Federation Membership

[Talondor]

I was looking at the Federation Constitution in the politics section and I noticed the membership section. I understand that there are certain social and economic conditions needed to join, such as no slavery and equal opportunity for all. But there was nothing in there about population minimum. I assume that a species' native world would be eligible regardless of population size, and a world with one colony the size of a village cannot join. But is there a population number where a colony world grows up enough to become eligible for full membership?

[Bryan Moore]

Great question, T!

Canon answer: No Farking Clue

Logical answer: From what we've seen - any planet with a unified government (though we had exceptions) may apply to join. I would think a small colony of a few hundred people recently liberated from, lets say, the Chakat Consortium, would unlikely be a member candidate. However, I think it's reasonable to envision New Chakatia being granted a protectorate status or something of the sort, maybe a "territory" but not a full member with full voting rights. Real life examples might be Guam to the U.S. or Nunavut to Canada or perhaps Brunei to the U.K. until the 1980's.

I would think, though, that for certain political reasons, New Chakatia might well be admitted despite a very small population. Despite the peace-loving shtick, we've seen the Federation (especially in the EU) do quite a bit of political posturing with neighboring rivals. If the Chakat Consortium was at odds with the Federation, I would completely see the Feds giving New Chakatia full membership just to have some prime real estate right on the CC's doorstep.

[Graham Kennedy]

Offhand I don't see any reason why a world with a small population couldn't join. If your planet consists of wilderness with one small village of a few hundred people, why should that be any bar to membership?

The fundamental question is, why does the Federation want new worlds to join? It's always been something everyone takes for granted, but there must be some motivation behind it, yes?

[Mikey]

"Expand or die" mentality. New members = new resources, natural as well as "human," along with new tech, culture, and experience. It is the nature of any such nation-state to expand... even if not through conquest, like the Klingons, the drive is still present.

[Graham Kennedy]

An interesting counterpoint to our time, when borders are largely fixed.

If it's a simple drive to expand then it really shouldn't make much difference how many people are on the planet.

And we do see in TOS that the Federation at least puts science outposts on planets that are otherwise deserted, as in The Man Trap. That idea always fascinated me, as a kid and now. The little island I live on is pretty crowded compared to many places. I've heard it said that some people from places like here find it difficult to live in places like Australia where the population density is a hundred times lower. The feeling of big emptiness pulls at you, so they say.

I wonder what it would be like, knowing that your little band of half a dozen people are the only ones on an entire planet? Knowing that you could walk off into the distance and never see anybody, ever again... perhaps it could drive a man mad?

Back on point, here's a question. Is there free movement between Federation planets, like there is in the US/EU? If your planet of one small village joins up, can fifty million human settlers come swarming in afterwards, one wonders?

[Mikey]

An interesting counterpoint to our time, when borders are largely fixed.

Not as much of a counterpoint as it would seem, to my thinking. I believe that the only reason our modern borders are largely fixed is because we have realized a sort of critical mass or terminal velocity of expansion... or rather, more like a solar equilibrium. Consider our current situation as a main sequence star in the prime of its life - gravity delicately but nearly perfectly balanced against the outward pressure induced by the fusion reaction. In like manner, our borders are fixed (more or less) because there's nowhere to go. If the U.S. wanted to expand, we can no longer just go find some unclaimed (by white folks) land. If there were "free" land available on earth, as there seem to be class M planets in the 'Trek galaxy, I have little doubt that national expansion would occur at least as much as it does in 'Trek.

[Graham Kennedy]

Exactly so.

One day we will develop cheap interplanetary travel, and no doubt there will be another expansionist period of sorts as various nations lay claim to the rest of the solar system. But for now, there's nowhere you can go that doesn't belong to somebody.

[Talondor]

But to get back to the original question, after thinking about it a bit, I believe there has to be a minimum population for a planet to join the Federation, written or "gentleman's" agreement.

Say the Andorians colonize 50 planets with 100 people each, each claiming it is "independent" of Andoria but in reality under control of the central authority from their homeworld. And say each applies for and gains full membership as a equal Federation planet with a seat in the Federation Assembly. Could that not give Andorians a 51-vote block in the Federation assembly with only 5000 colonists? That would give Andoria a dramatic increase of power and influence within the Federation.

[Mikey]

Depends. I don't recall if votes in the UFP parliament are based on the number of planets or on population amounts... or on some other demographics.