It's not, necessarily, absurd. Political parties require a modicum of basic commonality to organize around - at least in political culture. It's not necessarily a given, for instance, that all Federation members are democracies or republican in government.
Well, this is a bit tricky, because
Star Trek has generally been careful to avoid going into detail about the mechanics of Federation politics. BUT...
I think that it is a given that the Federation's Member States are all democracies of some sort. That seems to have been one of the requirements for Federation Membership, right up there along with the abolition of caste-based discrimination and planetary unity. We've certainly never seen any evidence of a non-democratic Federation government -- know from ENT, for instance, that Vulcan was governed by a First Minister (another term for a Prime Minister) before he was overthrown after the P'Jem incident ("Home") and V'Las seized control, consolidating power in the High Command Administrator's office. Presumably once the High Command was dissolved ("Kir'Shara"), the First Minister became head of government again.
We also know from ENT that the Andorian Empire is actually governed by a Chancellor -- which is yet another term for PM.
We know from DS9 that Bajor, a planet that was considered to meet the requirements for Federation Membership, was a democracy, albeit a troubled one early on.
We know from ENT's "Demons" that high-ranking members of the United Earth government carry the title "Minister," once again suggesting a Parliamentary form of government.
If we expand our pallet to include information established in the novels, the evidence is overwhelming that the Federation is a democracy and requires the same of its Member States:
* There is an elected Governor of Betazed. (
Articles of the Federation,
The Battle of Betazed)
* There is an elected President of Deneva (
Articles of the Federation)
* There is an elected Governor of Cestus III (
A Time for War, A Time for Peace)
* United Earth is governed by an elected Parliament and Prime Minister (
The Good That Men Do,
A Less Perfect Union)
* The Andorian Empire was unified as a constitutional monarchy, with the Empty Throne symbolically reigning over the Parliament Andoria and the Chancellor (
Andor: Paradigm)
* The People's Republic of Coridan is governed by an elected Chancellor (
The Good That Men Do)
* The Confederacy of Vulcan is governed by the Vulcan Council, which choses the First Minister (
The Good That Men Do,
Kobayashi Maru)
* The President of Trill is an elected position, along with the Trill Senate (
Trill: Unjoined)
We've seen literally dozens of examples of democratic Federation governments, and no examples of undemocratic Federation governments in the 24th Century. Heck,
Trill: Unjoined even contains a passage where Bashir muses that every Federation world is a democracy. I'll transcribe it for ya once I have it.
Remember that by all appearances (except, weirdly, for the Presidency), the UFP is basically an uprated UN - to the point, I remember, that Franz-Joseph's "Starfleet Technical Manual" had a Fed Constitution that was pretty much a cut and paste of the UN Charter.
Well, it's fair to say that it was initially based on the UN, but the depiction of the UFP is such that it was later portrayed as having acquired all of the traits of a state in its own right, rather than just an intergovernmental organization. The biggest example of that, as you note, is the presence of a President, but there's also the presence of Starfleet, a dedicated military force for the Federation. There's the fact that the Federation Council is depicted as having the right and ability to make binding law throughout all of Federation space ("Force of Nature"). There's the fact that the Federation President is legally empowered to declare martial law on Federation worlds without consulting those worlds' governments ("Homefront"). There's the fact that there is a Federation Supreme Court that is the highest court of appeal ("Dr. Bashir, I Presume?") There's the fact that the Federation is capable of declaring war (DS9 Dominion War arc) and of conducting foreign policy on behalf of all of its worlds without needing their governments' permissions. There's the fact that the Federation has its own currency during TOS called the Federation Credit. There's the presence of a Federation civilian police corps called Federation Security in
Star Trek III. There's the fact that the Federation Constitution is considered to be the supreme law of the UFP along with its Guarantees of universal rights ("The Perfect Mate," "The Drumhead"). There's even a "traditional Federation culture and traditional Federation values" sense of common nostalgia, as indicated by the New Essentialists in "Let He Who Is Without Sin...," indicating a common Federation culture of sorts. It has its own set of well-defined territory over which it has exclusive jurisdiction ("The Best of Both Worlds"). Etc.
Clearly, the Federation is far more unified than the UN. It's not just a mere intergovernmental organization -- it's a state in its own right.
UN Member States, and presumably UFP Member Governments, are *very much* sovereign.
