Money

[Thorin]

The Federation Council is elected (as seen when Bajor was required to elect a representitive), and the Federation is a complete democracy ("Errand of Mercy").

That's a TOS source, and there's a ton of evidence that the Federation changed drastically between TOS and TNG. The worst example of this from the democracy point of view being in "Paradise Lost", when the only person who could prevent Leyton's bloodless coup was Sisko - another Starfleet officer. There's also indicators in "Journey's End", when Picard didn't have an inkling of the terms of the Federation-Cardassian treaty until Necheyev told him.

To be honest I fail to see how either of those examples show that the Federation wasn't a democracy... Only that it was inept in the first example and Picard didn't tune into the latest news feed in the second.

[Captain Seafort]

To be honest I fail to see how either of those examples show that the Federation wasn't a democracy...

Re: Leyton. You don't think that there would have been an uproar over Leyton's actions in a democracy? Politicians and ordinary people howling at the subversion of the rule of the elected representatives of the people in favour of a single individual. Then again, looking at the U.S. these days, maybe this point isn't as strong as it should be.

Re: Treaty. Can you imagine a treaty being signed by a modern democracy without extensive debate on the terms of said treaty. Versailles was largely a product of public opinion, the various EEC/EU treaties have been debated ad nauseum for months on end. For Picard not to have the slightest idea what the terms of the treaty were until his superior officer told him shows that there was no debate whatsoever, and the fact that the Maquis sprang up without a hint of political support (inevitable in a democracy given the circumstances of their formation) strongly implies that the Federation is not a democracy. In furtherance to that last point, have we ever heard of any political party within the Federation? I can't think of any examples.

[Deepcrush]

But the US is different, our military isn't aloud to deploy in side our country's borders. And if they are even in use then they fall under the command of the state government in which they operate. Starfleet doesn't have such laws.

[Thorin]

To be honest I fail to see how either of those examples show that the Federation wasn't a democracy...

Re: Leyton. You don't think that there would have been an uproar over Leyton's actions in a democracy? Politicians and ordinary people howling at the subversion of the rule of the elected representatives of the people in favour of a single individual. Then again, looking at the U.S. these days, maybe this point isn't as strong as it should be.

Maybe you just answered your own point?

Re: Treaty. Can you imagine a treaty being signed by a modern democracy without extensive debate on the terms of said treaty. Versailles was largely a product of public opinion, the various EEC/EU treaties have been debated ad nauseum for months on end. For Picard not to have the slightest idea what the terms of the treaty were until his superior officer told him shows that there was no debate whatsoever, and the fact that the Maquis sprang up without a hint of political support (inevitable in a democracy given the circumstances of their formation) strongly implies that the Federation is not a democracy. In furtherance to that last point, have we ever heard of any political party within the Federation? I can't think of any examples.

I think Picard summed it up perfectly; he didn't want to be a politician. There weren't political parties in the Federation, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a democracy. We know there was a democratically elected council - the most logical thing to assume is that a member of this council is elected, by the council, to be the president. The "parties", if you like, are each member of the council, who represent a Federation planet each. Simply because there was not a public debate among Starfleet, the military branch of the Federation, does not mean that a referendum is required everytime a peace treaty is brought in.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I'm not quite sure why everyone thinks democracy is so great. First of all democracies spend so much time fighting over what should be done they usually do too little too late. Secondly During the golden age of piracy most pirate ships had some sort of democratic system, but they were still violent and malicious criminals. And many democratic governments are hypocrites. Their militarys are run in a very non-democratic way. A fire cannot use water to fight without extinguishing itself. A dictatorship-like government could, with the right people in charge, be even better then a democratic country. And they at least spend less time talking and more time doing.

Theoretically, sure, a benevolant dictatorship is the best form of government. In practice, however, power corrupts, and the best system devised so far of preventing an incompetant, corrupt, or purely self-serving individual from remaining in charge indefinately is democracy. To quote a far greater man than any of us, it is by far "the worst form of government, apart from all those others that have from time to time been tried."

So it's better to have a system where a large number of corrupt people have no real control are elected for limited periods of time? That makes sense. (Really, I'm not being sarcastic) It's sad but I suppose it's better then many alternatives.

[Sionnach Glic]

Indeed, the very nature of humanity ensures that most people with power will abuse it to get more power for themselves at the expense of others. This is true, no matter what system of government you have.

[Captain Seafort]

But the US is different, our military isn't aloud to deploy in side our country's borders. And if they are even in use then they fall under the command of the state government in which they operate. Starfleet doesn't have such laws.

I was refering more to Bush effectively removing most of the safeguards built into the US system than a military coup. Nonetheless, aid to the civil power is a lot different than an all-out takeover of power.

[Captain Seafort]

To be honest I fail to see how either of those examples show that the Federation wasn't a democracy...

Re: Leyton. You don't think that there would have been an uproar over Leyton's actions in a democracy? Politicians and ordinary people howling at the subversion of the rule of the elected representatives of the people in favour of a single individual. Then again, looking at the U.S. these days, maybe this point isn't as strong as it should be.

Maybe you just answered your own point?

Point, I was making unwarrented assumptions regarding the intelligence of your average Fred Bloggs.

Re: Treaty. Can you imagine a treaty being signed by a modern democracy without extensive debate on the terms of said treaty. Versailles was largely a product of public opinion, the various EEC/EU treaties have been debated ad nauseum for months on end. For Picard not to have the slightest idea what the terms of the treaty were until his superior officer told him shows that there was no debate whatsoever, and the fact that the Maquis sprang up without a hint of political support (inevitable in a democracy given the circumstances of their formation) strongly implies that the Federation is not a democracy. In furtherance to that last point, have we ever heard of any political party within the Federation? I can't think of any examples.

