the US call a Department. So this group of people do not have a true government.

Oh, they have a true government. It just likes to call itself a ministry. But it's not only a government, it's a deeply illiberal, autocratic government that seems to lack most forms of democratic accountability (though I seem to remember Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them establishing that the Minister for Magic is popularly elected) and has apparently no form of judicial review or rule of law. In a very real sense, the Wizarding World is stuck in the medieval era when it comes to its governing philosophies.

Which, frankly, makes sense. The entirety of Wizarding society is built around secrets, after all -- keeping themselves secret from Muggles. The Wizarding World is built on the premise that segregation is good, that Wizards are somehow better than Muggles, that Muggles can't be trusted not to hurt them, and that Wizards have a right to create an entirely separate state for themselves within their various Muggle nations' territories. That sort of underlying premise for your entire society would almost invariably lead to social stagnation, political instability, and major corruption. There's a reason some happy asshole seems to come along every fifty years or so to try and overthrow the Ministry and establish himself as dictator.

They have a section of a government with no compulsion to answer to the supposed larger government and with absolute power over their lives. I can only guess they put up with it so long as things ran smoothly and quietly. Like the Ba Sing Se storyline in AvatarTLA, the price paid was that when real totalitarians came along, the mechanisms for running things dictatorially were already in place. I hope the Big Three used their influence to change things in the Post-Book 7 years, but I don't envy them reaching their hands into that toilet.

Exactly.

Here's a question: can anybody tell me, without resorting to tie-in material, how the United Federation of Planets is governed? Is there a legislature? Multiple houses? Elected officials from the various planets? Joint Chiefs of Staff for the UFP military? And remember there's been a lot more Star Trek than there has been Harry Potter.

In the most basic sense, it looks like it's a combination of the U.S. and U.K. systems.

"Errand of Mercy" (TOS) established the existence of the Federation Council, which seems to function as a kind of legislature.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home established the existence of the President of the United Federation of Planets; Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and DS9's "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" established that the President controls Federation foreign policy and is the commander-in-chief to Starfleet, giving it operational orders.

The Council has been depicted as giving operational orders to Starfleet ("The Defector" [TNG]), so that implies that the Council has a stronger operational role than the U.S. Congress, implying a stronger working relationship between the Federation President and Council. One might infer it's based in part on the relationship between a Prime Minister and Parliament.

DS9's "Dr. Bashir, I Presume?" featured a character announcing that he would sue to overturn a Federation law, and would appeal it all the way to the Federation Supreme Court, establishing a Federation judicial system that has judicial review and a court of last appeals. This is confirmed by DS9's "The Ascent," which established the existence of Federation Grand Juries.

No, not really. In the books, society at large believes Fudge. That includes any presumed opposition parties. So whether or not they exist isn't relevant. She could have included a scene of the opposition parties siding with the government in the legislature, but that changes nothing in how the plot goes. There are mentions of some members of the Wizengamot resigning in support of Dumbledore, but that's the extent of the disagreement.

Well, where there are several people, there are opposing parties. Where there are opposing parties, there is an opposition! That means, like fuck is everyone going to believe him.... unless it is a dictatorship.

Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding! We have a winner, Johnny!

Yes, the Ministry of Magic is, if not a dictatorship, so close that it's hard to tell the difference. Compare it to Medieval England -- or, for that matter, to Putin-era Russia. That should be fairly clear from the extreme lack of legal protections for persons accused of crimes, from the inconsistent standards and punishments for such persons (e.g., Ron's dad magicing a Muggle car in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), from the fact that their punishment for almost every damn crime was imprisonment and torture at the hands of the Dementors, from the way the Minister for Magic seemed to have such absolute control over the Wizengamot, etc.

It's a fundamentally corrupt, autocratic regime that already had some dictatorial tendencies, leaving it ripe for corruption into a full-on totalitarian regime under Voldemort. Nothing about this was ever un-clear.

Like Voldemort. If he's so bloody clever and all powerful, then why oh why has ne never come to the conclusion that killing Harry with a wand is virtually impossible? Why not use a knife, a gun, poison....

Because Wizarding culture looks down on that sort of thing, obviously. That's how a dirty Muggle would go about doing it. Voldemort's entire self-concept is rooting in his own superiority from his status as a Wizard, remember.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I'm willing to believe, for the sake of story, that Harry would sometimes not tell Dumbledore everything he knows, especially in the early years. But the internationalism of Book Four should have been a turning point, at which the series would become more mature, which, popular critical opinion aside, is not the same thing as "grimmer, but just as superificial". And part of that maturity might just have involved at least a mention of political structures. I'm not suggest Harry run as an MP or anything, I'd just have liked continued engagement with any kind of credible world-building.

