![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SF has a notable anti-democratic trend, with Future! Space! Empires! with hereditary rulers and nobles. Asimov's Galactic Empires, Pournelle's CoDominium and Empire, Poul Anderson's empire. Often an empire falls, to be replaced by a second empire.
This hasn't been without rationalization. The usual line is that with poor communications, a feudal structure is good for long-range government. This never felt right, but I was thinking about it in the past day. Really... what? Europe's feudal realms were in rather smaller areas than the Roman Republic at its pre-Imperial height. Roman used pro-consuls and pro-praetors, so there was local autocracy, but appointed by the Senate, not hereditary. And why couldn't a democratic/republican federation handle the needed decentralization? Local governance, representatives sent to the capital. A bit like the early US, or the Commonwealth (though that has a weak Crown still, and had steamships and telegraphs relatively early.)
This hasn't been without rationalization. The usual line is that with poor communications, a feudal structure is good for long-range government. This never felt right, but I was thinking about it in the past day. Really... what? Europe's feudal realms were in rather smaller areas than the Roman Republic at its pre-Imperial height. Roman used pro-consuls and pro-praetors, so there was local autocracy, but appointed by the Senate, not hereditary. And why couldn't a democratic/republican federation handle the needed decentralization? Local governance, representatives sent to the capital. A bit like the early US, or the Commonwealth (though that has a weak Crown still, and had steamships and telegraphs relatively early.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 04:01 (UTC)From:I disagree that this represents "a notable anti-democratic trend," unless yo uwant to argue that humans have "a notable anti-democratic trend." Science fiction just does not always assume that, simply because democracy is more or less dominant today, and especially in the West, that it will dominate in all future times and places.
Science fiction does not assume that non-democracy will always dominate, either. You mention Asimov's (mostly) non-democratic Galactic Empire, but you ignore his (mostly) democratic Foundation. You count Pournelle's Empires as "non-democratic," but ignore his repeated and explicit support for representative government in his essays (the CoDominion and the Empires are largely cautionary, in that the point being made is that democracy once lost is hard to regain).
You also ignore that one of the most common sort of interstellar governments depicted is some form of alliance, federation or republic. And usually, when this is shown alongside a less democratic interstellar government, the writer expects us to root for the democrats.
Europe's feudal realms were in rather smaller areas than the Roman Republic at its pre-Imperial height. Roman used pro-consuls and pro-praetors, so there was local autocracy, but appointed by the Senate, not hereditary.
Careful which example you use. The Roman Republic fell precisely because it was unable of scaling-up to the problems of ruling a vast realm -- it was a sort of representative government that never intended itself to operate democratically above the level of the male elite of a city-state. Also, you can have non-hereditary autocracies -- indeed the most terrible dictatorships, those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, have been non-hereditary. And the Roman Empire was never hereditary in principle, though eventually it evolved to become hereditary in practice.
It seems to me that you are complaining that science fiction depicts any non-democratic interstellar civilizations. On what basis do you believe that only democratic ones would appear?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 06:52 (UTC)From:I was complaining that the rationalization I've commonly seen is specious; slow communications calls for decentralization, not feudalism per se.
As for likely forms of future government -- highly literate and technological populations, with lightspeed communications, might rather change the default form. Conversely, wacky gene/cognitive stuff might lead to creating a hereditary governing class suited for the job (like the Minds, though they're immortal.) But that'd be different from the classic "British Empires, down to the Peers... in Spaaace!"
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 13:31 (UTC)From:Feudalism is one of the many possible forms of decentralized government. Its big advantage is that it's a robust one; it's formed essentially of fractal structures that replicate at higher and lower scales.
As for likely forms of future government -- highly literate and technological populations, with lightspeed communications, might rather change the default form.
Not sure why you think that either "highly literate" or "technological" makes feudalism more difficult, assuming that an equivalent of the basic power relationships exists. High-tech feudalism could be based in the military sense on a system which by its nature concentrated expensive fighting capabilities on a few people, and in the economic sense on some vulnerable and stationary productive system. In other words, it doesn't have to be "war horses" and "tenant farming."
If you want an equivalent of the "literacy comes from the church" component of European feudalism, then simply have some cognitive capability which at the current tech level cannot be spread too widely. Note, please, that this was not a component of all feudal systems -- it was not the case, for instance, in China or Japan during their politically-disunified periods.
But that'd be different from the classic "British Empires, down to the Peers... in Spaaace!"
I don't think that the "British Empire" model is all that common -- I can offhand only think of two sf-nal Empires that significantly copied the British model (Pournelle's Second Empire and H. Beam Piper's main Terran Empire). A lot of sf-nal empires have copied some superficial aspects of the British Empire's terminology, but that's almost inevitable if you're writing a story about an empire in English.
