Politics in Star Trek

[commanderkai]

Now, I'm not actually asking about Star Trek's utopian vision and such. Nothing of the sort. I was actually wondering about how the Federation deals with politics in general. It is canon to say that the Federation is a democratic state, with elected members in both the executive and legislative branch of governments, although there's no elaborate showing of how independent government branches are.

I was actually wondering about what is there to be political about? I mean, there seemingly aren't many economic issues anymore. No poverty, no tax rate complaints, no issues about jobs or bureaucracy. One of the major pillars of politics in the 21st century is non-existent by the 24th. That alone is an alien concept to me, but I digress.

So, what do they cover? Social issues? Federation society seems to be pretty liberal socially. Risa existing at all and what occurs on Risa is a pretty fine example of that. The New Essentialists did seem to represent a social force that is against the excesses of Federation society, although they're portrayed as a seemingly small element of Federation society?

So...is it just foreign affairs? Be more friendly with one power over another? Be more aggressive or more passive when dealing with threats like Cardassia or the Romulans?

Does anybody venture a guess as to what political issues might exist in the Federation that can actually be important enough to influence opinion in an election?

 

[MacLeod]

There is no indication that the UFP has a seperate executive and legislative branch.

 

[Mars]

The term Federation indicates that it is a Federal Republic, since it is titled the United Federation of Planets it is a Federal Republic of Planets. I'd say the planets govern themselves mostly and the Federation was created for their common defense shortly after the Romulan War in the 22nd century. I believe the Federation handles exploration and defense and the planets handle everything else. If it is a loose Federation with a Prime Directive, I'd guess that the member planets send representatives to the Federation, not all of these planets are necessarily democratically governed, some aren't. Basically the Federation is a government of planets, the planets themselves determine the makeup of the Federation government, I don't think it is elected directly by Federation citizens. The planetary governments choose their representatives, and each planetary government is determined by its own laws and customs. Am I right?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Read Articles of the Federation. It's pretty much a year in the life of the UFP President.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TOS: Journey to Babel, one of my favorite episodes, sheds at least a little light on Federation politics.

 

[Knight Templar]

To me it is heavily implied that planets govern and police themselves internally. But that to gain admission to the Federation they must meet certain standards and treat their citizens in a certain manner.

All except Earth that is. Everything we've ever seen in Star Trek suggests that Earth is a special case and is in fact "governed" by the Federation itself.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I've always looked at the Federation as an Earth-led alliance in which its members agree on a number of terms (mostly civil rights issues) and share in their mutual benefits. IMO, the Federation Council is akin to the US Congress in which the chosen representatives/ambassadors for each member world vote on issues that impact the Federation such as the allocation of shared resources for various projects and whether various projects should even be done.

 

[sonak]

Apart from the structure of government questions, I think the question is an interesting one. In a post-scarcity society where questions of resource allocation are moot, what is politics about? If you took away such issues from today's politics, you'd be left with social issues and foreign policy. Well, the UFP is at peace internally(apart from the occasional Maquis stuff) and socially conservative religious fundamentalism doesn't seem likely to be a significant force in the 24th century Trek vision of Humanity.

The UFP is often portrayed as sort of a utopian social democracy that's pluralistic and tolerant.
So.. yeah. I'm curious, too. What are the issues?

 

[Sci]

Does anybody venture a guess as to what political issues might exist in the Federation that can actually be important enough to influence opinion in an election?

There are any number of issues that can be important in Federation politics.

One of the most important issues would almost certainly be foreign policy. Indeed, the sheer size of the Federation -- a democratic union of over 150 different planets, each of which is itself already a larger polity than has ever existed in real life -- almost requires that its practice of federalism would leave the majority of issues in the hands of the Member governments, and leave foreign policy as one of a handful of issues decided directly by the UFP government.

So, for instance, should the Federation be allied with the Klingon Empire? Should it maintain a trade embargo on Romulan goods and services? Should there be a travel embargo on private Federation citizens who wish to visit Romulus with the permission of the Romulan government? Moreover, there's the question of hegemony. How does the Federation balance the need to expand and protect its interests with the need to avoid using its relative power to unofficially, and even unintentionally, dominate weaker planets? What are the boundaries of the Prime Directive, anyway? Why has the Federation of the 2360s adopted the policy of allowing natural disasters to destroy pre-warp societies? Why did the Federation allow Cardassia to conquer and occupy Bajor? Etc.

