Organization of Federation Government

[jmampilly]

The Federation' political structure has always intrigued me. While none of the shows never really went into depth on the organization, it is clear that the Federation consists of a central government, whose laws appear to take precedence over individual member states. Memory Alpha said that the Federation's governmental system was somewhat similar to that of the United States prior to the American Civil War. Meaning, while the central government had laws which took precedence over local entities, the rights of individual member states were clear-cut, and the individual members had relative autonomy. In addition, secession, whilst not necessarily stated outright, was an understood guarantee.

What do you think? Did the Federation member states have their own militaries? Were there radical differences in law between members? Was secession a guaranteed right?

 

[MacLeod]

From memory the TV/films showed us very little about how the Federation Goverment works.

We know that the head of the Federation is a President who is elected, but we don't know if this is by popular vote or if the council elects a President from their members.

We don't even know how many chambers the Federation, it appears to be a Unicameral system.


There are bound to be certain differences in the legal systems between members, perhaps it would be better to look at the EU which consists of 28 different countries with different legal sytems etc... Yet laws passed by the EU Parliamnet supercede laws of the EU members.

We know that prior to Federation membership each world could have it's own military, but when Bajor had been accepted into the Federation part of that process involved absorbing the Bajorian Militia into Starfleet.

And why would secession not be guaranteed?

 

[C.E. Evans]

"...the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours, and will always remain yours."
--Captain J.T. Kirk

I tend to view the Federation as more of an alliance with its members agreeing to a set of interstellar laws and policies, but each maintaining their original sovereignties and agencies within the alliance. I think the Federation Council consists of elected or appointed representatives from every Federation member world (Sarek could be viewed as the Vulcan ambassador to the Federation, but those duties could also enable him to act as a representative of the Federation as well to another government should the need arise).

 

[MacLeod]

That would seem to be the case with Sarek, in TOS he is clearly the Vulcan Ambassador, but in TNG's "Sarek" he appeared to be a Federation Ambassador, maybe in addition to being the Vulcan Ambassador.

One thing to consider why would you need Ambassadors in a full 100% political union? i.e does the US state of Florida have Ambassadors in other states of the USA? Whilst member states of the EU have various Ambassadors i.e. there is a British Ambassador to France.

 

[Ro_Laren]

You should read Articles of the Federation by Keith DeCandido. It talks about the Starfleet political world and is a great book!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I would agree that it was a lot like the United States prior to the civil war. Something akin to the tenth amendment, "All powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government go to the states", only actually observed.

It would seem necessary for all planets to have their own autonomous governments only with certain basic rules governing human rights and integration of certain institutions such as the military into the Federation. Even more necessary for an interplanetary alliance than a local alliance, so individuals on every planet are guaranteed freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, due process, etc but in general foreign majorities can't meddle in local politics.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That would seem to be the case with Sarek, in TOS he is clearly the Vulcan Ambassador, but in TNG's "Sarek" he appeared to be a Federation Ambassador, maybe in addition to being the Vulcan Ambassador.

One thing to consider why would you need Ambassadors in a full 100% political union? i.e does the US state of Florida have Ambassadors in other states of the USA? Whilst member states of the EU have various Ambassadors i.e. there is a British Ambassador to France.

I don't know that Sarek is the Vulcan Ambassador to the Federation in TOS. He's an Ambassador and from Vulcan and is representing Vulcan's interest at the conference, but not every delegate there was an Ambassador. In fact less than half are Ambassadors.

 

[jmampilly]

And why would secession not be guaranteed?

Given that I was thinking of the Federation political structure and power balance between local and federal government was similar to that of the United States, I chose to continue drawing on the US government's policy on secession. Given that the US constitution neither guarantees nor prohibits secession, who's to say the Federation's governing documents would be any different? Why would secession be fully guaranteed?

 

[C.E. Evans]

That would seem to be the case with Sarek, in TOS he is clearly the Vulcan Ambassador, but in TNG's "Sarek" he appeared to be a Federation Ambassador, maybe in addition to being the Vulcan Ambassador.

One thing to consider why would you need Ambassadors in a full 100% political union? i.e does the US state of Florida have Ambassadors in other states of the USA? Whilst member states of the EU have various Ambassadors i.e. there is a British Ambassador to France.

I don't know that Sarek is the Vulcan Ambassador to the Federation in TOS.

Vulcan has an embassy on Earth and the Federation has embassies on its member worlds, suggesting a diplomatic relationship not too unlike that between United Nations members.

 

[Push The Button]

Robert Fox was a Federation Ambassador in A Taste of Armageddon, so he was representing the entire Federation, apparently.