I'd wager that the various Chinese Empires (Instrumentality of Mankind, Asimov's Galactic Empire) and Roman Empire are more common science fictional imperial models.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 13:38 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 08:56 (UTC)From:The Roman Republic had some initial difficulties with 'scaling up', but it didn't fall: it adapted. The Roman Empire made successful use of the administrative tools developed by the Republic.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 13:40 (UTC)From:It "fell" in the sense that the Empire was no longer really a Republic -- it was no longer governed democratically even among the political elite, let alone among the general population. Just because it still called itself a "Republic" means nothing -- the most tyrannical country in the modern world, North Korea, also calls itself a "Republic," and is in structure closer to a Bronze Age theocracy than any other system on Earth.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 14:04 (UTC)From:The transformation from Republic to Empire was a) gradual (it went on for several centuries) and b) evolutionary (the Empire was the direct result of improvements in administrative technology made during the Republican era). Hence, to describe it as "falling" is wrong.
it was no longer governed democratically even among the political elite,
The Republic was never democratic even in the Hellenic sense, and certainly not in any modern sense. If anything, the late Empire was closer to modern democracy than the Republic ever was.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 14:18 (UTC)From:The Republic was never democratic even in the Hellenic sense, and certainly not in any modern sense. If anything, the late Empire was closer to modern democracy than the Republic ever was.
(*sigh*) You're missing the main point. In the Republic, the leader governed only with the consent of the majority of a rather broad political elite within the city of Rome itself. The problem the Republic faced as it conquered territories is that it had no provision for the representation of anyone who didn't physically live within the city of Rome. This led to a situation where the provinces were of necessity being governed despotically by the governors, and governed badly at that because of the temptations for governors to plunder their provinces.
This was why the Republic decayed into the Empire. The provinces were a source of strength -- they could support armies -- but there was no provision for their representation, so they had no stake in preserving the representative system which characterized the Republic.
Under the Empire, all the Emperor needed was the balance of force in his favor. Period. He could be hated by the majority of the Roman citizens, and still remain Emperor. This made a very BIG difference, as the Romans were to discover under Caligula and Nero.
I find it rather amusing that you're being taken in by Octavian's claim to have "restored" the Republic, when this isn't a claim which fooled Suetonius or Tacitus, who actually had something to lose by arguing otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 15:33 (UTC)From:Nothing you say here is new to me. The Republic at first had massive problems administrating the areas they conquered. They gradually solved those problems, and in the process the Republic became the Empire. If anything, this was my point.
This was why the Republic decayed into the Empire.
It's still strange to see the word 'decay' used to describe what was largely a process of improvement, but it's at least better than 'fall'.
He could be hated by the majority of the Roman citizens, and still remain Emperor. This made a very BIG difference, as the Romans were to discover under Caligula and Nero.
It's strange that you use as an example the two most famous cases where emperors lost power because they ruled too autocratically.
In reality, the Roman emperors depended on popular support, and generally had a much wider power base than the Republic's consuls ever had. Several emperors were able to seize power by military means, but not one of them was able to hold on to power in that way.
you're being taken in by Octavian's claim to have "restored" the Republic
Now, where did I ever even hint at such a belief?
this isn't a claim which fooled Suetonius or Tacitus, who actually had something to lose by arguing otherwise.
*shrugs* Some emperors are mostly known to us through the descriptions made by their political enemies. It's generally a bad idea to take those accounts at face value.
Still, Suetonius and Tacitus are strange examples, and I suggest you take a better look at their lives and writings before you nominate them gallant anti-imperialists.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 15:57 (UTC)From:It's still strange to see the word 'decay' used to describe what was largely a process of improvement, but it's at least better than 'fall'.
The Republic did "fall," in the series of civil wars starting with Marius vs. Sulla and ending with the war of the Second Triumvirate. At the beginning of this process, there was a reasonably healthy representative system of government; at the end, representative government had become merely a cloak for autocracy.
And no, this was not an "improvement," not in the long run. To be stable, the Empire had to progressively gain greater and greater control over a population increasingly disarmed and psychologically unable to take the initiative. Yes, citizenship was extended to all non-enslaved subjects of the Empire, but only after it had become a burden rather than a privilege.
Because the people were politically neutralized, the Emperor was constantly vulnerable to military revolt: the people would not willingly take sides in the question of which general was to be their autocratic lord and master. This in turn meant that only the strongest Emperors could allow strong generals to serve them, which meant that Imperial policy became increasingly passive.
This passivity led to the end of Imperial expansion under Trajan; after him the Empire would add no new territories. And the increasing lack of initiative in society -- caused by the need for the Empire to suppress dissent which could not be channelled into legitimate political discourse -- meant that the Empire's economic and technological development slowed: the potential Hellenstic scientific and industrial revolution was aborted.
