Is the Federation an Empire?

[T'Girl]

the Crimea recently voted to join Russia

Please vote for one of these three choices

1) Join Russia
2) Join Russia
3) Join Russia

Is there any indication that Starfleet was used as a conquering force?

Well, there are interpretations of "The Vulcanian Expedition" that say they were used as one.

Either the Feds gave away active colonies to the Cardassians without their consent or consulting them ...

Journey's End stated that the colonists did have representatives present at the treaty negotiations.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

This conversation looks to have devolved to the point where everybody is just creating their own personal definition of Empire and saying "See, the Federation fits!" or "See, it doesn't fit!"

People are either saying it's an Empire as a thinly veiled analogy to the United States or saying it's not an Empire based on the idealism the show is founded on.

The only reason to want to form a definition of Empire which includes the Federation (Or as you're obviously really trying to get at, the United States) is to compare it to historical empires like the Roman Empire or British Empire.

I don't see how you can really argue something is an Empire though without a single central force with greater power than the colonies it rules over. The Federation is a coalition between equal states and there's nothing in the show to suggest secession is prevented.

But again, it's obvious what you're really trying to do is start a analogous dialog about cultural imperialism, which is a silly thing to do on a Star Trek board.

 

[BigJake]

This conversation looks to have devolved to the point where everybody is just creating their own personal definition of Empire and saying "See, the Federation fits!" or "See, it doesn't fit!"

All this business about how it must have colonies or it must be evil or it must be a despotism or it must have no voluntary association is certainly people "creating their own personal definition." An empire is simply at its basic level -- I'll go Mirriam-Webster's on you here -- "an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority."

Like I already said way back, the Federation is very specifically under a single supreme authority, which is Earth (where all its political and military authorities are plainly portrayed as being concentrated), although it is theoretically a grouping of "voluntary equals." Like the Delian League, like American and the countries of NATO, yes, that fits the definition of a de facto empire. [Oh, it also does have a bunch of colonies which are under that same central authority. So there's that, too. One wonders if other member worlds have their own colony networks which Starfleet is also policing.] Can't speak for the OP but AFAICS no fripperies about "cultural" imperialism are necessary.

Of course, as a fantasized sci-fi version of American empire, Trek also imports some measure of American exceptionalism which for some reason -- especially during the era that produced Trek -- had to strenuously insist that there was no empire happening and try to hide it behind a series of straw definitions or insist on cosmetics like the word "hegemony." Meh. That kind of posture was never very interesting to me, about America or about its fictional counterparts, but whatever works.

The Federation is a coalition between equal states and there's nothing in the show to suggest secession is prevented.

Nobody said the vision of the Federation in the show isn't more or less idealized. That has nothing to do with the question of "empire." Those are different questions.

Although notice that not permitting secession would hardly make the Federation any sort of evil despotic state. Very few real countries permit secession willy-nilly. I don't remember the question of secession ever coming up on the show, after all who would want to secede from The Good Guys?

 

[T'Girl]

there's nothing in the show to suggest secession is prevented

One of my favorite all time things in Trek fiction is that the member planet Cait not only has canceled their membership in the Federation, but does so on a semi-regular basis.

When things don't go their way in Council, away they go. They rejoin later when tempers cool.

Likely couldn't do that with a empire.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Is there any indication that Starfleet was used as a conquering force?

Well, there are interpretations of "The Vulcanian Expedition" that say they were used as one.

In "The Conscience of the King" McCoy mention to Spock that Vulcan was conquered. The implication is that the humans did the conquering. This is contradicted by the statement in "The Immunity Syndrome" that Vulcan has never been conquered.

 

[BigJake]

there's nothing in the show to suggest secession is prevented

One of my favorite all time things in Trek fiction is that the member planet Cait not only has canceled their membership in the Federation, but does so on a semi-regular basis.

When things don't go their way in Council, away they go. They rejoin later when tempers cool.

That sounds totally ridiculous. Why would anyone allow them back in if they made a habit of taking their ball and running home when things don't go their way? No governing body could function like that...

[Insert your own joke about Congress here... ]

 

[Nightdiamond]

"Empire" always had a certain connotation.

In Trek, all the other major powers are called empires--the Klingons, Romulans Cardassians, etc.

But they are implied to be brutal and lack democracy .

An ironic twist to this is Star Wars.

It started out as a republic with member planets, somewhat similar to the Federation. A civil war erupts.

The chancellor was given so many emergencies powers, he was able to make laws on his own.

Eventually he uses those powers to declare the Republic an Empire.

And it was all legal--There was no expansion, or conquering, just a change in name and organization.