Rowling never had credible world building. Her world building is charming and silly, I mean, come on, a kid who gets bitten by a werewolf just happens to already be named Remus Lupin? That's ridiculousness of a high order - but it's charming and entertaining ridiculousness.

I can appreciate you wanting to have seen the wider wizarding world explored in the books - I probably would have too - but to say it should be expected based on the first four books, well, I just don't think that's true. The first four books firmly establish a formula which involves the very insular world of Hogwarts, period. Why would you think that would change?

^I can understand the muggle-born parents of wizards to be let in on the secret and them keeping it, humans are smart, people are dumb, panicky, stupid creatures, and you have to admit that a government branch designed to keep a group of people well-registered and controlled (unless you are an animagus) and seperated from the rest of the "world" (hell, dressing themselves seems to be a challenge to most of them) is going to devolve into the worst kind of pettyness and corruption no matter how well intentioned and actioned it's fathers were with it, that said, it's a set of children's books, if you people would donate 1/10th of the energy you focus debating fictional parliment into scrutinizing the actual parliment/congress/thunderdrome system of your country than maybe this world wouldn't be the shithole that it is right now

What a bizarre assumption to make. Since when did people discussing stories mean they do so to the exclusion of contemplating, arguing about and being active in other areas of life? (Andi t's even more kinda bizarre since you are visiting a forum which is specifically for discussing stories.) Wild accusations about people's ignorance and ineptitude at politics are usually confined to TNZ.

 

[Gaith]

She did. It does. It's called the Wizengamot. (A pun on the name Witenagemot, the pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon English institution that was a precursor to the Parliament.)

I'd always figured that was a purely judicial, not legislative body, but okay, I defer the point. The key question is, then, if Dumby could get enough members to vote to acquit Harry, could he really not have gotten a hearing on the evidence for Voldy's return?

Here's a question: can anybody tell me, without resorting to tie-in material, how the United Federation of Planets is governed? Is there a legislature? Multiple houses? Elected officials from the various planets? Joint Chiefs of Staff for the UFP military? And remember there's been a lot more Star Trek than there has been Harry Potter.

Politics is far less relevant in Trek, because

- Unlike in HP, the UFP is virtually never presented as being threatened from within, only from without, i.e., in the form of entirely defensive military situations. And since, unlike HP, there's no scarcity to speak of in the UFP, nonmilitary politics are even less relevant.

- No UFP citizens deny the threats of the Klingons, Borg, Dominion, etc. By explicitly modeling her MoM after pre-WW2 Britain, Rowling herself introduced a political element that she then utterly failed to elaborate on.

- We only see the UFP president a handful of times throughout the huge totality of Trek, whereas Harry bumps into Fudge all the time, and criticizes his performance almost as often. It's not as though Rowling ignored her Wizarding government; she just used it for glamor and nothing else.

Bottom line: the Enterprise isn't much affected by laws or internal societal politics; Harry very definitely is.

The first four books firmly establish a formula which involves the very insular world of Hogwarts, period. Why would you think that would change?

Because, as Mr. Walters so cogently pointed out, the fourth book blows that insular little world wide open, or should have done. It's far more epic than the camping trips and handful of battles that actually concludes the series.

 

[Small White Car]

Except we know what they believe. They don't believe he returned.

But why not? Harry had solid evidence, plus the full backing of one of the most respected figures in the land.

The only credible answer, imho, is that Rowling ran out of inventive steam.

Well, I gave you a perfectly good example that needs no further explanation in the books. You not liking that example doesn't mean she ran out of ideas. It just means you don't like the idea.

If you accept that scenario then the books are fine. You don't accept that, but that doesn't mean the books are incomplete. It just means you don't like the way the story went.

That's perfectly fine, but "the story should change" is quite different than your original complaint of "she should explain more."

 

[Gaith]

Well, I gave you a perfectly good example that needs no further explanation in the books.

You never explained why not only did no one examine Harry's evidence, it didn't even mention him insistently offering to provide it. He and Dumby should have been making house calls to every notable wizard in the land the whole summer. Instead, he goes back home. Again. I guess Dumbledore had too many letters of recommendation to write for recent graduates or something. Maybe he went on a much-deserved vacation. Regardless, this mind-bogging lapse is not explained away by "no one believes them."

"the story should change" is quite different than your original complaint of "she should explain more."

Uh, what?

