Lack of similar enemy for Federation

[Bryan Moore]

This has been addressed here and there before, but I was thinking about the various enemies we've encountered on Star Trek throughout the years. The Klingons are honorable but warlike; the Romulans are sneaky, xenophobic, and treacherous; the Cardassians are racist, xenophobic, but have their own honor system; The Dominion are ruthless imperators; the Hirogen are hunters; the Borg are the farkin Borg; et cetera.

What we don't see is another democratically ruled/elected government similar to the Federation* that has a rivalry for territory, resources, or simple differences in ideals. I somewhat wonder why this is.

I understand that in modern politics, which Star Trek most often reflects, most democracies are allied and that for the sake of plots, it's nice to have the black and white of freedom versus totalitarianism. But despite this, I wish we saw at least some other group similar to the Federation, even if they were smaller and not at war with the Feds, who simply was competing with the UFP or did not wish to be part of the Feds. It seems to reason that in such a big galaxy, there'd be another similarly organized group, does it not?

*I am aware we are not wholly sure that the Federation is democratically elected and that it has been left somewhat ambiguous. However, I am making this statement based on a deleted scene from Star Trek VI, shown only in a couple of specials, where Brigadeer Kerla chides Kirk and company at the dinner table for "Hypocritically presuming that their [Federations's] democratically elected government gives them the right to force their ideas upon other galactic powers. While not canon, it is as close to canon as we will get. Between this and various other hints throughout the series, I feel this is a strong enough assertion to assume that the Federation is at least some sort of republic, likely with some sense of democracy. Until we see otherwise, I would like to consider the Fed a democratic republic for the purposes of this thread, at least.

[Mikey]

The problem has been the stark black/white attitude that has pervaded much of 'Trek. If an alien nation are "good guys" (read: democratic, non-prejudiced, etc.,) then it would be unthinkable for them to be opposed to the uber-good guys - that is, the UFP.

That said, I agree with you - I'd have loved to see the paradigm described above shaken up. And to be fair, we have little info on the governments of some of the minor and neglected enemies - the Sheliak, the Tzenkethi, the Gorn and Tholians even.

[Sionnach Glic]

Aye, TNG+ era Trek is sadly defined by a loss of shades of grey in various areas. Most notably amongst their enemies.

[Bryan Moore]

Aye, TNG+ era Trek is sadly defined by a loss of shades of grey in various areas. Most notably amongst their enemies.

And it makes for great TV to reach the masses that way, which is, even though we DITL'ers don't always remember it, the goal of any TV show. However, it plays for problems in the extended universe, somewhat. Only in the last few years thanks to the effords of men like DeCandido, Martin and Mengels, and David do we see shades of grey among the enemies really appearing in the Trek universe, which is why I have been drawn to them so much.

Imagine, however, we discover in the border between the Delta/Gamma Quadrant (the only area of the galaxy that has been completely untouched) the region's hegemony to be a democratically elected coalition of planets that mirror the Federation somewhat, except they're not so peaceful, due to the fact that their territories have allowed them to have brush ups with both the outer reaches of the Dominion, Hirogen, and even Borg. As a result, they tend to be very suspicious of outsiders despite their democratic system, and even though they have some allies who are not in the coalition, they tend to act unilaterally to preserve their right for self governance (hmm, sound familiar, Yanks?). Due to the Pathfinder mission, slipstream, etc, there's now contact with the Federation. BOOM.

[Lazar]

For an IU explanation, I think it's that all the major democratic planets in the area have quite rationally joined the Federation. We can see this from the beginning - the Terrans, Vulcans and Andorians could have chosen to pursue solo empires like the Romulans and Klingons, but they all ended up joining forces. So by the TNG era, the Federation has come to envelop dozens of races, and a gigantic area of space, because (I imagine) it was too attractive an arrangement for any sympathetic planet to refuse. As far as we know, the Federation might be little more than a defensive community, with extreme autonomy for member planets.

In any case, I do think ST has relied too much on monocultures and simplistic racial stereotypes.

[Sionnach Glic]

Yes, that explains it IU.

