Hello, you are not signed on.
[ Blogs.starwars.com ]

Kessel Korner
date posted: Feb 09, 2007 9:58 PM
Star Wars Politics and You
Empire. Republic. Democracy. Peace. War. Bureaucracy.

For all its grandiose themes of Good vs. Evil and Right vs. Wrong, the actual political structure of Star Wars has never been properly really laid out. At least, not particularly well. So, I want to put the puzzle together here.

Going all the way back to 1977, the irony seemed to escape everyone that a princess was seeking to 'restore freedom to galaxy'. Perhaps that's because it was mentioned at the end of the title crawl, just before the rebel starship roars across the screen. Hard to be critical when you've just been startled into soiling your shorts.

Lucas leaves us to presume that on Alderaan, there's a duly-elected, bicameral chamber with a robust system of checks and balances. I'll presume that to avoid a logic breakdown.

However, Princess Leia's role was obviously more than that. She mentions the Galactic Senate - and we know from extant sources that she was a representative in it. It's safe to assume that she's not duly elected to the role, since her adoptive family are the (benevolent) rulers of her world. So, it's a political appointment, like an ambassador with voting privileges.

The only later mentions of the political structure of the Empire are that this Galactic/Imperial Senate is disbanded, and the Emperor has given control directly to the regional governors. Grand Moff Tarkin is such a 'Governor'; so they must be political appointees loyal to the Imperial Throne. Instead of representatives of the planets carrying their will to the Emperor for judgment (Imperial Senate), he installs loyalists to carry his will to the people.

So, from about eight lines of dialogue (including Obi-Wan's) we are told that the Republic is swept away and the Galaxy is under the thrall of a despotic ruler. So though Princess Leia is apparently some sort of benevolent local power base, the Emperor overrules her, and he's not benevolent.

I mean, the guy built a weapon capable of destroying planets. That's not nice at all.

Lucas later laid out that the Empire's jurisdiction actually suffered limitations in The Empire Strikes Back (Cloud City is small enough to escape notice), but we got no real glimpse at further political structure. With Return of the Jedi, we just learned that centralizing the power of government into one central figure is a bad idea - because if they blow up, then you have to start from scratch.

Then came...The Phantom Menace. Glorious, politically specific jewel of the crown, The Phantom Menace served to confirm a few things and pull the curtain back on a few others. They were:

1. Senators were not elected - they were appointees;
2. Queens can be elected;
3. The people were underrepresented, as the chancellor was a position
filled by a vote of appointees, not elected officials;
4. Bureaucracy ruled the day;
5. Jedi are actually a part of the government;
6. There is a court system; and
5. Wait...queens can be elected?

Senators were obviously appointees because that was the only way to make sense of the situation. The Galactic Senate made law on a scale that applied to all planets; the planets themselves had sovereignty, and thus jurisdiction over local matters.

The duly elected rulers of the planets would then appoint someone who spoke on their behalf . They served to express the will of their planet.

This theory is supported by Palpatine's (supposed) obeisance before Amidala. If you notice, he gives her no instruction - just advice. He is bound by her decisions. This is further cemented by the fact that it's Amidala calling for the vote of No Confidence in Chancellor Valorum. If Palpatine is an appointee, it makes sense that the person who appointed him carries more weight in the Senate when there in person. It's like when Jaques Chriac visits the UN - his ambassador just shuts up and lets him roll.

So in essence, the Galactic Senate is the UN.

To that point, the Supreme Chancellor is a position filled by one of those representatives; note that the people of the Galaxy have no direct say as to who wields executive power there.

So, let's address the idea of an elected Queen. Easy. She's a President. They just call her Queen. The US government is a prime example of how this works. 'President' = 'Chief Executive'. Apparently, in the case of Naboo, 'Queen' = 'Chief Executive'. (I just hope that they also elect Kings too, because otherwise the Naboo should attend sensitivity training and stop being sexists.)

