*

[Sorehl 0]

So you'd agree with the idea of it being more like the EU then?

 

In toying around with thoughts about plausible structures for the UFP government, I found several good things from the EU to draw from, but a few things that probably wouldn't work for the Federation. The UN offers a pretty good model for some other aspects. For those of you who don't care about such nonsense: skip on a bit, brother.

 

The EU Parliament is a House of Representatives/Commons style organization with proportional votes by population. They cannot initiate laws, but they debate and craft laws proposed elsewhere. This could be like the Federation (General) Assembly, with hundreds and hundreds of delegates, but then, I'm not even sure there's a canonical reference to the Assembly. The EU Council is a strangely functioning body, whose membership changes based on the subject they're discussing. If it's an agricultural topic, then the Council is comprised of European interior ministers. They also have a Commission, a cabinet-like group with ministers overseeing specific EU-wide administration.

 

The EU has several "top" roles, but no single head of government or state. There's a Speaker of the Parliament, a rotating president of the Council (every six months by country), and such. The Lisbon treaty was supposed to add a President-like role, but it's defeat in Ireland makes that change questionable.

 

In contrast with the UFP, the UN General-Secretary isn't the head of the Security Council. He is the head of the Secretariat, which is a huge civil-service administrative body with executive responsibilities. He is elected by the General Assembly, but that group has its own senior delegate. By tradition, members of one of the permanent security members (US, Russia, China, England, and France) don't run. That's why they've been from littler countrys like Bolivia, Ghana, and South Korea. This spreads the power. By tradition, they also tend to rotate by continent, as in the previous examples. Although the Federation doesn't necessarily keep with these traditions, it would surprise me if a human or Vulcan ever held the post after the formative years. ST4 had a human (although maybe not from Earth), but ST6 and DS9 had aliens from less-represented species, Efrosian and Grazerite.

 

Back to reality. The EU doesn't have a central body for determining a unified foreign policy... yet. They allow its members to form their own diplomacy and even enter alliances outside the group (ala NATO). The EU also doesn't have a collective military, relying on the contributions of their members. Much different than the UFP.

 

It was suggested that the UN doesn't have its own military. They also draw from their member states, but not like the EU. Military action can be authorized by the UN, as in Korea and the first Gulf War. Although under command of the donor government, these forces are supposed to take direction from the UN. They wear UN insignia and the famous blue helmets. But outside of peacekeeping exercises, they tend to be led by their own generals as in Korea. Of course, the Klingon Empire hasn't yet threatened the UN, so they don't keep their own standing army.

 

Enter "Articles of the Federation" which posed that the President runs the Federation Council, instead of the Assembly or Secretariat (or some similar organization). And that office is elected by popular vote at large, meaning they don't have to come from the existing ambassadors and delegates. In that book, the author suggests the Assembly "qualifies" the candidate, which doesn't sound all that democratic - if I recall, Iran regime got their current president after the mullahs disqualified all the serious contenders.

 

Interestingly, the Federation Council is sometimes equated with the UN Security Council, which is a very different type of group. The latter is in permanent session and debates world crises that could require military invention or other formal resolution. The Federation Council, on the other hand, would seem to be a governing body that recommends laws and establishes foreign policy along with the President.

 

So this just raises many questions: What part of the government does the President run? Is he the Council president or just appears before them from time to time? Is there such a thing as an Assembly, allowing for proportional representation? Is the Security Council different from the Federation Council? I imagine the former as a small 15-member group of specialist, with the latter having 100+ members, but that's my own concoction. (Sorehl's been testifying before the Security Council, which I imagine as the scope of a minor Congressional subcommittee hearing, not a State of the Union address.) Would there be joint chiefs of staff if there's just Starfleet, or do the Marines get a commandant equivalent to a C-IN-C? And for those of you who skipped on from the first paragraph: Who cares?

 

Which is the last question I wanted to address. Is anybody else interested in continuing this thread as a way of speculating about the structure of the Federation government? Or should I just shut up?

Edited July 13, 2008 by Sorehl

[Grom 0]

Having read through some lengthy responses here, I think it would be difficult to nail down the exact Federation governing struture.

 

1. As Joy pointed out, there seemed to be a much more realistic approach taken toward foreign policy after the Roddenberry years. Roddenberry's Trek was based on the premise that mankind could progressively evolve to the point that vices which vexed humanity in the past could be overcome. Berman's Trek emphasized that while humanity could improve, there were still innate human propensities to overcome. Two radically different visions tarnish any hope for coming up with a feasible governing structure, at least as envisioned.

 

2. Vision aside, I still think the issue primarily rests with the issue of sovereignty. How one deals with this issue will largely affect the type of government that emerges. At the Constitutional Convention this was, without a doubt, the underlying issue. Similar questions have affected not only other nations, but multi-national organizations as some have brought up. Obviously the UN, Inc., would like to have real policy making authority, but what nation (out side of the third world which would have much to gain) would be willing to give up their right to determine their own affairs? The same problem is facing the EU. Had the Lisbon Treaty been put up to a popular vote (as it was in Ireland) it is doubtful that it would have passed in a simple majority of the 27 nations represented. Why? After centuries of strife in Europe between people groups first and more recently through nation-states, who can trust such a body to look out for each member?

 

I imagine that sovereignty issues would increasingly be magnified the farther away from local control government became (regional government to world government to multi-world government). Indeed, Star Trek has countless examples of the Federation dealing with sovereignty issues. Couple that with non-interference philosophies and you can easily make your head spin with questions and seeming contradictions.

