Star trek and democracy

PST: discuss Star Trek without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
StarSword
Jedi Knight
Posts: 985
Joined: 2011-07-22 10:46pm
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Contact:

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by StarSword »

Borgholio wrote:
Eternal_Freedom wrote:Then again, in our own history we've seen several supposedly "representative" governments that were in fact dictatorships. Any single-party state for instance is notionally a representative democracy, just with only one choice on the ballot (or some other means of ensuring the "right" choice).
Any nation that prefaces it's actual name with "People's Republic of..."
Generally the more adjectives you feel the need to attach, the less democratic you are. :D
Star Carrier by Ian Douglas: Analysis and Talkback

The Vortex Empire: I think the real question is obviously how a supervolcano eruption wiping out vast swathes of the country would affect the 2016 election.
Borgholio: The GOP would blame Obama and use the subsequent nuclear winter to debunk global warming.
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Elheru Aran »

The Klingon Empire fits the model of a feudal monarchy the best, although the Emperor/Kahless has little real power. That said, it seems to be the case that the House struggles don't really influence the administration of the Empire apart from determining who's currently in power. Day-to-day things seem to be smooth enough that the Empire functions well enough. It's definitely not a democracy, but they do allow the planets under their control to administer themselves to some degree.

The Romulans always struck me as being in a situation where you have a small group of nobility, who essentially control the Empire, the Senators and such coming from them. There's no real democracy there in any sense. However, we don't really know enough to say confidently one way or other. It's obvious the general population is oppressed by the Tal Shiar and the military, though.

Honestly in terms of stellar domains, the UFP are probably the closest parallel to a democracy out there. The Borg are no more democratic than an ant-hill.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
Prometheus Unbound
Jedi Master
Posts: 1141
Joined: 2007-09-28 06:46am

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Prometheus Unbound »

Elheru Aran wrote:It's obvious the general population is oppressed by the Tal Shiar and the military, though.
Tal Shiar, yes. Military, no. The military are just as oppressed (see "Face of the Enemy")
The Borg are no more democratic than an ant-hill.
It was kinda a joke :D
NecronLord wrote:
Also, shorten your signature a couple of lines please.
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Patroklos »

As a matter of story line generation we normally see our characters on the outskirts of or down rought outside of the Federation. If they are outside the Federation it makes sense that starfleet command is directing everything. There might be some sausage grinding between the civilian and military leadership but thats outside the scope of the POV we are privy too, I have never once had a civilian member of the government call and tell us to do something.

Even inside the Federation I am sure most of the space is probably similar to federal land in the US West. It is pretty much defacto run by government agencies with jurisdiction and outside any particularly resource rich or ecologically significant areas isn't going to get much attention. I could see starfleet having a pretty freehand in any backwater space not in the immediate vicinity of an influential member world.
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12235
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Lord Revan »

Hell the Enterprise's mission is actually said to us at the start of each episode in TOS and TNG.
TOS Opening narration wrote:Space the final frontier, these are voyages of the starship Enterprise. It's 5 year mission to explore strange new world, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before
this is taken mostly from Memory Alpha as for the TNG intro it just changed "5 year" to "ongoing" and "no man" to "no one" IIRC.

this pretty much says that Enterprise's mission of was to boldly go where no one has gone before, even if Kirk often found a way to go where every (straight) man had gone before (or at least wanted to).
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
User avatar
Panashe
Redshirt
Posts: 21
Joined: 2011-11-15 07:33pm

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Panashe »

StarSword wrote:The Federation Council declares war but then stays hands-off and lets Starfleet decide how to prosecute it.
The Federation has gone to war several time on the show, but the Federation Council has never declared war. This might be a charming old Human custom that isn't observed by the multi-species Federation. Starfleet might independently have the power to initiate wars based on established policies and rules of engagement.
Lord Revan wrote: this seems to imply that Starfleet is subservient to the Council and not the other way around.
Perhaps subservient only in certain areas, external diplomacy being one.

Although in Angel One, Picard said that Starfleet wanted Angel One to join the Federation, with no mention of the Council's feeling on the matter.
Simon_Jester wrote:If this were the case, why would a Starfleet officer have attempted a coup d'etat against the civilian government in a DS9 episode?
What do people in power want? More power.
User avatar
Borgholio
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6297
Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Borgholio »

Necros are bad, m'kay? :)
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
User avatar
Panashe
Redshirt
Posts: 21
Joined: 2011-11-15 07:33pm

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Panashe »

Pardon, is four and a half months a necros ?
User avatar
SilverDragonRed
Padawan Learner
Posts: 217
Joined: 2014-04-28 08:38am

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by SilverDragonRed »

It's about two-and-a-half months past the limit. Welcome to the board!
Ah yes, the "Alpha Legion". I thought we had dismissed such claims.
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12235
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by Lord Revan »

how of a down time is considered necro depends on the forum but as a rule of thumb if the thread has been inactive for at least 2 months it's probably considered necro.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7700
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: Star trek and democracy

Post by FaxModem1 »

On Voyager, we run into a few democratic powers.

The Qomar, from the episode Virtuoso, as an example, are xenophobic, but representative.

The Vaskans and Kyrians have a representative government with each other, depending on the era. In the 24th century, they're openly warring with each other, when the Doctor is awakened, the Kyrians and Vaskans are having a civil rights political crisis, and one side is viewed as only having token representatives on their council. Centuries later, they seem to have a truly equal society.
Image
Post Reply