Vulcan wanted to secede from the Federation in Spock's World. The decision was to be made by a planetwide popular vote.

 

[MacLeod]

And why would secession not be guaranteed?

Given that I was thinking of the Federation political structure and power balance between local and federal government was similar to that of the United States, I chose to continue drawing on the US government's policy on secession. Given that the US constitution neither guarantees nor prohibits secession, who's to say the Federation's governing documents would be any different? Why would secession be fully guaranteed?

But there is nothing in the show to really tell us how it works, and if the UFP truly believes in it's principals members should be allowed to leave the Federation if they choose to do so. If sucession is not guranteed what makes the Federation any different from an Empire that annexes a world and makes its own.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That would seem to be the case with Sarek, in TOS he is clearly the Vulcan Ambassador, but in TNG's "Sarek" he appeared to be a Federation Ambassador, maybe in addition to being the Vulcan Ambassador.

One thing to consider why would you need Ambassadors in a full 100% political union? i.e does the US state of Florida have Ambassadors in other states of the USA? Whilst member states of the EU have various Ambassadors i.e. there is a British Ambassador to France.

I don't know that Sarek is the Vulcan Ambassador to the Federation in TOS.

Vulcan has an embassy on Earth and the Federation has embassies on its member worlds, suggesting a diplomatic relationship not too unlike that between United Nations members.

I'm referring to what we saw in Sarek's only appearance in TOS. In that there is nothing that established him a Vulcan's Ambassador, just as a Vulcan Ambassador. Sarek being the Ambassador to Earth was added later.

 

[jmampilly]

And why would secession not be guaranteed?

Given that I was thinking of the Federation political structure and power balance between local and federal government was similar to that of the United States, I chose to continue drawing on the US government's policy on secession. Given that the US constitution neither guarantees nor prohibits secession, who's to say the Federation's governing documents would be any different? Why would secession be fully guaranteed?

But there is nothing in the show to really tell us how it works, and if the UFP truly believes in it's principals members should be allowed to leave the Federation if they choose to do so. If sucession is not guranteed what makes the Federation any different from an Empire that annexes a world and makes its own.

I agree. However, it seems like secession would naturally be a sort of grey area. Once a state enters the Federation, secession would be somewhat complicated. It would inevitably have become economically integrated with the UFP, and would naturally have issues without clear-cut trade agreements. In addition, any resources placed into Starfleet, whether personnel, shipyard locations, or raw materials, would have to be separated. Certainly that wouldn't be an easy task. Consequently, while there very well may be a legal precedent for secession, it could be economically and strategically impossible.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

If they didn't allow secession I'd think it'd go against what we know of Federation principles. People work with the Federation through choice, not through coercion.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I think the Federation's Prime Directive policy allows any member to withdraw at any time. Maybe that's why it's referred to a lot as a membership -- it can be revoked, or withdrawn or even applied for.

This reminds me of Star Wars.

When a number of planets left the Republic and formed their own alliance, they were branded as villains and war followed afterwards.

The Republic is supposed to be similar to the Federation as far being a peaceful democracy.

Yet the the way it is portrayed, they seem to do a lot of undemocratic things.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I don't know that Sarek is the Vulcan Ambassador to the Federation in TOS.

Vulcan has an embassy on Earth and the Federation has embassies on its member worlds, suggesting a diplomatic relationship not too unlike that between United Nations members.

I'm referring to what we saw in Sarek's only appearance in TOS. In that there is nothing that established him a Vulcan's Ambassador, just as a Vulcan Ambassador. Sarek being the Ambassador to Earth was added later.

Eh, it's just a case of learning more about the situation as things progressed.

 

[varek]

Robert Fox was a Federation Ambassador in A Taste of Armageddon, so he was representing the entire Federation, apparently.

Vulcan wanted to secede from the Federation in Spock's World. The decision was to be made by a planetwide popular vote.

Yes, then Andoria seceded, only to rejoin the Federation by a planetwide vote.

And, the Klingons were joining, seceding and then rejoining, from time to time.

 

[T'Girl]

We don't even know how many chambers the Federation, it appears to be a Unicameral system.

We only hear about the "Federation Council." However that might be analogist to the UN's security council, and that could hold just the founding Members plus a relatively few subsequently added Members (who rotate). An executive council for fast decision making. Making high speed decision with hundreds of viewpoints might be unworkable.

Then there also could be a general assembly, or "Grand Assembly" with (multiple?) representatives from all the Members, plus their major colonies. And associate Members. And representative frm non-Member planet with interests in Federation affairs, similar to the UN and the NGO groups.