Harry: My point is that the whole conceit of the fifth book is crap, that the internationalism promised in the fourth book goes exactly nowhere, and that the genuinely colorful and inventive saga teased by the first four volumes devolves into a lumpen ordeal of pointless camping trips, a dull-as-rocks final battle and an imagination-screwing epilogue whose character pairings could not possibly have been any more trite.

I think the above pretty well implies that the story should have changed.

 

[Small White Car]

You never explained why not only did no one examine Harry's evidence, it didn't even mention him insistently offering to provide it.

Why did 98 senators vote for the Patriot Act without any real opposition? Because people were afraid and didn't want to stick their neck out and be the the one making things scarier.

It's clearly the exact same situation and I don't see why it needs any more explanation than that. Isn't that fairly straightforward?

 

[Gaith]

It's not the "exact same situation." Following 9/11, people went batshit. But as you note, most people didn't believe Voldy was back from the just-about-dead, so why would they be so batshit scared? A poor analogy.

As I've said, the better analogy, suggested by Rowling herself, is pre-WW2 England... where there was open and extensive debate.

 

[Sci]

She did. It does. It's called the Wizengamot. (A pun on the name Witenagemot, the pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon English institution that was a precursor to the Parliament.)

I'd always figured that was a purely judicial, not legislative body,

Something to bear in mind: By assuming a division of legislative and judicial functions, you're projecting a modern political bias onto the Wizarding World. The Wizarding World has been separate from the world of the Muggles since at least 1692 (the year of the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy), if not much earlier. Back in the day, there wasn't a strict division of functions -- organs like the Witenagemot could function as judiciary and legislature. And there weren't always the formal divisions of political faction like what we see in the modern system between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

That's the big thing to remember about Wizards: Politically, they're trapped in the medieval era.

The key question is, then, if Dumby could get enough members to vote to acquit Harry, could he really not have gotten a hearing on the evidence for Voldy's return?

Apparently not; if he used up huge amounts of his political capital just to save Harry, then he presumably wouldn't have any more strings to pull to get a hearing.

And that's assuming that Fudge would even allow a hearing -- remember, again, the comparison is not Prime Minister/Parliament, the comparison is King/Witenagemot, with all the bias and corruption and autocracy that came with the medieval era.

By explicitly modeling her MoM after pre-WW2 Britain,

But she didn't explicitly model the Ministry of Magic after pre-World War II Britain. She drew a parallel between Cornelius Fudge's refusal to accept that Voldemort had returned and Neville Chamberlain's initial refusal to act against Nazi Germany. You're trying to take what is obviously a very loose parallel and push it into an exact allegory, when no one made any such claim.

 

[Small White Car]

As I've said, the better analogy, suggested by Rowling herself, is pre-WW2 England... where there was open and extensive debate.

It sounds like she made a comment about 'one character' and you took that to mean 'the entire 7 books.'

That's what I mean when I said you want the story to be different. You want it to be about WWII. Ok, that's great. But that's different.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Why did 98 senators vote for the Patriot Act without any real opposition? Because people were afraid and didn't want to stick their neck out and be the the one making things scarier.

It's clearly the exact same situation and I don't see why it needs any more explanation than that. Isn't that fairly straightforward?

I disagree that "it's clearly the exact situation." The PATRIOT Act was an active response to a perpetrated act of violence (or acts of violence, if you include the Anthrax scare) and perceived threat of continued violence, whereas the MoM in OoTP depicts politicians that, following the single unexplained death of a student, flatly ignore that any such threat even exists.

Why the MoM acts this way isn't exactly clear, and that's part of the problem. If the scenarios were similar, the MoM would be acting on the assumption that Harry was right -- that a real and present danger actually existed -- even if they didn't have ironclad proof (see Iraq War). Instead, it's portrayed as apathetic negligence -- which is inexplicably combined with the government aggressively enforcing its policy of apathy. This only makes sense if the MoM is not related to democracy -- but we're not exactly given a whole lot of detail either way.

 

[Small White Car]

I disagree that "it's clearly the exact situation." The PATRIOT Act was an active response to a perceived threat, whereas the MoM in OoTP depicts politicians that flatly ignore that any such threat even exists.

I think you're focusing on details that don't matter.
Read this:

A threat is perceived. The public is frightened and turns to their government. The head of the government takes a strong stand with his opinion, declaring it the only way to proceed. The elected leaders of the land have misgivings but decide to go along with their leader without argument to keep up the appearance of being united and the fear that their frightened constituents will vote them out if they speak out against the leader who 'knows what he's doing.' Thus, there is little to no public debate on the matter.