We'll get to the bit about Jedi in the government later.

Palpatine and Amidala discuss a court system at one point, which takes us to Attack of the Clones.

In Attack of the Clones, things get fleshed out a bit more. This time, Amidala is the Senator - and she confirms that she was an appointee (score!). So there you go. It's brief, but the dialogue is there when she and Anakin arrive at Naboo.

Further, this role is filled because Palpatine, as Supreme Chancellor, has to abdicate his role as representative of Naboo. This would make sense. Naboo still has a specific voice in the Senate and the Supreme Chancellor has an opportunity to operate without obligation to one planet's agenda. It's never clear as to what happens when Palpatine is no longer SC - does he go back to Naboo? Resume his role in the Senate? Since we never see Valorum again, I think it's safe to assume that Supreme Chancellors retire and become lobbyists.

The supreme irony is that people in the Senate refer to liberty and democracy - when they are obviously not even elected.

The courts are a joke, not because the Trade Federation isn't behind bars. But they have been tried in the Supreme Court three times. Apparently there is no concept of double jeopardy in the Star Wars Universe. You must just keep trying someone in court until you get the result you want. Ugh.

Still with me? Good. I'm almost done.

In Revenge of the Sith, we really delve into the Jedi and their role in the government. In the first two prequels, they are revealed as special operatives - they are actually used to strike fear into the Trade Federation. So, though we know the Jedi to be noble, they have set themselves up for what they become by the time of Sith.

They are the Thugs of the Old Republic.

Think about it. Their loyalty is ostensibly to the Senate, but they continually do the will of its leader. This was true with Valorum - he used them as his 'negotiators' at the beginning of Menace in an attempt to subdue the Federation. To wit, the line: "I knew it...they're here to force a settlement." [Emphasis Added]

This makes them political pawns. When someone gets out of line, the Senate/Chancellor sends some Jedi to go smack them back into line. Why is that so bad? Because the whole point of the Senate was to allow peaceful resolutions to situations; but apparently, when that was undesirable, go rough up the troublemakers and make them behave. This is made worse by the fact that a system like that only works if you can guarantee that the Senate and/or Chancellor are benevolent in their wishes.

Presumably, this is one of the reasons why Dooku left. I cant say I blame him.

So what's the point? I know I've rambled on for a bit.

The point is that George Lucas, for all his thinly veiled references to modern day American politics, has actually set up a potent warning about...the UN. Namely, the dangers of having an appointed body accountable to none but themselves, who elects their own chief representative and sees fit to make law without chance of a referendum. Power should be kept out of its hands at all costs.

But without power, it cannot even adequately arbitrate disputes. To wit, look at the UN's handling of...well, anything. Their solution is to pass toothless resolutions of disapproval and make weak sanctions.

So that creates situations in this world relatable to that galaxy far, far away. When an entity (Trade Federation) infringes on another, the joint body can do...nothing of consequence. Eventually, something has to give, and either the joint body's available enforcers (Jedi) are sent in, or more power must handed to the joint body (UN/Galactic Senate) until it becomes dominant and truly starts to rule.

And then, all you need is a new Chancellor. A strong Chancellor. And we can have...peace.

Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 4:52 AM
Interesting topic. And well treated.

But I disagree that the Senators (Leia notwithstanding) are "obviously" not elected. I'm not sure I even follow your reasoning for why they're appointed. I've always thought they were elected, and I don't remember Padme saying anything to the contrary. What lines are you referring to?
  RC-6035 "Nova"
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 12:33 PM
And then, all you need is a new Chancellor. A strong Chancellor. And we can have...peace.
And the new, strong Chancellor gets POWWAAHH. You know, "UNLLEEMEETTEDD POWWAAHH!!" ? ]:)

Rainbow Droideka--I think it's when Padme says something like, "But when the Queen asked me to serve as Senator, I couldn't refuse her."

The citizens elect their planetary officials. Those people appoint their Senators. The Senate elects the Supreme Chancellor. The Supreme Chancellor turns out to be evil, the Senate is clueless, and the planetary governments and normal people have to support what the Senate votes for (in favor of the SC). Gulp.

Interesting blog.
  DevlenPiett
Star Wars Historical Forum
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 2:28 PM
You are looking at this through the prisim of one planet Naboo. Other planets may have different ways of selecting their leaders or Senators. Some could be Hereditical rule, Oligarchies, Military dicatorships, etc... Its is the galactic republic that is the known democracy not the individual planets, system, sectors or other organization that send represenatives.
  Erhithiel of Endor
.......
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 6:49 PM
On the election of the Queen of Naboo....I think our idea of PC is not what GL is going for here...
It's only my opinion, but when I think of Naboo, I think of pure beauty, art, peace...and having a beautiful kind female ruler just seems to fit that image...She has numerous advisors, both male and female, and a line of handmaidens ... It seems to be a harmonious mix of an elected monarchy...Even if that is a contradiction... :)

  Z-score
The Star Wars Uncle
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 8:00 PM
Remember, "forcing a settlement" was just an interpretation by a bunch of thugs. All the Jedi intended to do was negotiate a treaty. I think that sounds perfectly reasonable for as I highly doubt the Jedi were going to force choke members of the Trade Federation until they agreed to negotiate. There were so many crooked people in the Senate, that it is my guess that Valorum sent the Jedi to negotiate because they were the only ones who could be trusted (i.e. not to take bribes and such) with such an important assignment.
jkelly
There Is No Conflict
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 9:25 PM
This is right-on about the Jedi. I highly doubt the Jedi were going to force choke members of the Trade Federation until they agreed to negotiate. True, but you're trusting the Jedi to self-regulate. It is this fear of self-regulations (kind of like the lawyers and US Senate do) that Palps preyed upon in his rise to power.

The real power in the galaxy were the Jedi due to the Senate ineffectiveness and lack of an army. Kind of like when the US Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson was acting unconstitutionally and he said, "Let them send their army in."

jkelly
There Is No Conflict
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 9:27 PM
For all their high talk, they ran the army and were even considering overthrowing the government with it. Right or wrong, this sows the seeds of distrust because of the failure of checks and balance.

Maybe the Trade Federation was tried 3 times because the juries kept hanging.
  Son of a Bith
The Cantina Corner
date Posted: Feb 10, 2007 11:37 PM
The point is that George Lucas, for all his thinly veiled referrences to modern day American politics, has actually set up a potent warning about... the UN.

He is warning about centralized and concentrated power, no matter what country or government. And as far as the UN goes, yes there is lots of talk out there of it being the vehicle for one-world government, i.e. "New World Order." It's a belief that is pretty much in the mainstream now. It's not just for tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists on the Far Right anymore.;)
jkelly
There Is No Conflict
date Posted: Feb 11, 2007 8:34 AM
It's not just for tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists on the Far Right anymore.

I liked it so much better when I was on the fringe of society, worried about spy cameras in the Fox Sports Satellite and clinging to my firearm with my cold, dead hands. I see that Bith has joined my side of the argument on this one.
  Erhithiel of Endor
.......
date Posted: Feb 11, 2007 4:01 PM
Going all the way back to 1977, the irony seemed to escape everyone that a princess was seeking to 'restore freedom to galaxy'.

What I think was the most striking about it being a Princess, is that she appeared to be this fragile thing, but in reality she was a skilled fighter, force sensitive, brave Rebel Leader...To me, it was absolutely brilliant...It showed that GL was not stuck in the mind set of the times, but rather pushing us into further areas that may or not be comfortable...Never saw that it might be politically sensitive...But I suppose it could be...That's a thought anyway :)
  Z-score
The Star Wars Uncle
date Posted: Feb 11, 2007 5:30 PM
True, but you're trusting the Jedi to self-regulate. It is this fear of self-regulations (kind of like the lawyers and US Senate do) that Palps preyed upon in his rise to power.