And then separately ambassadors between the Members directly, which is outside of the Federation's "eyesight."

perhaps it would be better to look at the EU which consists of 28 different countries with different legal systems ?

This might be the best model for the Federation, or the United Nations, or something like the Organization of American States. Each Member controls with total sovereignty their own star systems and colonies (still dependent), and also star systems they hold as "resource areas."

The Federation would only directly control interstellar space between Members, and also space and system claimed by the Members collectively. I've always thought that one of the Federation's prime missions would be to prevent warfare between Members.

And why would secession not be guaranteed?

It might be less "secession," and more "canceling" our membership. A Federation Member would simply give notice that they were withdrawing their Membership, perhaps with a (Earth?) years notice. The books would be balanced and there would be a going away party and they would be gone. Hopefully with on-going good relations.

I tend to view the Federation as more of an alliance with its members agreeing to a set of interstellar laws and policies, but each maintaining their original sovereignties and agencies within the alliance.

From dialog in various episodes, this would be the construct that is the Federation. A assemblage of completely sovereign "Star Nations" that joined into a interstellar alliance. But who retain complete and total control within their areas. The Federation couldn't say boo to them in their areas, the most the Federation could do is basically "kick them out."

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I agree each planet generally has control over local enforcement of law, and the Federation only has control over interplanetary issues and military matters.

However, it's pretty clear Federation members all have to conform to certain minimum standards. Equal rights for all sentient creatures, other basic protections of basic human rights, like due process for accused criminals and protection against slavery.

It's interesting what would happen if a planet did decide to secede. Would all citizens of the seceding planet no longer be in Starfleet, or would individuals decide on their own whether they are citizens of their own planet or Starfleet officers?

Although from what we see of the Federation there isn't much of a reason to secede from Starfleet. There appears to be no cost of membership, but obvious advantages. Security from invasion, protection from natural catastrophes, economic protection. Other than complete collapse of government, what motivation would any Federation member have to leave?

 

[jmampilly]

I never got the impression that the Federation was so loosely organized... now, that may be my own biases getting in the way of seeing clearly, however, the idea of the Federation being more of a coalition than a federation seems illogical to me.

Memory Alpha states "The exact nature of the government of the Federation has never been made clear on screen. From the information available, the United Federation of Planets would appear to be a constitutional representative republic, similar to that of the United States, prior to the 1860s.The exact division of powers between the Federation government and the governments of its member worlds is unknown, though various episodes indicate the Federation placed great value on maintaining local sovereignty over local affairs. Member worlds were left to manage their own governance in accordance with their own traditions and local laws, so long as the general requirements of membership were met, similar to how the member states of the European Union are bound together today.
However, Federation law did grant the government emergency authority to override local governance and declare martial law on a member's territory. (TNG: "Force of Nature"; DS9: "Homefront")"

Additionally, it says "The Federation Council was the unicameral legislative body of the Federation. (TOS: "Amok Time") Composed of representatives from the various member worlds, the Federation Council held the power to create, amend, and ratify Federation law. (DS9: "Rapture"; TNG: "Force of Nature") The Federation Council also held a great deal of influence over the operations of the Federation's military service, Starfleet. It sometimes served as the judging body of specially-convened courts-martial, and on occasion issued operational orders to Starfleet. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home; TNG: "The Defector") The Council also held influence over the making of Federation foreign policy. "

Now, while Memory Alpha seems to indicate that the Federation is in fact somewhat loosely organized, it also puts forth the idea that is a representative republic, which is certainly more coalescent than the EU or UN. In addition, while local sovereignty is maintained, Memory Alpha makes clear that the central government could take executive control over any area of territory if it so desired. While various species may be able to depart the Federation, as members they surrender a significant number of rights to the body as a whole.

I certainly don't think the individual states have their own militaries. It seems Starfleet represents the Federation Council's interests, and consequently all of the various states. During the Dominion War, we saw nothing but Starfleet vessels in service. There were no uniquely "Bolian" or "Vulcan" vessels, for example. In addition, during the Dominion invasion of Betazed, Sisko discussed only the Starfleet task force which had been out of place. He mentioned no Betazoid forces which could potentially have resisted attack. This would indicate that the member worlds have no military vessels of their own.

If member worlds give up their military forces when joining the Federation, certainly a great deal of sovereignty is being surrendered. Without military forces, their best bet at ensuring that a collective fleet served their interests would be in further integration with the central government, and increasing the legitimacy of the Council, through expansion of its powers.