[Tyyr]

Well it explains why the Federation hasn't run into such a thing in its immediate neighborhood. However such a place could develop a few hundred light years away coreward of the Federation. A similar condition could have created another Federation like entity. Personally I'd love to see such a thing. I find situations where neither side is inherently wrong but they have differing and incompatible goals far more interesting that white vs. black hats.

[Mikey]

I'd like to see it, too. And that IU explanation begs the question - why doesn't that work in reverse? That is, the UFP has member worlds which are non-democratic. T'Pau's position in TOS: "Amok Time," for example, seemed to be that of some sort of theocrat or peer; there was also talk of the Vulcan representative to the UFP council being appointed rather than elected. There is no indication one way or the other for the Andorians or Tellarites, nor for many of the other member worlds.

So, if decidedly non-democratic worlds are part of the UFP, why shouldn't we see non-UFP worlds/governments which are democratic?

[Captain Seafort]

T'Pau's position in TOS: "Amok Time," for example, seemed to be that of some sort of theocrat or peer

Or a judge, or a US cabinet member. And I'm not overly keen on the implication that the UK isn't a democracy.

there was also talk of the Vulcan representative to the UFP council being appointed rather than elected.

So are all ambassadors to the UN.

[Mikey]

And I'm not overly keen on the implication that the UK isn't a democracy.

Not my intention in any way. Sorry if you thought that was my implication. I just refer to the fact that peerage in the UK (or Polish herbs, or Hungarian Magyars, or any other form of nobility) is itself non-democratic, and a station of (usually) parentage.

So are all ambassadors to the UN.

True. Because there is no true democracy in its pure form on Earth. In the case of the Bush administration, there was in fact only one person who wanted John Bolton to be our ambassador. Unfortunately, that one person was the president.

*EDIT* I just re-read, and I really don't see how you could take umbrage from my statement. I sure never mentioned that the nobility in England took on the most major role in governing the country, or anything like that. It was more like a reference to the fact that it exists - which AFAIK is still true, no?

[Captain Seafort]

I just re-read, and I really don't see how you could take umbrage from my statement. I sure never mentioned that the nobility in England took on the most major role in governing the country, or anything like that. It was more like a reference to the fact that it exists - which AFAIK is still true, no?

I didn't - my point was that you took the fact that T'Pau appeared to be a peer or similar, and that Vulcan's representative to the UFP council was appointed rather than elected, and used that as evidence that Vulcan isn't a democracy. You could use very similar evidence that neither the US or UK are democracies either.

[Mikey]

You could use very similar evidence that neither the US or UK are democracies either.

I could, and I'd be correct. Both the US and the UK are democratic, but neither are true democracies. The US is at best a federal republic, and the UK is a constitutional monarchy, albeit with a highly democratic component.

[Captain Seafort]

Not this again...

The US is a democracy. The UK is a democracy. The fact that neither of them are a specific type of democracy does not change this. What's next? Arguing that a duck isn't a bird because it's a duck instead?

[Mikey]

No, I'd argue that a duck isn't a mongoose.

If you choose to use the word "democracy" to mean "any governmental system with democratic components," then fine. That's different.

Be that as it may, my point here is that no offense was ever intended toward the British government, nor to the fact that peerage exists in England. If that's the impression you got, I apologize. Sub "nobility" for "peer" in my post about T'Pau, and you may find it less offensive and more universal.

[Captain Seafort]

No, I'd argue that a duck isn't a mongoose.

If you choose to use the word "democracy" to mean "any governmental system with democratic components," then fine. That's different.

I use the term to mean "a system of government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives". I.e what the OED says.

Be that as it may, my point here is that no offense was ever intended toward the British government, nor to the fact that peerage exists in England. If that's the impression you got, I apologize. Sub "nobility" for "peer" in my post about T'Pau, and you may find it less offensive and more universal.

You're missing the point. The specific words used are irrelevant - the point is that you used the fact that T'Pau by implication and the Vulcan representative to the Federation Council were unelected as evidence that Vulcan isn't a democracy.