Actually, I think the fact that they were acting on Valorum's behalf shows that it was not self-regulation. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon were simply sent to negotiate a treaty, but any treaty that would have to have been agreed upon would most likely have to be accepted by Valorum before it would be considered official. Unless of course he gave the Jedi specific instructions on the nature of the negotiation, in which case it still wouldn't make it self-regulation.
  SlaveoftheForce
Enter the 36th Chamber
date Posted: Feb 11, 2007 6:45 PM
The Jedi were, ultimately, answerable to the Supreme Chancellor and the Senate. They really weren't self-regulating. As for Ep3, technically if there are unconstitutional legislation being passed and illegal activities being ordered by the chief executive then it is completely within the rights of elements of the judiciary to arrest the chief executive. We can't necessarily assume that the Republic's system worked precisely like our earthly systems, though the Republic does seem like the UN more than anything else. Nothing wrong with a uniting body, but it does need regulation.
  SlaveoftheForce
Enter the 36th Chamber
date Posted: Feb 11, 2007 6:46 PM
My fear would be to worry when an American gets put into the UN equivalent of the SC(I can't recall the title for some reason) and institutes a military creation act for the UN and launches the world into a war with all the countries that violate UN resoluations(likely it will be very one-sided in this regard, as the US and Isreal are two of the worst violators of said resolutions). Sometimes I think GL was very prescient, because this is the direction I see things going. Problem is... the US is a serious threat to the world being the only superpower, literally no one is willing to take the US government to task for violations of international law and UN resolutions.
jkelly
There Is No Conflict
date Posted: Feb 11, 2007 9:01 PM
if there are unconstitutional legislation being passed and illegal activities being ordered by the chief executive then it is completely within the rights of elements of the judiciary to arrest the chief executive

That's so far from being close to anything in our consitution that I can't even begin to respond because I'm not sure if it's meant to be about Ep 3 or earth.
My point is that persuasive moral power is not accompanied by force.

the fact that they were acting on Valorum's behalf shows that it was not self-regulation. The self-regulation is inferred from your premise about no force-choking at the negotiations.
The original point of the blog, though, is that there is no regulation of the Jedi.
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 1:20 AM
Rainbow Droideka--I think it's when Padme says something like, "But when the Queen asked me to serve as Senator, I couldn't refuse her."

Ah, yeah, I see how that suggests that the senators are appointed. But it falls pretty far short of proving it. I've always thought that she mean the Queen asked her to run for senator; or maybe she was even voted in by write-in and didn't plan to serve, but the Queen asked her to.
  kesseljunkie
Kessel Korner
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 6:31 AM
You are looking at this through the prisim of one planet Naboo.

Correct - I am making a deduction from available data. You are making an assumption on what you believe to be true.

But it falls pretty far short of proving it.

Note that the line is not that the Queen asked her to run as senator, but to serve as senator. It's an important distinction.
  kesseljunkie
Kessel Korner
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 6:34 AM
It seems to be a harmonious mix of an elected monarchy...Even if that is a contradiction...

It's an impossibility. The nature of a monarchy is that it is not elected. I already offered the explanation that seems to fit in the blog - that 'Queen' is an honorific title akin to 'President'.

and having a beautiful kind female ruler just seems to fit that image

So you are saying that, by default, any place that is harmonious, beautiful or with an artistic tradition can be only led by a female. That's pretty sexist, you know.
  kesseljunkie
Kessel Korner
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 6:39 AM
It's a belief that is pretty much in the mainstream now.

I was actually being a little tongue-in-cheek. The UN doesn't even bother to enforce its own anti-proliferation resolutions. The worst the UN does right now is start muttering and rubbing its face like Curly from the Three Stooges. It'll be a while before they are a real threat to individual rights.