And it was brutal and controlling.

 

[BigJake]

"Empire" always had a certain connotation.

In Trek, all the other major powers are called empires--the Klingons, Romulans Cardassians, etc.

But they are implied to be brutal and lack democracy .

In TOS "empire" typically meant "bad guy" and of course the mirror-universe version of the Federation is a "Terran Empire" which is full of barbarism and treachery.

TNG was a bit cannier and more sophisticated about things, to a point. Antagonist species called themselves by more innocuous-sounding names like "Unions" (Cardassia) and "Alliances" (Ferengi) and eventually "Dominion" (for real-world reference, Canada is still technically a Dominion ), and the "empires" of yore were... not exactly good guys, but sometime-allies and given a more complex portrayal. It's the kind of setting where one can imagine that guys like Sisko or Picard would be able to contemplate what traits of "empire" the Federation owns without flinching. Interesting, that aspect of it.

(EDIT: It occurs to me that the Maquis came up earlier, and the most notable thing about the Maquis and "empire" in the Trek setting is that their situation is an analogue to the kind of more-or-less random Sykes-Picot border-redrawings that gave us places like Iraq. Which actually makes them a pretty pungent analogue to one of the key, and worst, fallout aspects of real-life imperialism. I wonder if the writers were thinking about it from that angle originally.)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Starfleet doesn't in normal circumstances try to annexe whole planets. Sure, they sometimes make First Contact with new warp civilizations and try to persuade people to become new members.

And they have the absolute right to do that. The Federation is entitled to make its case, so to speak, as to the rights and benefits a new member world will hold. But the ultimate decision is up to that world.

The Federation never forces a world to join, or prohibits a member from leaving. So, logically, they cannot be an empire.

 

[BigJake]

The Federation never forces a world to join, or prohibits a member from leaving. So, logically, they cannot be an empire.

That's still not what "empire" means.

You do recall that the United States prohibited the South from seceding, right? Fought a war about it and everything. Does that logically make it -- I mean its domestic territories, now -- an empire?

 

[fireproof78]

there's nothing in the show to suggest secession is prevented

One of my favorite all time things in Trek fiction is that the member planet Cait not only has canceled their membership in the Federation, but does so on a semi-regular basis.

When things don't go their way in Council, away they go. They rejoin later when tempers cool.

That sounds totally ridiculous. Why would anyone allow them back in if they made a habit of taking their ball and running home when things don't go their way? No governing body could function like that...

[Insert your own joke about Congress here... ]

Given the complexity of different alien races and their own traditions, one would expect a certain amount of unusual behavior. If you are aware of this kind of behavior, and what it results in, what is the harm?

I mean, even if one Congressman left the floor and said, "We won't participate any more" Congress could still vote. One member can bluster all they want, but if the impact is negligible, then it seems a bit like silly.

But, part of the thing with the Federation is that we really have no idea how the Council works, or their membership system works, either. So, it's hard to say if the representative could actually end their planet's membership in the Federation.

The Federation never forces a world to join, or prohibits a member from leaving. So, logically, they cannot be an empire.

That's still not what "empire" means.

You do recall that the United States prohibited the South from seceding, right? Fought a war about it and everything. Does that logically make it -- I mean its domestic territories, now -- an empire?

Oh, that's a whole long argument there. And people have long argued that US is an empire for as long as its inception.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I see Earth as being to the Federation more what Washington DC is to America.

It's where the powerful people congregate to do business, it's not where all the powerful people call home. Notice in Paradise Lost, the president was not human, whereas you would not see a person living in Guam become president of the United States. Much like if a person from Kentucky became president they would move to Washington but still consider Kentucky his home, an alien who becomes president moves to Earth.

You do have a point that the Federation was designed to be an idealized mythological version of America, but that doesn't mean that we should assume it functions similar to the real America. You don't see the Federation going around supporting dictators friendly to Federation interests. And I would even disagree with that characterization of the Federation as a metaphor for America. More it's the mystical world of John Lennon's 'Imagine'. The final destination you would reach if you moved in the direction of the perceived 'Progress' the world was making according to 1970s-1990s liberal idealists.

 

[BigJake]

Oh, that's a whole long argument there. And people have long argued that US is an empire for as long as its inception.

Well, true enough.

But to put it another way, if you're okay with America having preserved its Union -- which is not an uncommon sentiment -- then it makes no sense to regard refusing to let people secede at will from a fictional country as some kind of evil trait, even if it is an "imperial" one.

You do have a point that the Federation was designed to be an idealized mythological version of America, but that doesn't mean that we should assume it functions similar to the real America. You don't see the Federation going around supporting dictators friendly to Federation interests.

