Lit From Endor to Exegol - The State of the Galaxy Discussion Thread (Tagged Victory's Price Spoilers)

Weirdly, I actually sort of feel like either the Populists or the Centrists (the real Centrists, not the FO subversives) would have been a good direction for the future of the galaxy - it's being in the middle ground between them that's causing issues. The New Republic is just centralized enough for its problems to actually be problems for the whole galaxy, but without being so centralized that it really has the power to positively affect problems in more than a very passive way.

 

But neither the Populists or the Centrists will go away, so the only way to have a united government is some kind of hybrid system (like the two I suggested) so
-they both get what they want
-but can't enforce their views on each other
-while also remaining in the same government.

 

Without going into it too much, my thinking lies along Ghost's.

Ultimately, I feel like the Centrist/Populist issue stems from the unresolved Separatist/Republican conflicts that ignited the Clone Wars.

Yes, I am aware that Palpatine stoked the fires into full scale conflict but there needed to be fuel there in the first place.

 

It's even more fundamental to the galaxy than that.

If the main government moves too far to the Centrist side (like Palpatine's Republic/Empire), you get the Populists becoming Confederacy Separatists who break away because they want decentralization (and later the Rebels who overthrow the government for more decentralization, among other things like sentient rights).

If the main government moves too far to the Populist side (like the New Republic seemed to be stuck thanks to gridlock), you get the Centrists becoming First Order Separatists who break away because they want centralization.

The Empire at one extreme, and the Separatists and their allies like the Trade Federation at the other polar extreme.

It's also similar to that quote in introduction section of the Essential Atlas:
“Starve the center and you reap anarchy.
Feed the center and you reap tyranny.
The problem is obvious to every man.
A solution has been revealed to no man.”
— Uueg Tching

 

And you get four for two because there are Left and Right wings of each faction.

I would actually argue that the Rebellion, at the least the primary leaders who organized it and put their essence into it, are an extension of the Centrist paradigm or the Empire/Republic side. It's actually the Empire/Republic/ Alliance side and the Separatist side. The Separatist position has never been given a real chance as movement. Those who want a working central government got legitimate movement in the Republic and the Alliance.

The Resistance was created to defend the New Republic but may ironically be the first organization to give true voice to the Separatist position with Leia's Populist past and all. We shall see where that goes.

Anyway, a very good analysis, Ghost.

 

I'd argue that the Trade Federation and other CIS-allied megacorps aren't really Separatists in any meaningful political sense. They just want to avoid regulations.

 

In Legends he was a traditionalist, a reactionary even. No idea for Disney canon, depends on what the backgrounds for the Old and Prequel-era Republics are.

 

He was a traditionalist in the fact that he used the cultural trappings of the Core. That is superficial traditionalism. Lip service.

Surely though, in a galaxy that had experienced 25,000 years of democratic government in one form or other, forming an Empire, an outright rule by sovereign, is not the norm for the majority of the galaxy and is not very traditional. Palpatine was not very reactionary in that regard. The Rebellion is technically the reactionary force: trying to keep established the age old tradition of representative democracy against the forces that would seek to destroy it in favor of a system ruled by a supposedly decisive leader.

Someone on this board used to call the Empire the revolutionaries and the Rebellion the counter revolutionaries. He was more right than I would give him credit for at the time.

It is significant perhaps that the Rebellion prefers Rebellion rather than revolution. One implies merely resistance to an authority, while the other is connotative of replacing an authority with a new one. The Rebels no doubt would argue that Palpatine usurped the authority of the Old Republic, the senate, and the people. (they'd be right)

The rebellion is the rebellion but it is not the revolution. The revolution was a manipulation by a criminal mastermind that culminated with Order 66 and the overthrow of the principles of true representative democracy.

There is a reason that in the old canon and the new canon, the Empire is referred to as the New Order.

 

It's unfortunate that her true parentage came out at that crucial moment. With such a politically charged race laden with reminders of the Empire and it's top leaders, the revelation of Leia's heritage as the daughter of Darth Vader came at the worst possible time.

And yet, part of that is on her. Leia always denied her bloodline. Her Force talents, her biological father. Does the Galaxy even know that Darth Vader redeemed himself at the last moment? That he was the one that truly destroyed the Empire?

For that matter, does the Galaxy even know that the Emperor was a Force-wielder. Let alone the most powerful one in the Galaxy?

 

Leia keeping it a secret was perfectly understandable but also something which is entirely a mistake for a public figure. Certainly, it would involve very real security questions like whether she could be blackmailed for it, what else she'd been hiding, and so on. Of course, the galaxy was only interested in the sensationalist elements of it and I think Bloodline did a good job illustrating various reactions including the bizarre conspiracy theory to "defend" her by assuming she must have been the product of an assault.

In Legends, actually, Imperial culture was kind of a "theme park" version of Core World culture which actually was against actual Core World culture. The whole idea of high human culture was designed to destroy local cultures like Corellian, Alderaanian, and so on while replacing it with something superficially erudite. Palpatine did his best to slowly erode things like Coruscanti culture even going so far to rename it Imperial Center and ghettoize its alien population while keeping it at the center of the Empire.