I honestly feel like this paragraph describes both the real world and the Potter world. Is there something important I've missed?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

1.) Where is that paragraph from?
2.) How can you possibly say that I'm focusing on details that do not matter? The details are fully relevant. In one case, the government is active, in the other it is passive. The two are hardly the same.
3.) That paragraph says:

"The elected leaders of the land have misgivings but decide to go along with their leader without argument to keep up the appearance of being united and the fear that their frightened constituents will vote them out if they speak out against the leader who 'knows what he's doing.' Thus, there is little to no public debate on the matter."
​

Where in HP does it explain the mechanisms by which the leaders of the Wizarding World are subject to the votes of the populace? Where does it describe "frightened constituents" that would vote, even if there were an election?

Put simply, if the population were frightened, politicians would want to be shown actively confronting whatever the population fears, not actively ignoring that such fears exist -- which is the entire crux of the difference between two scenarios which most definitely do not represent "the exact situation."

 

[Small White Car]

1.) Where is that paragraph from?

I wrote my opinion of the Potter world based on how I view it. Here's the thing; I view the Potter world in this way and it makes sense to me. Other people here view it a different way and then claim it makes no sense. I feel those 2 facts are related.

I'm not saying you have to hold the same views I do, I'm just saying that it's unlikely that you'll convince me to switch from a position I like to one you yourselves claim makes no sense. It's a hard argument to make.

Put simply, if the population were frightened, politicians would want to be shown actively confronting whatever the population fears, not actively ignoring that such fears exist -- which is the entire crux of the difference between two scenarios which most definitely do not represent "the exact situation."

A peanut farm is found to have been contaminated. The FDA stops the sale of all peanuts.
A lettuce farm is thought to be contaminated. The FDA investigates and declares all lettuce to be safe.

I call both of those "the FDA protects the public food supply." I'd say they're the same. You'd say they're the opposite of each other. I don't get that.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

A peanut farm is found to have been contaminated. The FDA stops the sale of all peanuts.
A lettuce farm is thought to be contaminated. The FDA investigates and declares all lettuce to be safe.

I call both of those "the FDA protects the public food supply." I'd say they're the same. You'd say they're the opposite of each other. I don't get that.

In both FDA cases you submit, the government is active. In both cases, the government acknowledges the possible validity of the threat and acts on the premise that the threat is at least possible.

The PATRIOT Act is an example of a government actively addressing a threat. The MoM, on the other hand, is entirely different. It is an example of a government that not only ignores that such a threat exists, it ignores that such a threat is even possible.

For your scenarios to match that of the MoM dynamic, the FDA would have to not only deny that the lettuce farm was contaminated, it would have to ignore that such a possibility even exists. If you can't see the fundamental difference between the government investigating the matter and finding no evidence, and the government choosing to ignore the possibility of a threat, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

And by the way, if you think the way politics in HP are portrayed is acceptable for the story, that's fine be me. As I said before in this thread, the satisfaction in the political detail Rowling provides will depend on the reader. But considering how much of OoTP is based on official government policy, it is entirely valid to point out that she didn't provide nearly as much detail to the politics of HP as she did to, say, Quidditch, or even what the MoM looks like. Besides, my primary objection is to your assertion that the passing the PATRIOT Act is "clearly the exactly the same situation" as the inaction of the MoM in OoTP -- considering that one involves an active government and the other involves an apathetic one.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Here's a question: can anybody tell me, without resorting to tie-in material, how the United Federation of Planets is governed? Is there a legislature? Multiple houses? Elected officials from the various planets? Joint Chiefs of Staff for the UFP military? And remember there's been a lot more Star Trek than there has been Harry Potter.

Part of the difference is that Star Trek takes place in an entirely different world in the distant future. They can make up their own rules as they go along. Harry Potter is set in a secret world that exists simultaneously alongside our own. Yet it doesn't do a good job of explaining what those ties are between the real world that we know and the wizarding world that Rowling made up.

Rowling never had credible world building. Her world building is charming and silly, I mean, come on, a kid who gets bitten by a werewolf just happens to already be named Remus Lupin?

He was a good friend of Otto Octavius.

She did. It does. It's called the Wizengamot. (A pun on the name Witenagemot, the pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon English institution that was a precursor to the Parliament.)

I'd always figured that was a purely judicial, not legislative body, but okay, I defer the point. The key question is, then, if Dumby could get enough members to vote to acquit Harry, could he really not have gotten a hearing on the evidence for Voldy's return?

Perhaps Fudge would have simply never put the measure on the agenda. IIRC, in the U.S. House of Representatives, the chairman of the Rules Committee can pretty much kill any bill he doesn't like by refusing to put it on the agenda.