I know. I already said that several times.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh, that's a whole long argument there. And people have long argued that US is an empire for as long as its inception.

Well, true enough.

But to put it another way, if you're okay with America have preserved its Union -- which is not an uncommon sentiment -- then it makes no sense to regard refusing to let people secede at will from a fictional country as some kind of evil trait, even if it is an "imperial" one.

.

But, that ignores the politics, the rules and laws that would govern such a secession. The problem is that we don't know what laws govern the Federation. We lack enough information to make a determination.

As I pointed out, the debate over the Civil War continues to this day, even as people debate the place of the states, and role of government, etc. And that's with most of the information.

It is hard to argue for or against the Federation when we lack some details.

To put it another way, we support the Rebellion in Star Wars, even though by all intents and purposes, the Empire is the lawful authority. As I heard one movie reviewer put it, "Star Wars is about bombing a federal building." A bit crude, but it makes the point.

I think it is legitimate to question the Federation, but, ultimately, we will lack enough information to make an informed decision. So, we must take the evidence we have, that the Federation acts in a more benevolent manner, regardless of its "empire" status.

 

[BigJake]

But, that ignores the politics, the rules and laws that would govern such a secession. The problem is that we don't know what laws govern the Federation. We lack enough information to make a determination.

There's a reason I'll only go so far as saying that the Federation is a fictionalized version of how a real-world "empire" sees itself. We're not likely to ever have enough "detailed information" about why someone would secede from the Federation or what the finer points of its laws and regulations are, because ultimately it's myth. It's the setting of an action-adventure franchise. It's there to be sympathetic and be the good guy, not to function like an analogue of dreary real-world politics or to be the stuff of minutely-detailed political and legal drama. Talking about what kind of myth it represents, and from whose basic viewpoint, is as far as we can really go.

If there's ever a story about someone "seceding" from the Federation (unlikely, because as I said before, this is an idealized state of Good Guys and who would secede from the Good Guys?) you can be reasonably sure that it will be about some sinister alien force mucking with Federation politics that our heroes (whoever they may be) need to thwart.

 

[MacLeod]

"Empire" always had a certain connotation.

In Trek, all the other major powers are called empires--the Klingons, Romulans Cardassians, etc.

But they are implied to be brutal and lack democracy .

An ironic twist to this is Star Wars.

It started out as a republic with member planets, somewhat similar to the Federation. A civil war erupts.

The chancellor was given so many emergencies powers, he was able to make laws on his own.

Eventually he uses those powers to declare the Republic an Empire.

And it was all legal--There was no expansion, or conquering, just a change in name and organization.

And it was brutal and controlling.

Whilst the Cardassia was sometimes referred to as the Cardassian Empire, it was also commmonly referred to as the Cardassian Union

 

[T'Girl]

"In Trek, all the other major powers are called empires--the Klingons, Romulans Cardassians, etc.

But they are implied to be brutal and lack democracy . .

My impression is that the Romulan were democratic.

One of my favorite all time things in Trek fiction is that the member planet Cait not only has canceled their membership in the Federation, but does so on a semi-regular basis.

That sounds totally ridiculous. Why would anyone allow them back in ...

Their supporters (diplomatic and trade) would vote them back in. The Cait keep the door well greased the allows Federation membesr to cancel their memebrship as they choose too.

They would be respected for that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

if you're okay with America having preserved its Union -- which is not an uncommon sentiment -- then it makes no sense to regard refusing to let people secede at will from a fictional country as some kind of evil trait, even if it is an "imperial" one.

But isn't that what this thread is doing? The word "empire" implies some measure of evil intent, or the assumption of same. As does the (IMHO, rather overblown) "imperialism".

 

[BigJake]

But isn't that what this thread is doing?

This thread is doing whatever we say it's doing, brother. We are beholden to no-one.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Maybe the closest example of a group wanting to secede and the Federation not acknowledging it, is the Maquis situation.

Here's Eddington's slant on it:

Why is the Federation so obsessed about the Maquis? We've never harmed you. And yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism... Starships chase us through the Badlands...

...and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation.

It's propaganda, but Eddington is saying the Federation refused to grant the Maquis independence out of embarrassment.

We were winning. The Cardassian Empire was falling into chaos. The Maquis colonies were going to declare themselves an independent nation.

According to Eddington, this is what the Maquis wanted to do.

One thing though, with the Federation--it is expansionist. It seeks new members and it does believe in colonizing outside areas as long as it's not in someone else's territory.

It has its own benevolent version of the Manifest Destiny.