But there would naturally be others. To start with, in spite of Picard's speeches in "The Neutral Zone" and First Contact, the fact of the matter is that Star Trek has contradicted itself on numerous occasions as to whether or not there is still money within the Federation. So I'm skeptical of the idea that there is no money, no form of currency that requires taxation and then legislative appropriation. And any time you start talking about this, you start talking about the evolution of class and about how to deal with economic inequality. I am absolutely positive that this is an issue that will never disappear.

There are other issues that I suspect will never be wholly resolved. The question of abortion comes to mind; ultimately, we find in the question of abortion two fundamental principles that most people believe in by themselves (the right to life, and the right to bodily integrity) that can't be wholly reconciled because there's no real way to determine when personhood begins. Every argument about abortion is in essence a subjective argument that seeks to evaluate when personhood begins and how to balance a person's right to live with another person's right to bodily integrity; there's no objective means to resolve this.

There's also the question of merit. Most of the time, Star Trek seems to suggest that the Federation is a meritocracy of sorts -- that those most talented compete to find the best positions. But as Christopher Hayes argues in his recent book Twilight of the Elites, a meritocracy is inherently vulnerable to corruption and manipulation by its elites. I'm sure this is a constant concern.

There would be other issues, at least at first. What about inter-species marriages? Should they be legal? Interspecies reproduction? Can a Federation Member have an established church? How far should Federation Members have to go to accommodate their own minority groups? How far should they have to go to accommodate non-natives from other Federation worlds? How does the Federation integrate different cultures and languages? (We might look at the question of Quebec's position within Canada for some insight on this sort of conflict.)

And probably the most basic questions would be -- how does the Federation balance the rights and powers of its Members with the rights and powers of its own UFP government? Where does the balance of power lie in which particular issue? Are marriages handled by Members? Does the Federation allow its Members to conduct intra-Federation relations amongst themselves, a la American interstate compacts? And how is representation determined -- is it by population? By Member? (I.E., is it like the U.S. House, or the U.S. Senate?) What kind of relationship should the Federation President have with the Federation Council? How much power should Starfleet captains have out on the frontier to determine Federation policy? Etc. Etc.

 

[Mars]

The Federation is more like the 19th century US in Space, Most of the social issues are resolved by the planetary governments, not the UPF. For instance does a species that lays eggs have a right to an abortion? That is can an adult member of its species step on and crush its own eggs if it decides it doesn't want hatchlings? This is not an issue for the 150 member United Federation of Planets to handle for instance. I also believe welfare programs would be handled or not by planetary governments, not the UPF, so don't expect Social Security from the UPF. Too many species, it was hard enough to get them to join together for their mutual protection after the Romulan War. I'd expect a very loose Federation, nothing like the Modern US Federal government.

 

[neozeks]

Apart from the structure of government questions, I think the question is an interesting one. In a post-scarcity society where questions of resource allocation are moot, what is politics about? If you took away such issues from today's politics, you'd be left with social issues and foreign policy. Well, the UFP is at peace internally(apart from the occasional Maquis stuff) and socially conservative religious fundamentalism doesn't seem likely to be a significant force in the 24th century Trek vision of Humanity.

The UFP is often portrayed as sort of a utopian social democracy that's pluralistic and tolerant.
So.. yeah. I'm curious, too. What are the issues?

I think people take the post-scarcity utopia idea too far. I don't think a post-scarcity society neccessarilly means all economic issues will just go away. Post-scarcity doesn't just magically establish and maintain itself on it's own, you still need a working economic/technological/social system and infrastructure to hold it together (even if there's no currency of any kind, which I personally doubt). And just because it apparently already works much better than our existing systems doesn't mean there can't be debates about how to make it even better and fairer.

Further, just because some resources aren't scarce in the sense that there's no poverty doesn't mean they're infinite. Once you provide everyone with the basics you simply set your goals higher. Ok, so everyone is fed, clothed and has a home. Now, do we build that weather control grid? How do we operate it? Do we start a teraforming project here? How about that planet-wide transporter network? What do we do first? We know the Federation can't just replicate a ship or a space station at the press of a button so when it comes to large-scale projects resource allocation decisions still have to be made, (whether it's on the planetary level or the Federation level).

