Saga Without Emperor Palpatine, is the Galactic Empire inherently evil?

IMO - any system that places power in the hands of one or a few people tends to become corrupt in a relatively short period of time. In the Republic, for the most part, planets had the right to maintain their own culture and pursue their own agendas as long as they agreed to some basic norms set in place by the senate. Over time, while tacking on way or another for short periods, a democratic system is able to self correct. An Empire will inherently have difficulties as power is funneled toward less and less people who are far removed from the realities of day to day life for most of its people. an those at the top will become more interested in maintaining their power and influence rather than governing fairly.

The Republic became vulnerable to Palpatine because of weak leadership who was not able to enforce the boundaries required to maintain a democracy and allowing one faction to bully others without any significant consequence.

Once in place Palpatine was a master of illusion who was able to maintain the façade of democracy for years while he worked to set up a situation where most systems in the Republic willingly turned over extraordinary power to him.

This is where I think the prequels did a good job of showing the true power of manipulation. Instead of a straight on attack, Palpatine used trade agreements and political maneuvering long before a full scale war.

 

An empire is not inherently evil. The Galactic Empire, being a tyrant and totalitarian regime is.

A democracy can be evil too, because it leads to mob rule. That's why there's a Republic, to secure the rights of the individual that the rule of the majority can't affect.

 

What a great time to recommend everyone THX 1138

 

The Empire needed to be destroyed, for the people oppressed it needed to end. No one would follow the same type of government, if someone stepped in it would continue a Galaxy wide war.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that Palpatine's Empire needed to be destroyed. The Galactic Republic had it's shortcomings as well which led to the Separatist Crisis, and the New Republic had it's own struggles and weaknesses that the First Order exploited. All in all, neither government was perfect but the Republic at the very least was doing it's best for the people while Palpatine was more worried about himself and his legacy.

The question is, without Palpatine, would the Empire have been as evil? Would the Moffs that we're ruthless have been allowed to stay in power? Would the Empire have been successful if it was "good" or would it have crumbled? I think a lot of the replies here point to a good Empire failing, so the evil Empire would have been the only one to "work" in the Star Wars universe. Considering what it did to the Galaxy and it's people... It definitely needed to be stopped.

 

I'm not that well versed in EU to know or not whether the Empire was Authoritarian or Totalitarian in nature. Perhaps somebody here can confirm which one it actually was. Going from the movies alone there is no way to tell one way or the other.

 

The deleted Anchorhead scenes did provide insight how Imperial economy worked, i.e. nationalization which is usually a trademark of an authoritarian and/or totalitarian system:

BIGGS
What good is all your uncle's work
if it's taken over by the Empire?...
You know they're starting to
nationalize commerce in the central
systems... it won't be long before
your uncle is merely a tenant, slaving
for the greater glory of the Empire.

 

The Emperor was evil but to operate the way the Galactic Empire did, you need the people of the Empire to operate it in that way. Hence why there can be an FO after the Emperor was destroyed.

 

I'm not advocating for an empire government, but yes the whole thing that made them so evil is that they were run by the Sith.

Think of it like this: would a real-world empire run by humans be as inherently evil as one run by Satan?

 

The question does not make too much sense as the Empire would not have come into being without Palps corrupting the Republic into it. If Palps never came into power, the Republic would likely have continued.

 

if they outlawed slavery and didn't commit planet-wide holocausts then maybe they would be an OK regime. Most empires are inherently evil because they benefit the mother country by exploiting their unimportant or outlying territories. I'll vote for good leaders being OK because having good leaders in place might lead to laws based on morality. Though admittedly that's naive.

 

While there can be gray areas within the empire (especially those among lower rank), I can certainly understand how The Empire's sustainable structure can benefit the Galaxy if used right

*Spoilers for Thrawn and Bloodline passed this Point*
Thrawn brings up how he believes that once he ascends to a high enough rank within the Empire, that he can have influence on the next leader, stating that Palpatine cannot live forever. He briefly expresses that he does not agree on Palptaine's direction, but without the Empire's core structure, all that could remain within the Galaxy is Chaos.
He wasn't too far off it would seem. Years later,once the New Republic replaced the Empire, Mon Mothma was the perfect person to lead it. However, once her term was up, petty politics and infighting slowly led to the collapse of the New Republic, along with the First Order being able to slowly infiltrate it.
Senator Ransolm Casterfo, despite witnessing the horrid nature of the Empire and Vader's wrath at a young age, felt that the Empire could do good if only it had a good leader.

As for me personally, I actually think that Thrawn and Casterfo were onto something. in and ideal world/galaxy, a good leader cold make the galaxy a better place. Unfortunately, Palpatine was a man of unprecedented hatred, who slowly took down the "barriers" of Democracy and turned them into a dictatorship. It's not too crazy to think that such power can corrupt a man sooner or later, especially since this system was put in place under such ominous circumstances.For me at least, as the discusiion goes on, it constantly raises more questions than answers.