 

So, in sum, I think how answers at the question of sovereignty will largely determine the size and scope of the Federation government and given this fact, I think you can have countless numbers of possibilities.

[Joy 0]

So, in sum, I think how answers at the question of sovereignty will largely determine the size and scope of the Federation government and given this fact, I think you can have countless numbers of possibilities.

 

In the Berman universe where highly militant aggressor cultures like the Borg, Dominion and 8472 constantly wage wars of genocide, ethnic cleansing and cultural slavery, one needs a very coherent foreign policy and an effective military. No ifs. No ands. No buts. At the same time, if the Roddenberry history and background is not entirely ignored, the planets are sovereign, and the Federation cannot meddle in the internal affairs of member planet cultures, and cannot use force offensively without approval of ambassadors appointed by the planets.

 

These two need not be incompatible. One can have a coherent foreign policy and effective military that is not allowed to meddle in internal politics. Joy ran for years in the Council with the TOS Prime Directive at Priority One, Asimov's First Law of Robotics calling for the preservation of sentient lives at Priority Two, and to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Federation Constitution (including the Guarantees) at Priority Three. There were times when she would side with the Berman faction in allowing work outside the law if this was the only way to preserve lives, but if there was a way to preserve lives while still honoring the Constitution she would push for it very hard indeed. (The Foreign Policy of Mudd could almost be derived from the contents of Joy's Asimov Processor. I had a flowchart I ran through to determine how she would have to vote.)

 

Some of the most satisfying old Council plots featured the Berman Hawks looking for all out use force to solve a problem, debating Roddenberry Doves seeking to uphold ideals and rule of law. Joy would go out of her way not to satisfy Priority Two, or Priority Three, but to find a solution that satisfied both Priorities. If one could pull votes from both sides of the floor, this was good. It was generally not true in many many issues that there is a choice between Asimov / Berman and Roddenberry. If one puts a little energy into it, one can honor both. One just has to overcome prejudices of fellow ambassadors who favor one set of values so strongly that they go out of their way to disparage and crush the opposing values. While Joy is an Idealist by preference, her programming compels her to honor both.

 

The normal working balance over many (not all) Council years was to have a vaguely Berman leaning executive branch setting strong policies while a vaguely Roddenberry leaning Council does active oversight, providing very real checks and balances. Starfleet and the Executive would present strong coherent Federation policies in a belief that the Federation was sovereign. The Roddenberry centered Council let the executive do what absolutely had to be done, while stonewalling on any attempt to weaken the Guarantees or meddle with the cultures of member planets. Most Council members generally saw the planets as sovereign, while the Federation had only those powers ceded to it by the Constitution under the oversight of planet appointed ambassadors.

 

This perspective is continued with the various STSF Joys. Starfleet must be given the tools and command freedom to get their tasks done, but woe to Starfleet officers that neglect the importance of the Guarantees, that meddle with local cultures, or try to use or provoke violence without notifying and getting blessed by civilian command authority. After years of watching numerous disaster scenarios being put before various incarnations of Council, the Joys are not inclined to let Starfleet get into bad habits.

 

This is perhaps not the only way to run a federation, but the above broad approach seems to be one practical vision of a Federation where both Roddenberry and Berman are canon.

[Joy 0]

::recalls a particular Fed Council sim where Ambassador Joy Eight, wearing the beatnik ensemble from Funny Face wielded her guitar with good effect when trying to stave off an influx of MIB::

 

I had forgotten that one. Funny Face meets Roman Holiday. Poor poor Men in Black...

 

Everyone does know that the Men in Black archetype goes at least as far back as Roman Holiday?

[Joy 0]

I'm simply thinking about what I've seen in Star Trek and in my view, Ambassadors have executive, legislative, and judicial powers vested within themselves, and are equal in authority. Each one represents the entire Council as a whole as far as Starfleet is concerned.

 

I see them as a governing class, but any one ambassador might be essentially powerless unless carrying a specific authorization. You cannot have each individual carrying diplomatic credentials behaving as if he were a petty dictator. In a game environment where the host is playing a captain or admiral, you won't see the host allowing players to wander around acting as if they were petty dictators.

 

One thing I've seen here at STSF is ambassadors with specific charters from Council. In the Excalibur sim a while ago, Council authorized the use of a certain class of weapons against the Scorpiad under certain conditions, and sent Ambassador Joy Five out to Gamma Quad to judge whether such conditions had been met. On Aegis, Commissioner Sorehl was recently given a mission by Council to review it's mission and recommend changes, while Ambassador Joy Two was given a charter to investigate a small war fought between Aegis and Section 31. We occasionally did similar things in the Council sims. Ambassadors might be delegated by Council to have specific authority to address specific problems, but by preference Council would issue policy directives to the executive branch and relied on the traditional Starfleet chain of command. In general, it is not wise for politicians to bypass chain of command and over ride the professionals. It should not be done lightly or often.

 

I do see oversight as a tricky thing. An ambassador who sees Federation law or policy being violated ought not be powerless, yet shouldn't be able to step in and over ride the local Starfleet commander, either. As I see it, an Ambassador should not have too much difficulty acquiring a subpoena to investigate wrongdoing should there be probable cause. Most Starfleet and other local officials should likely not want to put the Ambassador through the trouble of getting the subpoena. (Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.) I'd suggest that Ambassadors ought to be treated with respect, and one wants to keep them content in a belief that things are being done correctly, but strictly speaking any given Ambassador is powerless unless backed by a majority of Council. On the other hand, if one is clearly violating Federation policy or law, and if one forces an ambassador to go through the trouble of putting together a majority of Council, I would not expect either Ambassador or Council to be pleased.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Joy