Given the numerous cases we've seen where Federation law trumps over Federation Member State law, but also the numerous cases we've seen where Federation Member States have exclusive jurisdiction over a given issue (i.e., Scotty being accused of murder, etc.), I would theorize that the Federation is just what its name implies -- a federation that practices federalism, the division of powers between the central and provincial governments. More than a mere IGO or alliance, but not a unitary state, either.
That said, even without formal political parties, I would be unsurprised to see various blocs/coalitions forming on assorted issues.
Well, even if you don't have formal parties, I promise you that you would see exactly that -- informal blocks and factions forming. It's just how things work. People connect with some and not with others, and people gather together to muster resources to communicate with the populace.
I think in all likelihood the Federation President is chosen by the Council.
Well, there's certainly nothing in the canon that contradicts that idea. But I would point out to you that the essential difference between a president and a prime minister is that a president is independent of the legislature, not chosen by it. Given that, if the Federation President was chosen by the Council, wouldn't he be called the Federation Prime Minister instead?
Or the Council at least nominates the candidates for president and a larger body votes on them.
I think that's more likely.
Direct votes make no sense.
Why not? If every Member State has adopted certain basic beliefs, such as a belief in democracy, there's no reason it couldn't work.
Some planets like Earth might well select their representatives by direct vote.
Well, you're talking about the Federation Council's membership now. That's a different topic.
For the record, the novels have established that each individual Member State determines for itself how it will select its Federation Councillor. The Federation Councillor from Betazed, for instance, is popularly elected, whilst the Federation Councillor from Bajor is appointed by the First Minister and confirmed by the Chamber of Ministers. And the Federation Councillor from Andor is determined by the majority party in the Parliament Andoria. Etc.
Each Member State gets one Federation Councillor, too. So if someone's concerned about low-population Federation Member States being ignored in favor of high-population ones during presidential elections, that's balanced out in the Council, where all the peoples of the Member States equally.
But other cultures probably would not.
What makes you say that?
Some might select only the "oldest and wisest".
And why would the Federation allow as a Member State a polity that denies to its citizenry a meaningful voice in their government? Why would the Federation allow amongst its numbers a government that does not have the consent of its governed?
The EU is both; it represents both the people of Europe and the states of Europe.
Well, good for the European Union if they're able to make that work. But, y'know, we tried that here in the US (House for the people, Senate for the states), and the inevitable conflict of interests between the people and the states eventually forced a change. Thank goodness, the US became an agency of its people, not its states, elsewise I think we would have had another civil war somewhere along the line. Maybe I'm being ethnocentric, but I don't trust that the EU -- or the Federation -- can continue straddling the fence on that issue, though.
It has two bodies main to bring in legislation; the European Commission which is appointed by the nation-states and the European Parliament which is directly voted in by the people. While certain things in the EU (such as the EU budget) need to have the approval of all member states, there are many other areas where they can pass laws under objection from the member states. It does not need to be classified as one or the other, it is both. I see the Federation in the same way.
Hmm. I dunno. Doesn't the European Parliament lack the right of legislative initiative?
As for political parties, they do have their uses, but they are incredibly stifling of ideas. They also breed complacency and corruption.
They certainly can. But I also think we should acknowledge that with the right leadership, political parties can inspire creativity and honesty. It really depends on who you put in charge.
Political parties survive because a group of people banding together will always beat an individual.
That's a part of it. The other part of why they'll always survive is that there's simply no other way to communicate with millions of people: You NEED a pre-existing political apparatus capable of mobilizing supporters and sending your message out if you're running for a major office. Elsewise, no one will know who you are or what your policies are.
As for voter turnout in my area in a non-partisan election; we don't have any of those, we have six main political parties and five seats up for grabs in my city. The main political party here ran three candidates against one another. It's organised chaos.
Aaaah. Well, here in Ohio, for instance, we elect the judges in state courts and the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court. They're non-partisan elections, which means that while the parties can make it known that Candidate A or B is the guy they support and is a member, on the actual ballot, A and B are not considered to be party candidates, they're all considered independents.
And voter turnout in those categories is always, always, always lower than it is on other parts of the ballot that have a "D" or an "R" next to the person's name. Because no one who doesn't do special research knows who these guys are, and so they don't have a voting cue to tell them, "This guy is more likely to agree with me than that guy."