 

Oddly enough, Old Canon had 400 something years of Jedi Chancellors. It's all starts and ends with the Top. The British empire had moments of non suckery, depending on whom was King or Queen.

 

Empires tend to be pretty bad things. Here in the real world, imperialism tends to have a pretty ugly legacy of genocide, racism, and colonialism.

 

Even if you have a good absolute monarch... there's always the chance that they could be corrupted, or when they die they'd be replaced by someone worse, and then there's no one in the system to check those worse impulses without resorting to a coup or war. Besides, no human is 100% morally pure either.

An empire with an absolute monarch/dictator is just not sustainable.

At the end of the day, evil is about imposing your will on others. And an empire with an absolute monarch is all about imposing your will on others. Good is about working in harmony.



Hopefully Star Wars explores this theme one day, instead of making their main villain so obviously evil, with minion thugs and torture and murder. It's why it's one of the ideas I came up with in this thread:
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...n-sw-one-day-and-still-feel-like-sw.50045564/

 

FWIW, the Republic was also known for corruption.

 

In the Legacy comics a benevolent Emperor was able to change the Legacy of the Empire full with missionaries helping people throughout the galaxy.

 

Yes because things like the Death Star would still be built.

 

Good post. I think with the right leadership (had Vader and Luke ruled as Father and Son), then the Empire could have been good indeed.

Without the likes of Tarkin, sanctioned it seems by Palpatine, then the Empire in a way represents a more orderly form of government than the ineffectual corrupt Republic which looks like it left not only outer rim planets at the mercy of crime lords, but even worlds like Naboo at the whims and fancies of cartels.

I do think in a way Palpatine had a point in TPM (and to some extent in ROTS) regarding:

"There is no civility, only politics. The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good."

"Enter the bureaucrats. The true rulers of the Republic... This is where Chancellor Valorum's strength will begin to disappear."

His fight against corruption seemed genuine. A shame the Jedi did not act. Qui Gon didn't seem one for this, nor did Windu.

An Empire with Jedi oversight probably would be legendary. Now that is what I would love to see on the movie screen.

 

I think the point of 'Empire' as opposed to 'Republic' is made clear in ROTS - it is the rule of one man, specifically Sidious. That was his end-game. So, the operation of Empire is built upon the rule of an individual, rather than upon democratic consensus. So, any Empire would always be subject to the whim of that individual. You could argue that a 'good Emperor' might, therefore, be a good thing but even that doesn't work, because of the bureaucracy that must inevitably follow on from that. One man simply couldn't deal with all of the issues in the Galaxy, and so local governers etc. would be dealing with day to day issues. That would result in a bureaucracy who are not answerable to those they 'serve' which will, almost inevitably, become corrupt (nepotistic, demand bribes for carrying out their duties, exploitative in their taxation etc.).

When all of this is backed up entirely by military force (which is what this Empire is, and what Sidious's power rests upon) then they become politically active players. They would become the arbiters of who becomes Emperor, who would - essentially - be a puppet of the military. Anybody wishing to become Emperor would have to offer the ranks bribes (as happened with the Roman Empire), the army would become a law unto itself. Perversely, I think an Empire without Sidious had the potential to become even more oppressive and evil - far more people willing to pursue their power agendas without an overwhelming fear of the Emperor; and likely very unstable due to that, which is to say more violent, an almost endless state of war as one faction would take on another.

 

Precisely.

Good is a point of view Anakin. The Jedi and Sith are almost alike in every way. Including their quest for greater power.

There is no civility, only politics. The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good. I must be frank...the bureaucrats are in charge now.

I can't believe there's still slavery in the galaxy. The Republic's antislavery laws...

Luke you will find many of the truths that we cling to, depend upon our point of view.

 

Any galactic government where the beings in charge-at ANY level-would be okay with destroying an entire planet, is definitely evil.

But if more verification is needed, the exploitation of planets' resources and subsequent impoverishment of said planets as a result-not to mention the enslavement of certain beings-would also constitute as evil. By any moral standards. We've also seen the blatant mistreatment of innocent beings by Stormtroopers, and imprisonment without cause take place during Imperial reign as well.

I agree an empire is not inherently evil. But when those running it are, then that can influence everything. IMO all of those examples above are enough to say, that it's not just Palpatine that was evil and everyone were just puppets. What it seems like to me is that there were many individuals out there who had a more inherently selfish and even sinister sense of how things should be, and Palpatine being a Sith Lord and ruling as emperor basically allowed all these individuals to let the worst in them come out-because now they know they can not only get away with it, but it's even expected. Basically I feel that the emperor's form of rule encouraged officers/troops/leaders etc. to allow the worst parts of themselves to shine.