This led directly to the Empire's conquest by the barbarian kingdoms, and to the Dark Ages.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 16:16 (UTC)From:"psychologically unable to take the initiative"?
AIUI, the end of expansion is more related to running out of places to expand *to*, with their agricultural tools. Sahara's worthless, Scotland and Ireland not worth the bother, Germany I think needs better tools than they had plus the climate's different and losing 3 Augustan legions in the forests wouldn't help, the Parthians were strong opposition in the East. At some point enough is rationally enough, and Hadrian probably picked that point.
Interesting how you seem to have solved the problem of the fall of the Empire. You should let the historians know, so they can stop debating it.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 16:48 (UTC)From:I agree with your assessment on expansion, though.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 17:17 (UTC)From:Political-culturally, if you prefer. Under the Republic, Romans who took the initiative and succeeded at anything major were rewarded with greater status and wealth; under the Empire, any Roman other than the Emperor who did so was punished with suspicion of attempting to supplant the Emperor, and possibly executed.
Over decades and centuries, this change in incentives had its effect.
AIUI, the end of expansion is more related to running out of places to expand *to*, with their agricultural tools. Sahara's worthless, Scotland and Ireland not worth the bother, Germany I think needs better tools than they had plus the climate's different and losing 3 Augustan legions in the forests wouldn't help, the Parthians were strong opposition in the East. At some point enough is rationally enough, and Hadrian probably picked that point.
All these obstacles were indeed obstacles, but the Republic had surmounted stronger ones. The real problem was that no Emperor could afford either to give a subordinate the kind of support he needed to advance, nor take the time away from Rome to do it himself. Trajan had in fact beaten the Parthians, when at his death Hadrian decided to withdraw to more defensible frontiers -- "more defensible" given the need for centralized control. That very need for centralized control sprang from the lack of political stablity in the Empire.
Interesting how you seem to have solved the problem of the fall of the Empire. You should let the historians know, so they can stop debating it.
I didn't say that this was the only reason for the fall of the Empire. This was simply the reason connected to the Empire's internal political structure. There were plenty of other reasons.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 20:42 (UTC)From::) :) :)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 16:42 (UTC)From:The Republic never had any such system in practice. Every time anyone (e.g. the brothers Gracchus) tried to use representative leverage against the elite they were beaten down violently.
To be stable, the Empire had to progressively gain greater and greater control over a population increasingly disarmed and psychologically unable to take the initiative.
In reality, the development went more or less the other way.
... the potential Hellenstic scientific and industrial revolution was aborted.
...or at least, historians during the 19th and early 20th century used to think so. Take some time to read up on current research.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 17:23 (UTC)From:The Republic never had any such system in practice. Every time anyone (e.g. the brothers Gracchus) tried to use representative leverage against the elite they were beaten down violently.
Actually, both the radicalism and the murder of the Gracchi brothers were symptoms that the Republic was breaking down. Not so much that one brother was radical, and was murdered for it, but that both were, demonstrated the increasing inflexibility of the Republican system. Things would only get worse until they climaxed in the Civil Wars, with Augustus and Empire the denounement.
To be stable, the Empire had to progressively gain greater and greater control over a population increasingly disarmed and psychologically unable to take the initiative.
In reality, the development went more or less the other way.
No, that's untrue. Under the Republic and even the early Empire, there was a constant potential for Roman citizens, particularly senators, to take the initiative and attempt some reform or revolt. Under the Empire, the initiative moved to the army, and the army was increasingly professionalized and composed of non-Romans in part because the Emperor feared the political implications of large bodies of armed citizens. The fear was, of course, quite justified under the Imperial system.
... the potential Hellenstic scientific and industrial revolution was aborted.
...or at least, historians during the 19th and early 20th century used to think so. Take some time to read up on current research.
Recent research only emphasizes the degree of advancement of Hellenistic technology, and shows that they were even closer technologically to an industrial revolution than we previously assumed. The barriers were cultural, political and economic rather than technological.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 20:37 (UTC)From:More to the point, this was the Republican system.
constant potential for Roman citizens, particularly senators, to take the initiative and attempt some reform or revolt. Under the Empire, the initiative moved to the army
Which was under the leadership of the same class of aristocrats as before. For someone to revolt under the Republic, they had to have a combination of political, economic, and military leverage. This didn't change during the Empire.
army was increasingly professionalized and composed of non-Romans in part because the Emperor feared the political implications of large bodies of armed citizens.
Actually, during the early centuries of the Empire the army was largely professionalized, but from the 4th century on, the proportion of professional soldiers steadily decreased and the citizens of the provinces were expected to contribute to their own defense to a larger extent.
