Thank you for your kind words,
Longinus!
Star Trek has always been focused on Starfleet, a federal institution, and we get much less information how things work outside of it. I'd assume there to be all sorts of political struggles going on between the member worlds that we never hear about. Even though UFP is has clearly more powerful federal institutions than EU, I still feel that EU is a better analogy for it than US. All these different worlds with different histories and applying for the membership reminds me of EU.
I would suggest that
culturally, the Federation is more akin to the European Union, but that in terms of its political structures, the Federation is more akin to the United States or Canada.
Also, it is true that the Federation Council seems to have a lot of power, but we know very little of how it is elected and how it operates.
For what it's worth, the novels have established that each Federation Member State retains a single Federation Councillor, to be chosen in such manner as that Member State shall determine. The full Federation Council is then presided over by the Federation President, who appoints Federation Councillors to each of the various committes (called "sub-councils") with the consent of the full Council. An Act of Council requires the President's signature to become law, and can be vetoed by the President. The President may preside over sessions of the sub-councils, and is expected to work closely with the relevant sub-councils on a given issue. So the relationship between the President and Council is a sort of combination of the U.S. President-Congress relationship and the U.K. Prime Minister-Parliament relationship.
The novels are of course non-canonical and may be superseded by later canonical works. But that unless
Star Trek Into Darkness contains an extended sequence where Spock muses on the inner workings of the Federation Council, that seems unlikely.
If for example it has appointed representatives from each member world and decisions that would introduce binding new laws on the member worlds would require unanimous vote, then in practice the Federation could not impose laws on its members against their will.
This is possible, but I think the canonical evidence suggests it is implausible. It would, for instance, be nigh-impossible to coordinate the governments of 150+ worlds in a timely fashion during a foreign policy crisis if each had a veto over the Acts of Council; that would make things like the Federation Council's decision to condemn the Klingon invasion of the Cardassian Union in 2372 (DSN: "The Way of the Warrior") nearly impossible to reach. Similarly, there's no evidence that the Federation government obtained instructions from any of its Member governments during the Khitomer conspiracy crisis in
Star Trek VI, when it decided to conclude a peace treaty.
Sci, one more thing about the old thread (I do not want to resurrect an years old thread.) Federation president might be elected by the council rather than by a popular election. There certainly are countries where it works like that. For example, the German president is elected by Federal Convention, which is composed of the German parliament and state electors.
Well, the thing is, the President of the United Federation of Planets isn't really analogous to the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German Presidency is mostly ceremonial; as with most parliamentary systems, the head of state is not the head of government. Real power lives with the Chancellor. The Federation President, on the other hand, has been seen demonstrating his power as head of government in addition to head of state; it was President Ra-ghoratreii who decided whether or not the Federation would invade Klingon space to rescue Kirk and McCoy in TUC, for instance, and President Jaresh-Inyo who decided to declare a
de facto state of martial law on Earth in DSN's "Homefront."
The term for a head of government chosen by the legislature rather than by popular election is "Prime Minister." The only government I can think of off the bat where a head of government is also the head of state and is chosen by the legislature is South Africa -- and the South African President is only chosen by the Parliament because the modern presidency is a direct descendent of the former South African Prime Ministership. South Africa is very much unusual in that regard.
So if the Federation head of government were chosen by the Council, that presents the question of why it's called President of the United Federation of Planets rather than Prime Minister of the United Federation of Planets (or Chancellor, or Taoiseach, or Premier, or First Minister, or any of the other terms for a head of government who is not head of state). It's not impossible, but I also think it presents an unanswered question.
The Federation is clearly a multinational sovereign state.
Of course the main problem with that idea is the dialog
actually used in the episodes.
In the 23rd century (according to Kirk in TOS) the Federation is an "alliance."
In one episode where he's simplifying things for aliens.
In the 26th century (according to Daniels in ENT) the Federation is an "alliance."
In which episode?
Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is that the Federation is shown to possess all of the powers and to enact all of the powers of a sovereign state. Alliances can't put their members under
de facto martial law, nor declare war, nor give up sovereign territory to a foreign state, nor enact domestic legislation, nor possess sovereign territory, nor possess their own militaries (with their own courts-martial), nor have their own regular systems of courts.
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Is a consultative interparliamentary organization, not a parliament in its own right. It brings together MPs from different countries to foster awareness of one-another's parliamentary systems and cultures, to help foster unity within the alliance. It is, in other words, the parliamentary equivalent of a Rotary Club. It is not a parliament, does not possess its own MPs, and cannot pass any laws.