I think Picard summed it up perfectly; he didn't want to be a politician. There weren't political parties in the Federation, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a democracy. We know there was a democratically elected council - the most logical thing to assume is that a member of this council is elected, by the council, to be the president. The "parties", if you like, are each member of the council, who represent a Federation planet each. Simply because there was not a public debate among Starfleet, the military branch of the Federation, does not mean that a referendum is required everytime a peace treaty is brought in.

It shows that there was no debate full stop. The military isn't a sealed environment - its members aren't cut off from society. Indeed, most treaties do not require a national referendum, and they may not require confirmation by the legislature, but that doesn't change the fact that debate on the terms of said treaties is extensive, particularly when large chunks of territory are changing hands. In a democracy that is.

[Thorin]

Everything you have said is true, but that doesn't mean the Federation isn't a democracy. The Federation Council is elected - cannon. We can only assume that they are the ones that pass laws, treaties, bills, etc. The only thing that can be questioned it whether the President is elected democratically. You're trying to argue that the Federation isn't a democracy, when we know for a fact it is. The Council, which is realistically all the government/parliament/house of lords (etc), is democratically elected. There is absolutely no reasoning to assume that the President isn't, thus, democratically elected, either by the entire of the Federation's population, or by the Council (as representitives of their own world).

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Everything you have said is true, but that doesn't mean the Federation isn't a democracy. The Federation Council is elected - cannon. We can only assume that they are the ones that pass laws, treaties, bills, etc. The only thing that can be questioned it whether the President is elected democratically. You're trying to argue that the Federation isn't a democracy, when we know for a fact it is. The Council, which is realistically all the government/parliament/house of lords (etc), is democratically elected. There is absolutely no reasoning to assume that the President isn't, thus, democratically elected, either by the entire of the Federation's population, or by the Council (as representitives of their own world).

Then the real question is how are they elected?

[Thorin]

Each member is voted for by the population of their planet. The one with the most votes gets on the council. Or something extremely similar to that. If there were political parties, this is the point at which they would be at. A political party would be elected to rule the world (sounds kind of maniac villianish, that does), and the leader of that party would enter the Council. That's if there were political parties.

[Captain Seafort]

Thorin, do you have a specific quote for the point of Councilors being elected by their respective populations, by the evidence I'm seeing is strongly against the Federation being a democracy. Certainly there are representatives from each member, but are these representatives elected or merely selected? Also, how do these representatives participate in the running of the Federation? Do they have any real power or are they just a debate club in the same manner as the UN General Assembly? While all UN members have a seat in the GA, it can't be disputed that the body with the real power is the Security Council, the membership of which is far more exclusive, and is effective run by the Big Five. Does the Federation operate on similar principles? While the President may be elected by the council, so was the General Secretary of the CPSU, and that was hardly a glowing example of democracy.

[Thorin]

Thorin, do you have a specific quote for the point of Councilors being elected by their respective populations, by the evidence I'm seeing is strongly against the Federation being a democracy. Certainly there are representatives from each member, but are these representatives elected or merely selected? Also, how do these representatives participate in the running of the Federation? Do they have any real power or are they just a debate club in the same manner as the UN General Assembly? While all UN members have a seat in the GA, it can't be disputed that the body with the real power is the Security Council, the membership of which is far more exclusive, and is effective run by the Big Five. Does the Federation operate on similar principles? While the President may be elected by the council, so was the General Secretary of the CPSU, and that was hardly a glowing example of democracy.

It's in "Rapture", where Bajor was going to join. They were told that someone would have to be elected to join the Council. There's more information here. We know the Council have real powers, that link shows about all their decisions, referrals, etc. Remember the Federation is not a Security Council, it's a government.

Everything we see, in cannon as that we know of the Council being elected, and inferred in that it's always made out to be a democracy, and in what it use to be, at least, in TOS - a democracy. This evidence far outweights any speculation that secondary meanings of words are used, or things are complicated and taken at the exact opposite of face value. It is highly unlikely that the "pure", "idealistic" Federation would have gone from a democracy to any other sort of government, especially as democracy is seen, in TOS at least, as the best.

[Captain Seafort]

Evidence from TOS I'm a little reluctant to accept as evidence of its TNG+ status given the major changes to the Federation in the intervening years.And I hope you'll forgive me if I ask for a more reliable source than a Wiki.

The Federation is inferred to be a democracy, but actual evidence of that status is lacking - it's all assumptions and euphamisms rather than actual evidence. There's certainly evidence of represetation on the Council, but the power of individual members, and the manner in which these members are chosen is uncertain. Pre-TNG references include T'pau rejecting a seat on the council (implying that one was offered to her - strange if seats were elected positions), and the presence of a Council of only around 30 members (including Starfleet officers!) in ST4. While these fall outside the period we're considering, they do seem to imply that 1) council seats are not elected, 2) there may be an "inner council" that is smaller than the full council (150+ members in TNG, unknown but presumably smaller at the time of ST4), and 3) the council has at times included Starfleet officers. Alternately, this body may be a collection of senior government officials, including the Chiefs of Staff of the Federation Armed Forces.

As for the Federation's claims of its idealism, given its demonstrated Marxism, and the general incompatability of Marxism and democracy, I don't hold that it much regard.

[Enkidu]

Here's a short, but interesting, essay from the Ex Astris Scientia website. (There are also a couple there about the Federation's economy, or lack of it)

http://canonfodder.ex-astris-scientia.o ... on_Society