Throughout the history of the Roman legion, non-romans were a significant part of the military (nominally there were about the same number of non-roman auxiliaries as roman legionaries). The major changes of the late (Western) Empire was the switch to cavalry and that able non-roman officers were given better career opportunities. Both of these changes favored germanic citizens.
Recent research only emphasizes the degree of advancement of Hellenistic technology
And also highlights how the Empire carried on those traditions, and how the 'Dark Ages' weren't nearly as dark as previous generations of historians would have us believe.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 14:50 (UTC)From:Beyond Rome, yeah, they never fractalized properly.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 15:40 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 16:00 (UTC)From:No ancient polities were democracies in the modern sense. Women, slaves and immigrants were always disenfranchised. Ancient socities were always "violent" by modern standards -- it was a crueller and harsher world, with little in the way of competent law enforcement.
As for "manipulated," by definition all political systems are "manipulated," as politics is about the attempts of people to manipulate one another by means short of open warfare.
A definition of "real" democracy that excludes all the ones which have ever existed is meaningless.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 16:45 (UTC)From:A definition of "real" democracy that excludes all the ones which have ever existed is meaningless.
Sure, but that's not my definition. I've already mentioned the (proto-)Hellenistic democracy, and other examples in antiquity exist.
Just about the only thing about the Roman Republic that approaches democracy is that they didn't have kings.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 17:22 (UTC)From:As for heredity in practice, there are something like nine novi homines on the consular lists for the entirety of the Republic. Roman government was always and ever an oligarchy.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-27 17:36 (UTC)From:Secondly, I never claimed that the Roman Republic was a "democracy" in the Greek sense. I only claim that it was a "democracy" in the sense of being a representative government as opposed to an autocracy like the Empire.
Thirdly, of course the Roman Republic was somewhat oligarchic. That was the whole point of the Senate. It was also somewhat democratic. That was the whole point of the office of the Tribunes.
It was a deliberately mixed system, but the point of the mixture was to be sufficiently representative, and offer enough opportunity to talented Roman citizens, that revolution was de-fused. It was something that we today would recognize as a representative Republic, albeit a xenophobic, oligarchic and sexist one.
Compared to the Empire, it was representative and even democratic in the more modern poltical-science version of the term. The Empire was a straight-out autocracy in which the only thing the Emperor "represented" was the most powerful army in the Empire.
Yes, it's true that an Emperor with no support beyond that army was vulnerable to assassination or coup. It's also true that any halfway competent Emperor with that army could find the support by bribing his less hostile and killing his more hostile rivals.
In terms of the applicability of the analogy to science fiction, I see no reason why you can't have centralized military autocratic empires on an at least interplanetary scale, and if you have FTL starships you can have them on an interstellar scale as well. You can also have Republics on these scale. And the Roman model works perfectly well in both cases, though there are plenty of other possibilities.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-28 20:47 (UTC)From:But it's not. The Republic was never representative, and only acknowledged merit to a degree. Its officials were expected to follow a set career path with increasing levels of responsibility, but the actual performance of the career officials didn't matter all that much (the most important factor being a combination of birth and ability to create a positive public image). As a result, the generals and consuls of the Republic were usually inept and sometimes astonishingly incompetent.
The Empire, OTOH, certainly wasn't an autocracy. To begin with, the backbone, nerve-stem, and life-blood of the Empire was the bureaucracy that it had inherited from the Republic. No emperor could rule without it, and in the cases where the emperor was unfit to rule, the bureaucracy went on without him.
In the Republic, the bureaucracy was mainly a means for up-and-coming aristocrats to gain wealth and influence, performance be damned. In the Empire, the bureaucracy became an administrative instrument where results mattered and competent people, be they patrician, plebeian, provincial, or even barbarian, could rise to almost any level.
So basically, you've got it backwards.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-28 22:16 (UTC)From:The Republic was not even remotely an autocracy -- there was no one man who made the decisions over any extended period of time, and even the consuls ruled in twos.
In the Empire, however, there was one man who made all the important decisions: the Emperor. Yes, the bureaucracy was at least moderately meritocratic, but I never said anything about meritocracy versus aristocracy, did I?
So, basically, you didn't even pay attention to what I said, and so your whole post was directed to some other comment which existed only in your imagination.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-29 14:59 (UTC)From:*sigh* No, it wasn't.
In the Empire, however, there was one man who made all the important decisions: the Emperor.
Sorry, the technology of the age wasn't sufficiently advanced to permit that kind of information flow. Most of the important decisions that shaped the Empire were made far lower in the hierarchy.
If you're saying that the Empire had no system of "checks and balances", then you're correct. It still wasn't an autocracy.
I never said anything about meritocracy versus aristocracy, did I?
No, but you did describe the Republic as a meritocracy, contrasting it to the Empire.