Does anyone remember if there is any mention of democratic elections within the federation itself?
- Iain
I don't think there is, but one thing that makes me think there is some pretense of elections is that Blake's first work was with the Freedom Party. Doesn't the word 'party' politically imply that there is room political participation among 'the people' and some form, however rigged, of election?
G'Day
I dont believe democracy will work at all. it doesn't even work on our planet, let alone a whole lot of them. I believe it will just follow our earth political systems or a pseudo democracy, but really an oligarchical system.
Another facet or revolutions, is that almost in every occasion, the replacing system is just as oppressive or holds the same political results or practises in some way. So, people under the federation would have just ended up as before. As Avon said once i think. That blakes model was never good for the people anyway, they were just swapping one oppressive authority for another.
regards tony
At 03:38 PM 26/08/2001 -0700, Helen Krummenacker wrote:
Does anyone remember if there is any mention of democratic elections within the federation itself?
- Iain
I don't think there is, but one thing that makes me think there is some pretense of elections is that Blake's first work was with the Freedom Party. Doesn't the word 'party' politically imply that there is room political participation among 'the people' and some form, however rigged, of election?
Tony wrote:
G'Day
I dont believe democracy will work at all. it doesn't even work on our planet, let alone a whole lot of them. I believe it will just follow our earth political systems or a pseudo democracy, but really an oligarchical system.
The term democracy covers a multitude of sins. Broadly speaking it should include an elected government, the rule of law, some kind of constitutional basis whether written (as in most cases) or based on common law (as in the UK), respect for the persons and property of the governed (human rights) and freedom of speech. Many political scientists would suggest that this system of government is vastly more successful than any of it's competitors.
The term IMO cannot really be applied to a crew of seven (including AIs on a Spacecraft). However, Blake's leadership is based on the consent of the governed (i.e they put up with him, do what he says and refrain from abandoning/ ditching him). I would suggest that given the somewhat unusual situation they find themselves in his leadership is no more irregular than, say, that of De Gaulle's leadership of the Free French during World War 2. It is noticable that when Blake, Avon or Tarrant decide to run things in an authoritarian way, insisting that what they say goes over the objections of the others it is usually a bad sign - Voices, City and Terminal spring to mind.
Another facet or revolutions, is that almost in every occasion, the replacing system is just as oppressive or holds the same political results or practises in some way. So, people under the federation would have just ended up as before. As Avon said once i think. That blakes model was never good for the people anyway, they were just swapping one oppressive authority for another.
"All revolutions are failures, but not all revolutions are the same failure" George Orwell. Broadly speaking revolutions can be divided into two headings, the limited and the absolute. Limited revolutions have limited aims. They restrict themselves to overthrowing the regime they are opposed to and replacing it with some kind of better polity. Examples include the 1688 revolution in the British Isles, the Iranian Revolution of 1906 and the revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 which led to the demise of the communist regimes in those countries. Broadly speaking these revolutions tend to be benign.
Absolute revolutions are those revolutions which install a regime which proposes not merely to improve on the previous regime but to usher in a reign of the saints, which as Orwell observed is a term describing a military despotism enlivened by witch trials. Examples include the Bolshevik putsch in 1917, the English Civil War and the Iranian Revolution in 1979. It should be noted that limited revolutions tend to be hijacked by absolutists.
Foster stated that the aim of his dissident group was to break the grip of the Federation on the outer planets, securing their independence. It would appear that Blake shared these aims, as he had been an associate of Foster prior to his brainwashing and his subsequent conduct included supporting planets which wished to remain outside the rule of the Federation - Destiny and Lindor, and supporting the revolution on Albian which aimed at releasing the planet from Federation rule. On learning of the destruction of Star One Avon observed "So Blake's rabble get freedom of choice after all. I just hope he lived long enough to realise he'd won". (I'm quoting from memory here). We can therefore assume that Blake's revolution would have been a limited one, and therefore led to some improvements on Federation government, rather than ushering in a despotism which was just as bad as the Federation. Of course, other forces could have hijacked the revolution forcing Blake to go back on the run again.
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Stephen Date wrote:
The term democracy covers a multitude of sins. Broadly speaking it should include an elected government, the rule of law, some kind of constitutional basis whether written (as in most cases) or based on common law (as in the UK), respect for the persons and property of the governed (human rights) and freedom of speech.
Well, no. You can have any or all of those in a 'democratic form of government', but none of them are intrinsic to a democracy. There is an enormous difference.
Mistral
--- Mistral wrote:
Stephen Date wrote:
The term democracy covers a multitude of sins.
Broadly
speaking it should include an elected government,
the
rule of law, some kind of constitutional basis
whether
written (as in most cases) or based on common law
(as
in the UK), respect for the persons and property
of
the governed (human rights) and freedom of speech.
Well, no. You can have any or all of those in a 'democratic form of government', but none of them are intrinsic to a democracy. There is an enormous difference.
Well, don't just stop when it is getting interesting !
Surely the list I have cited above comprise the institutions through which a democracy functions. Without these institutions you can no more have a working democracy than you can have a working car without an engine or wheels.
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Stephen Date wrote:
--- Mistral wrote:
Stephen Date wrote:
The term democracy covers a multitude of sins.
Broadly
speaking it should include an elected government,
the
rule of law, some kind of constitutional basis
whether
written (as in most cases) or based on common law
(as
in the UK), respect for the persons and property
of
the governed (human rights) and freedom of speech.
Well, no. You can have any or all of those in a 'democratic form of government', but none of them are intrinsic to a democracy. There is an enormous difference.
Well, don't just stop when it is getting interesting !
Surely the list I have cited above comprise the institutions through which a democracy functions. Without these institutions you can no more have a working democracy than you can have a working car without an engine or wheels.
I'm afraid I didn't mean anything terribly interesting. <g>
You seem to be using the word democracy in its broadest, most modern sense - what I was taught to call a 'democratic form of government', meaning primarily self-rule by the people. This broader sense can include delegating authority to representatives, the use of constitutions, etc. In the strictest definition of the word, however, those things are not included; it refers only to the direct exercise of power by the people (i.e. 'majority rule').
Quite possibly you may find that shade of difference is meaningless in the UK; I don't know. But having had it pounded into my head for years both in school and at home that the US is *not* a democracy, but a democratic form of government (specifically a republic), and that the difference is crucial to the way the US is governed, it's become rather automatic to point out that difference.
Just to explain: the US founders thought democracy was a Very Bad Thing; like Aristotle, they believed it would inevitably end up in mob rule ('tyranny of the majority'). This is why they gave us, among other things, a Constitution that's very hard to change, the electoral college, and the checks and balances of three branches of government; they wanted to protect US citizens from the dangers and excesses to which a strict democracy is prone. A democracy has the rule of the people; but we have instead the rule of law.
Being scrupulous about drawing the distinction is the best way I know of to ensure that the dangers of strict democracy are not forgotten; I have heard too many people say 'the US is a democracy' and use that to justify attempting to overturn the protections in our laws because 'the will of the people' (i.e. mob rule) is more important than the rule of law. This position is becoming more and more common, even among our elected representatives, and I find it problematic.
IOW, I was splitting hairs again. My only excuse is that it seems to me a rather important one. Sorry about that. Oh, and no Jingoism is intended or should be inferred.
ObB7: I'm not a bit certain that Blake was advocating anything approaching equality or democracy. After all, 'not until free men can think and speak' doesn't necessarily imply that all men should be free. (OK, that's weak, but "I'm tired and I hurt.")
Mistral
-
Helen Krummenacker -
Mistral -
Stephen Date -
tony nolan