So I'd say economic issues would still exist in the Federation, they would just be much less urgent and heated than today. And then there's a host of questions that have little to do with economy that would still need to be dealt with.

Take safety or privacy, for example. Technological progress constantly presents new issues. One could expect this would be even more urgent in the Federation with it's super-powerfull technologies, constant scientific progress and contact with other species' technologies. Transporters are the first thing that come to mind. How do you regulate transporter use? Does everyone get one? How do you protect from misuse (seeing how it's practically a powerfull weapon)? Or how do you protect privacy when a tricorder can scan you down to the atom from miles away? And so on.

 

[Sci]

The Federation is more like the 19th century US in Space, Most of the social issues are resolved by the planetary governments, not the UPF. For instance does a species that lays eggs have a right to an abortion? That is can an adult member of its species step on and crush its own eggs if it decides it doesn't want hatchlings? This is not an issue for the 150 member United Federation of Planets to handle for instance.

Ideally, it wouldn't be. But what if a member of that species -- let's say she's a Saurian, just for these purposes -- moves to Earth? Or Vulcan? Or Andor? Does the United Earth, or Vulcan, or Andorian government get to make that decision? Or does the Federation government? And what if a Sauria has banned egg-crushing, but a Saurian woman who is about to lay her eggs travels to, say, Deneva in order to lay eggs on a planet which lacks laws against egg-crushing? Does the UFP have the right to ban that? Does Sauria?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Apart from the structure of government questions, I think the question is an interesting one. In a post-scarcity society where questions of resource allocation are moot, what is politics about?

There's always going to be resource allocation questions because bureaucracy is eternal. The Federation Council likely has committees and sub-comittees that review every request made of it and determine what is appropriate and what would be wasteful/overkill in their eyes (those who make the requests may sometimes have very different opinions).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Apart from the structure of government questions, I think the question is an interesting one. In a post-scarcity society where questions of resource allocation are moot, what is politics about?

There's always going to be resource allocation questions because bureaucracy is eternal. The Federation Council likely has committees and sub-comittees that review every request made of it and determine what is appropriate and what would be wasteful/overkill in their eyes (those who made the request may have different opinions).

Clearly scarcity does exist, or the number of e.g. Galaxy-class starships would have been much greater. Most likely the materials important to high-end Federation technology could not be replicated.

 

[Sci]

Apart from the structure of government questions, I think the question is an interesting one. In a post-scarcity society where questions of resource allocation are moot, what is politics about?

There's always going to be resource allocation questions because bureaucracy is eternal. The Federation Council likely has committees and sub-comittees that review every request made of it and determine what is appropriate and what would be wasteful/overkill in their eyes (those who made the request may have different opinions).

Clearly scarcity does exist, or the number of e.g. Galaxy-class starships would have been much greater. Most likely the materials important to high-end Federation technology could not be replicated.

Indeed, I suspect it would be more accurate to refer to the Federation as being post-scarcity only in terms of the practical effect of having more than adequate resources to allow for what we would today consider a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. It's not literally post-scarcity.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Apart from the structure of government questions, I think the question is an interesting one. In a post-scarcity society where questions of resource allocation are moot, what is politics about?

There's always going to be resource allocation questions because bureaucracy is eternal. The Federation Council likely has committees and sub-comittees that review every request made of it and determine what is appropriate and what would be wasteful/overkill in their eyes (those who made the request may have different opinions).

Clearly scarcity does exist, or the number of e.g. Galaxy-class starships would have been much greater. Most likely the materials important to high-end Federation technology could not be replicated.

I agree. If nothing else, not every Federation world or colony has the exact same things on hand and certain things have to be shipped from one world to another. As a result, it's possible for shortages to occur of particular items just like how grocery stores may occasionally run out of things due to delays from manufacturers or with transportation.

 

[Mars]

The Federation is more like the 19th century US in Space, Most of the social issues are resolved by the planetary governments, not the UPF. For instance does a species that lays eggs have a right to an abortion? That is can an adult member of its species step on and crush its own eggs if it decides it doesn't want hatchlings? This is not an issue for the 150 member United Federation of Planets to handle for instance.