I was really offering criticism of George Lucas' political commentary as ham-fisted and simplistic.
  kesseljunkie
Kessel Korner
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 6:44 AM
I think that sounds perfectly reasonable for as I highly doubt the Jedi were going to force choke members of the Trade Federation until they agreed to negotiate.

But their presence invokes the threat of violence. Qui-Gon himself states, "these federation types are cowards" - which supports the idea that the Jedi are being used because of their intimidation factor. Obviously, the purpose of the Jedi is as a scare incentive, like sending tough-looking guys in black suits to talk with someone who owes you money. They don't have to lay a finger on the debtor, because you know what their presence means, and at some point in the past, guys like that roughed someone up to keep them in line.
  Erhithiel of Endor
.......
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 8:09 AM
So you are saying that, by default, any place that is harmonious, beautiful or with an artistic tradition can be only led by a female. That's pretty sexist, you know.

Naboo, by Anakin's own admission...is a special place....Why do you think that is? There is only a volunteer military, and it is at best, good at keeping the local peace...The planet is floral, flowing falls of water...

You can't say that a woman's influence does not soften a place...Think of a planet guided by the feminine perspective...Yes, her softness was one of the reasons it was targeted by the trade federation, but you can't fault her vision...
  kesseljunkie
Kessel Korner
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 8:20 AM
Think of a planet guided by the feminine perspective

Your reasoning is not reasoning - it's actual sexism.

Why do you think that is?

Well, I would think that the reasons would be myriad, and not limited to the lifetime of one prepubescent Queen and her influence.

And I find it interesting that everyone, when they look at Naboo, overlooks the rampant racism inherent in its system, with the separation of the Gungans from any sort of representative seat on the planetary government. The Queen had never even met a Gungan before Jar Jar - yet considered herself the legitimate ruler of them.
  kesseljunkie
Kessel Korner
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 8:20 AM
Now, that changes after TPM - at least, I infer that by the fact that you see Gungans in the square in AOTC - but clearly, a planet ruled by a line of "elected Queens" was susceptible to the same types of prejudices, and therefore other flaws, you consider the jurisdiction of men only.
  Erhithiel of Endor
.......
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 9:22 AM
Your reasoning is not reasoning - it's actual sexism.

I am not sexist...I am being honest...And it's not just Queen Amidala...The ruler that followed advanced her planet on the qualities that Padme had bestowed upon it.

And it was a mutual mistrust that was between the Gungans and the Naboo...They both figured the other not to be worthy of having a conversation with. The Gungans felt the Naboo were more then literally Above them...

It took the conflict to bring that out, and once they joined in battle, they were able to see the things that they had in common, and build a peaceful unified society on that.

But that is not sexist...it's simply the way their culture runs things...
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 10:30 PM
Note that the line is not that the Queen asked her to run as senator, but to serve as senator. It's an important distinction.

Already noted. Thanks though.

And I find it interesting that everyone, when they look at Naboo, overlooks the rampant racism inherent in its system....

I agree. But I think that was an intentional message of the movie, though it was downplayed a little. The movie did make a point of pointing out, if not emphasizing, that the Naboo and the Gungans both were prejudiced against each other, and that Amidala and Jar Jar (at the initiative of Jar Jar) helped to change that.
Rainbow Droideka
Aren't you a little short for an egg?
date Posted: Feb 12, 2007 10:40 PM
Erithriel, you don't seem to have a very good understanding about what sexism means.

I am not sexist...I am being honest

Being honest has nothing to do with it. The reason sexism and racism are problems is that people are honest about them. The people who are pretending aren't the problem. Most neo-nazis honestly believe that Jews and Black people are problems in the world.

If I honestly believed, say, that Luke Skywalker was able to defeat the Empire because he had the strength and emotional fortitude of a man, would that not be sexist?

I don't think kj was using the Naboo-Gungans thing as an example of you being sexist....he was making a separate point (not necessarily directed at you) that the system was racist.
  • Please log in to post comments