 

Oh, that got him.

This sounds fun. If I had time, I'd get into it a bit more. I will later.

For now I'll just throw some stream of thought shots:

You see traditionalism in cultural trappings. I'm more of a doctrinaire; I tend to look at original intent and philosophy of a conceived government. Vague as it may be, there is a point at which point you can say that a government no longer is in line with its intended purpose. To be crude and simplistic, but concise: a single madman throwing out orders and blowing up planets is doubtless not what the Republic founders had in mind. Palpatine is not in line with rule by the people.

(In new canon, he is even worse)

Also, Han Solo is not an authority on history and politics or even astronomical units apparently.

Finally, I'll just say if Palpatine is not a revolutionary he could have fooled me. Though not all revolutions are necessarily violent, chaotic, nor even judged as wrong by history (ahem) many are, and Palpatine's bloody and violent execution of his enemies and subsequent persecutions would make Bolsheviks or the dictator of a modern banana republic blush. He is a criminal usurper who began his revolution on the blood of innocents and inaugurated his rule through a day (night?) of murder.

The Alliance is merely trying to restore the rule of law that was lost.

 

Completely agreed with Jello, and I'll add that in Legends, as we don't know for sure when it comes to nu-canon yet, the Galactic Republic was not founded on democracy. You all forget that the Supreme Chancellor was not elected by the populace, but instead appointed by the Senate. Said Senate is not all-elected, it varies from elected officials to officials appointed by monarchs and corporate representatives. Many of the early Core's governments were monarchies before transitioning into aristocratic republics. The whole liberty and freedom comes mostly from the Ruusan Reformation, which if anything was what was revolutionary and the 'Alliance to Restore the Republic' followed those ideals. Palpatine just brought the Republic back to its roots.

 

Minor update on New Republic membership. We learn in Join the Resistance that Ganthel is a member of the New Republic and a location of one of their academies.

GrandAdmiralJello

Did I miss any other new members listed in the book?

--Adm. Nick

 

I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but would a Populist First Senator and a Centralist First Senator working together be beneficial?

 

Well I think the point is that there's only one, to have a clear leader. And the Populists were against the idea of a First Senator in the first place, because it would have the same power as the Supreme Chancellor did in the Old Republic, which they felt was too much.

 

Well, there is a lot of Rome in the Republic, and Rome did have two consuls for a while....

 

GrandAdmiralJello
I think a pretty good argument could be made for the fact that the Empire was just as much of a successor state to the Republic as the New Republic was, and there wasn't a continuous state from 25,000 BBY (or 1,000 BBY) until the Concordance. I'm not sure whether a new constitution was adopted in 19 BBY, but that would certainly mean the two states are, technically, two separate entities (ala, Fourth - Fifth French Republic). In any case the constitutional change of 19 BBY would effectively render them two different states in any case (ala, Third Republic - Vichy France, Weimar - Nazi Germany). The signing of the Concordance, as well as the revelation about Palpatine's treason and conspiracy, would render the New Republic just as legitimate as the Empire ever was. Nor was the New Republic more different from the Old Republic as the highly centralised Imperial state.

 

Assuming the galaxy eventually does learn of Palpatine's treachery & status as a Sith Lord, it would be a huge moment. I'd love to see Amedda be the one to spill the beans, it would be a ironic way of having it all come to light for sure.

It's clear that the New Republic considers itself the rightful continuation of the old Republic, albeit with reforms. I'd be interested to learn whether the reforms were brand new, or if they based their government on some earlier, more idealized time in the old Republic's history. Whether you can say that the New Republic Senate is a direct continuation or a spiritual successor to the old Galactic Senate is too hard to answer at this point, as we really don't know how the old Republic's constitution worked and whether there were clauses that allowed for the restoration of the Senate in light of the deposing of a corrupt chancellor.

There are only a handful of us interested enough in the political structures & setup of galactic government, so I don't expect a novel covering this any time soon!

--Adm. Nick

 

The Weimar Constitution was suspended, not completely revoked. Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic were de jure the same entity, even if not de facto.

 

I know - which is why I noted it was different from an instance of a new constitution being established (like with the Fourth and Fifth French Republics). However it is considered a new state historically, much like how the Vichy regime is not considered the Third French Republic even though they technically utilise the same basis of being a state (the same constitution).

The French Republics are not just separate governments, but rather different states. A government is merely the executive branch of a state, there being a new government each time France elects a new President (or he appoints a new Prime Minister). They are successor states, meaning they are technically different entities (with entirely different legal constitutions), but retain the same legal personality (France). There is of course a difference between continuator states and successor state - with one retaining the legal rights and obligations of its predecessor and one simply retaining the legal personality. West Germany becoming modern Germany is the same same legal entity and state - so the current German state has technically existence 1947 despite unification. The current French state has only existed since 1958, when the Fourth Republic was dissolved and the Fifth Republic was created (continuator state). The Fourth French Republic is the successor state of the Vichy Regime - they are both 'France' but both different and distinct states.