Ideally, it wouldn't be. But what if a member of that species -- let's say she's a Saurian, just for these purposes -- moves to Earth? Or Vulcan? Or Andor? Does the United Earth, or Vulcan, or Andorian government get to make that decision? Or does the Federation government? And what if a Sauria has banned egg-crushing, but a Saurian woman who is about to lay her eggs travels to, say, Deneva in order to lay eggs on a planet which lacks laws against egg-crushing? Does the UFP have the right to ban that? Does Sauria?

Nope, the Saurian could also do that on a starship. The UPF tries to stay above the fray, it doesn't want meddlesome issues interfering in its ability to defend its member planets and explore and expand. The UFP courts could act as an honest broker and negotiate disputes between member planets.

 

[Sci]

The Federation is more like the 19th century US in Space, Most of the social issues are resolved by the planetary governments, not the UPF. For instance does a species that lays eggs have a right to an abortion? That is can an adult member of its species step on and crush its own eggs if it decides it doesn't want hatchlings? This is not an issue for the 150 member United Federation of Planets to handle for instance.

Ideally, it wouldn't be. But what if a member of that species -- let's say she's a Saurian, just for these purposes -- moves to Earth? Or Vulcan? Or Andor? Does the United Earth, or Vulcan, or Andorian government get to make that decision? Or does the Federation government? And what if a Sauria has banned egg-crushing, but a Saurian woman who is about to lay her eggs travels to, say, Deneva in order to lay eggs on a planet which lacks laws against egg-crushing? Does the UFP have the right to ban that? Does Sauria?

Nope, the Saurian could also do that on a starship.

"No," what? "No, the UFP does not have the right to ban intra-Federation travel for the purpose of egg-crushing?" "No, Sauria does not have the right to ban off-world travel for the purpose of egg-crushing?" What are you saying?

And doing it on a starship just raises the same questions. Either that starship is registered to a particular Federation Member -- in which case it is legally no different from engaging in egg-crush on that Member planet -- or it is registered to the Federation itself -- in which case the Federation itself has to decide if egg-crushing is allowed.

The UPF tries to stay above the fray, it doesn't want meddlesome issues interfering in its ability to defend its member planets and explore and expand.

That's a meaningless non-answer. You can't be "above the fray" when there's a serious dispute about what rights your citizens do or do not have.

The UFP courts could act as an honest broker and negotiate disputes between member planets.

All this means is that the deciding parties would be unelected Federation judges rather than elected Federation legislators. That's hardly any better.

And this isn't a dispute between Member planets -- it's a dispute about the rights of private citizens.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Why did the Federation allow Cardassia to conquer and occupy Bajor?

Prime Directive. Since Bajor, technically speaking, invited the Cardassians in, the Federation was powerless to interfere, since the Prime Directive treats this as an internal matter. Once Cardassia annexed Bajor, all bets were off.

Can a Federation Member have an established church?

Bajor does. Since the only thing that would have kept Bajor OUT of the Federation was the caste system, which was long ago abolished, we can assume that the Bajoran religion itself would not have been a problem (assuming that Bajorans who don't follow the faith were not discriminated against, and we never heard that they were).

 

[sonak]

There's always going to be resource allocation questions because bureaucracy is eternal. The Federation Council likely has committees and sub-comittees that review every request made of it and determine what is appropriate and what would be wasteful/overkill in their eyes (those who made the request may have different opinions).

Clearly scarcity does exist, or the number of e.g. Galaxy-class starships would have been much greater. Most likely the materials important to high-end Federation technology could not be replicated.

Indeed, I suspect it would be more accurate to refer to the Federation as being post-scarcity only in terms of the practical effect of having more than adequate resources to allow for what we would today consider a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. It's not literally post-scarcity.

Point taken, as well as those from other responses. The UFP economy we see would just mean that the economic questions would be much less urgent ones and of a more mundane matter than they are now.

But the poster who raised the civil liberties issue with the tricorder makes an interesting point. Already we're seeing debates about the kind of "transparent society" that we may be moving to, with the technology to track what we say, write, where we go, etc. Those issues of privacy and civil liberties concerns would almost certainly be heightened with transporters, tricorders, brain wave monitoring, etc.