Gentlesophonts:
Well folks, I've been away from the 'Net for a while out into the `real'
world but I'm back to a pile of TML so here goes. (I've been asked to
cut down on my amount of quoting so if I cut too much, please bear with
me.)
From Saturday night, Jeff Zeitlin [email removed] writes:
> Perhaps even the democrats will realize that when you are
> governing thousands of worlds, it's simply not practical to have
> democracy at the highest levels.
Etc. (I've cut a lot here.)
I've heard this arguement before and I don't buy it. Certainly *direct*,
participatory democracy, or *demarchy*, isn't feasible but that's not
most folks' experience with `democracy' anyway. A representative democracy
can deal with a large, interstellar state just as easily as a hereditary
aristocracy. The difference comes from the roots for *-archy*, which
pertains to the nature of the ruling authority, and *-cracy* which pertains
to the source of that authority. Admittedly these boundaries are
often confused but the difference between, say, *democracy* and *demarchy*
is that in a democracy the people (demos) *consent* to being ruled while in a
demarchy the people rule directly. A *monarch* is a single ruler but the
source of that ruler's authority is not clear. In an *autocracy* though
the single ruler's authority comes from herself - not the `people'.
Thus, a democracy might be an *autarchy* with ruling authority invested in
a single ruler. (Captain Picard is this sort of ruler - he has absolute
authority but that authority rests upon the consent of his crew - or at
least a majority.) A democracy might be an *oligarchy* with ruling authority
invested in a group of individuals. (Modern representative democracies like
the US would fit this category.) Or a democracy might be a *demarchy* in
which everyone participates in the decision making. (A typical gaming
group would fit this category.)
In a sense *all* states are `democractic' - even oppressive ones - because
any large group must enjoy some degree of consent from a majority of group
members in order to function. Thus, the Soviet Union `collapsed' when the
leadership no longer enjoyed sufficient consent from the `governed'. One
might make a similar arguement for the aristocracy of the Old Imperium and
the Regency.
The key then, I think, when we're talking about `democracy' is the degree
to which the populace has the opportunity to express its `consent'. With
a hereditary aristocracy there are no `sanctioned' methods for the people
to express their lack of consent except through revolution. In a `republic'
the people have regular opportunities to express some sort of consent
through voting. The distinction here might then be between `regulated'
democracy and `unregulated' democracy. An `unregulated' democracy relies
upon non-consensual methods of transferring authority (heredity or
abdication say) while regulated democracies have some consensual method
such as elections.
Therefore, a `regulated', democractic oligarchy or autarchy could just as
effectively govern a large, interstellar state as could the `unregulated',
democratic oligarchy of the Old Imperium and Regency.
> Can you really seriously believe that you could suppress the news
> of the destruction of even a small city on all of over 1,000
> worlds?
Etc. (Again, a lot is cut.)
Certianly. All I have to do is patrol the dozen or so worlds within jump
distance of the `source' world. Choke points at the refuelling sources make
it easy to stop all but the most concerted efforts. If I already have such
a plan in place prior to the incident then I can implement this plan as soon as
news arrives at the `authorities' (possibly expanding my net to include news
from this second `source' world as well) and long before any sort of group
forms to undertake a `concerted' effort to counter my plan. Remember how
the news of Strephon's assassination preceded the `official' news through
discrete government channels? (That's how Norris `became' Archduke.) One
wonders in that case if such a plan even existed and yet Norris was successful
at *proclaiming himself* Archduke without news to the contrary *ever* leaking
out! Norris was an *expert* at this sort of behavior - he owed his very
position as Regent to it. I'm convinced that news of the `Rape of Trin'
served his interests or else it would not be *widely* known.
> Information was tightly controlled in the Soviet Union. That
> didn't (most emphatically it didn't) stop underground networks
> from forming and passing the news on through channels that the
> government _couldn't_ control.
Let me turn this example on its head. The CIA professed to be `surprised'
by the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union and has even taken congressional
heat for being `unprepared'. I find it difficult to believe that such was
the actual case - especially in light of the clear incentive for the CIA
and the rest of the Western intelligence community to continue to support
the fiction of the Soviets as a credible adversary. Remember, `liberals'
in the West have never expressed the view that the Soviets were *unable*
to threaten the West but rather merely posited that they were *uninterested*
in threatening the West. *Both* sides, `apparently', were caught unawares.
> Wait a minute: Dulinor immediately discounted both Varian and
> Lucan when he killed "Strephon". Recall that he claimed the IT
> by right of assassination.
Etc. (Again, a great deal of discussion about the nature of legitimate
claims to the Iridium Throne has been cut.)
Obviously Dulinor *never* `discounted' the possible claim of the Twin
Princes or he would not have sent his agent Imprey(?) to assassinate them.
> But this is mostly beside the point. Except for Deneb, _every_
> faction was directly involved in the war for the IT. Except for
> Deneb, _none_ of the factions was willing to see anyone but their
> choice on the IT.
Not true. The Vilani never sought the Throne but instead seceded. Daibei
never sought the Throne. And both Lucan *and* Margaret had *legitimate*,
hereditary claims to the Throne. Lucan`s, and later Margaret's, claims
were weakened not by their hereditary legitimacy but by questions about
their character - respectively, Lucan's fratricide and Margaret's bigotry.
Heirs of either would not share this stain and might make *very* effective
claims upon Norris and his heirs to turn-over their Regency to the legitimate
ruler.
I'm not suggesting that Norris would want to preserve the Quarantine in order
to avoid such a legitmate claim (although as time passes his heirs might).
But clearly the possibility existed (exists?) for a *seemingly* legitimate
heir to Lucan or Margaret to come forward that still suffered from `hinted'
questions like their forebearer. Such a situation is a prescription for
a *Second* `Rebellion' and Norris might have wished to avoid such a possiblity
while taking the chance that he might also be forsaking a truly legitimate
heir.
Besides, if this isn't the reason the Regency maintains the Quarantine
what is?
Peace,
David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA