Saga General Discussion of Politics in Star Wars (no real-life politics)

The politics being too much of a focus in the prequel trilogy was derided when it came out, with complains of “all that time on the taxation of trade routes” (probably less than 30 seconds) and “too many Senate scenes” (really just a few minutes, like 1-2 quick scenes per PT movie) when people just wanted more lightsaber fights and battles.

I actually loved the political scenes in the PT, especially how it all came together in Episode III, the story of the Fall of the Republic as democracy dies “to thunderous applause.” It was great worldbuilding.

Also, it was very present in A New Hope, and a great part of the worldbuilding of the Original Trilogy.

The prequels were about the fall of the Republic into the Empire, personified in the fall of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. The original trilogy was about the defeat of the Empire to lead way to a new system to be built, as Darth Vader was also defeated and redeemed to become Anakin Skywalker again before dying and leading to the new generation to step up as leaders. The political story is just the macro version of the story of Anakin/Vader, and I feel just as core.

Since Episode VII, there’s been renewed appreciation for the political worldbuilding in Star Wars. This has been seen in non-saga projects too like Rogue One and especially Andor, as well as general feedback for the Sequel Trilogy.

I was watching the video below, which makes some great points, and couldn’t think of the right place to share it here. So here’s a long-overdue thread for general discussion of politics in the Star Wars saga.

Please keep real-life politics out of this, or keep it very minimal and just about the objective facts of certain influences. We know Lucas based the Empire on an eclectic mix of things from the Roman Empire, to the colonial British Empire, to Napoleonic France, to Nazi Germany, to the United States in Vietnam and under Richard Nixon (and some parts of more recent U.S. History clearly influenced some of the prequels). The Separatists are based on the 13 American Colonies trying to secede, and also the south when trying to declare independence from the Union, and also on World War 1 and the Cold War, also on cyberpunk dystopian fiction, etc. The Galactic Republic is a hybrid version of the United States, European Union, United Nations, the Roman Republic, the German Weimar Republic, etc. I’m saying all this just to acknowledge it, Star Wars has some deep worldbuilding and it draws deeply on our own world and other works of fiction, but that diverse range of influences also shows there’s no perfect analogy/allegory. We can acknowledge these things, and generally/quickly talk about them when relevant, but overall let’s really try to keep real-life politics out of this thread. Thank you.

Here’s the video:


The political story is just the macro version of the story of Anakin/Vader, and I feel just as core. Maybe even more so, since Lucas envisioned it before he made Star Wars into a generational story, or the tragedy of Anakin/Vader or even before deciding they were the same person. So let’s discuss it!

Lucas's original idea, published in the ANH novel:


Then Lucas wrote this "updated" version in 2004:

Prologue

The Clone Wars
by George Lucas

For a thousand years, the Old Republic prospered and grew under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the venerable Jedi Knights. But as often happens when wealth and power grow beyond all reasonable proportion, an evil fueled by greed arose. The massive organs of commerce mushroomed in power, the Senate became corrupt, and an ambitious politician named Palpatine was voted Supreme Chancellor. Most disturbingly, the Dark Lords of the Sith reappeared, after a thousand years of seeming absence.

In the midst of this turmoil, a separatist movement was formed under the leadership of the charismatic former Jedi Count Dooku. By promising an alternative to the corruption and greed that was rotting the Republic from within, Dooku was able to persuade thousands of star systems to secede from the Republic. Unbeknownst to most of his followers, Dooku was himself a Dark Lord of the Sith, acting in collusion with his master, Darth Sidious, who, over the years, had struck an unholy alliance with the greater forces of commerce and their private droid armies.

The turning point came when Count Dooku lured the unsuspecting Jedi into a trap on the desolate planet of Geonosis. Having just discovered the existence of a clone army that had been secretly commissioned for the Republic ten years earlier, the Jedi were well prepared when they confronted the Separatists on Geonosis, but their victory in that heated battle was pyrric. It would prove to be merely the opening salvo in a war that would spread like fire across the galaxy and engulf thousands of star systems in the legendary Clone Wars.

Having already been granted emergency powers in the face of the growing threat, Chancellor Palpatine used his ironclad grip on the Senate to seize even greater authority, all in the name of security. To address the urgent military needs of the Republic, he enlisted the Jedi Knights as generals to command the Clone Army. The Jedi valiantly accepted their assignment, though never having served as military commanders, they were unaccustomed to the wages of war. Their ranks, once sufficient to serve as the guardians of peace and justice, were spread perilously thin in the face of this unthinkable challenge. Their relationship with Palpatine grew strained. At the same time, they felt their own power waning even as their most promising new apprentice completed his training and stood poised to fulfill his destiny as the chosen one who would bring balance to the Force.

The Clone Wars raged for three long years, tearing the Republic apart and spawning countless tales of heroism, bravery, treachery, and betrayal as both sides fought to defend their ideals. As dedicated as the Separatists were in their resolve to create a new order to replace the failing Republic, the Jedi were equally determined to preserve the Republic and defeat the Sith, who they understood all too well were the masterminds of the Separatist movement. They still believed in the Republic, still deemed it a Republic worth saving. Their faith, which gave them superhuman strength in the face of mind-boggling power of the enemy, had yet to be shaken.​

 

Perhaps for a first topic - if there was no Palpatine/Dooku, how could the building concern expressed by the Separatist idealists (declare independence to have a less corrupt state and more local control), the Reformer idealists (who became the Rebel leaders, who wanted to reform the Republic from within instead of leaving it), the non-evil megacorporations (who seemed bullied into acting by Sidious, and perhaps had a few legitimate concerns, though I don't have as much sympathy for them), the Jedi (who both leaned towards very much the minions of the Senate, while also growing resentful of them) have come to perhaps a more peaceful compromise that prevented a war?

Similar, what helped the Rebels succeed where the Separatists failed? Yes there was the Sith influence, but not all the generals and regional leaders only took orders from the very top, and there were war criminals (though on both sides)... but we know the Rebels also had factions, from the human supremacists to Saw's more "the ends justify the means" approach. The Separatists had a lot more bases, firepower, and supporters. While the Rebels were always on the run, never a permanent base for long, a fraction of fleet, and basically no army.

Also, what other lessons might Lucas want us to take away from all of this?

 

Sidious was the one fueling a lot of the corruption within the senate, and clog its regular function with bureocrats. The senate's corruption and inability to function properly fueled the resentment and disenchantment with the system, which Sidious (via Dooku) grouped and turned into a proactive force with the Separatist movement. They also fostered the fear in each faction for each other that led them to militarize themselves and react accordingly.

If there was no Palpatine/Dooku, I doubt things would have gone the way they did. But it would probably lead to a longer, slower death of the Republic.

 

Definitely, but I wonder what that slower decay would be like, and how reforms or compromises might have changed that path. Palpatine made it worse, but a lot of those problems he exploited were around long before his time.

(And I doubt every Sith in the thousand years before him was as influential at corrupting the political system. Plagueis was an influential banker in the old EU, but his master was just a starship manufacturing designer, and other ones mentioned were even more isolated and in the shadows to keep a low profile - might not be true in the new canon, but it rings true to me, or someone would have done Palpatine's work far earlier).

 

In the 1975 second draft, the idea was that Palpatine was not the first Emperor, and that corruption had taken hold gradually - a reference survives in Alan Dean Foster's novelization to "the later corrupt Emperors". In this version of events the Emperors were puppet rulers to some degree, with the real power being wielded by the Sith Lords: in particular the Sith Master, named in the second draft as Prince Espaa Valorum.

The numbers of the Sith Lords were also much greater than just two. Upper and lower bounds might be established by the 1974 rough draft, which mentions the "Sith One Hundred" at one point, and Lucas' notes relating to the January 1976 fourth draft, which pare it down to "only seven Sith - one in each sector".

The second draft mentions that the Sith Order was founded by a runaway Padawan named Darklighter, who taught the Dark Side (then called "the Bogan") to "a clan of Sith pirates". This might have been intended as a species name that in turn birthed the name of the Order, like the red-skinned Sith species in the Tales of the Jedi comics. Though given the word's links to the Celtic Sidhe, I wonder if this Sith race was perhaps meant to be a tall and pale elf-like species. (Especially since the second draft also mentions a race of short, hairy "Boma" several times, who are exceptional craftspeople and appear to be analogues of Dwarves.)

Also in the second draft, Luke's father "the Starkiller" is a leader of the Rebellion, and is said to be "over three hundred years old", which suggests that the fight against the Empire may have been going on for generations.

The idea of a much longer genesis for the Empire persisted to some degree even into the third draft. In a conversation in January 1976, Lucas and Alan Dean Foster discussed the fact that making the current tyrannical Emperor be the first and only one of that title meant that Lucas could no longer end the trilogy with Leia becoming Empress. The late Charles Lippincott, who also participated in that meeting, published some transcripts on his blog.

 

It's interesting how Anakin knows Palpatine is bad and at some level knows he doesn't even like him personally but thinks he's also in some respects worthy, that he's also personally useful and can be overthrown later while the general public thinks he good and/but most important of all just necessary.

I've long thought with the OT Empire/Rebels conflict it felt most like the American Revolution and World War II, the Empire most like both the Nazis and British Empire and the Rebels therefore most like the Americans, given that it makes sense and is particularly interesting that the PT draws a lot of inspiration from the bad American rebellion the Civil War.

Even without direct maliciousness the idea of having more local authority, though definitely appealing and also logical at least for some issues (and there is an interesting contrast between how the Nubians and Gungans were pretty quickly able to find common ground and team up compared to the inertia in the galactic Senate), tends to feel like just sexy quick fix, not much likelihood it would actually lead to less corruption or even generally increased citizen happiness (and with any large area having sub-units working together there will also have to be some amount of centralized joint authority, including at least to win independence).

It's interesting how little the Rebels seem influenced by or contrast to the Separatists, or even go into detail of what they would want a New/restored Republic to be-there probably would be more detail of both if IV-VI had been made later.

Really not sure but I think he has said a few times said that he does wish we would be more rational rather than emotional, at least or particularly in terms of favoring of (even if emotionally) favoring big picture and society over more individual or narrow self-interests.

If the point of the saga is to be pro-democracy generally there is some irony that the heroes Jedi do seem pretty internally authoritarian to me, do seem to match Anakin's preference that people should follow the wishes of wise good ruler (though externally are the servants to rather than rulers of the Republic), a lot should probably be seen not very literally or directly.

And while Lucas loves the Jedi he also admits not everyone can or should be Jedi but particularly Han and Leia (and initially Padme) do, we probably should apply similar principles and dedication to making things better, also to not be afraid to fight for just, probably limited cause but not become generally deferential to authority or to accept endless war/militarism.

If the movies had been made in different order than IV-VI probably would have, like with on Naboo in I, more of different Rebels including non-humans being able to overcome their differences to work together.

I prefer the interpretation that he took advantage of it and even covertly encouraged it but he was far from the main problem (and it would be hard to see how with his initial position he could), it feels too convenient and small and uncomplicated that he was mostly responsible for the problems he complained against.

Most people deep down do want to, favor just have good/morally worthy and trustworthy rulers rather than really love a general process and it is a bit ironic that both the EU and most fans' general thoughts about what would happen after RotJ would be that Leia would become the (just and/but long-lasting) ruler (and also a bit ironic that the EU had the system pretty much fall apart pretty soon after she left).

 

If you look at history, the slow decay usually culminates in a sudden, ugly and bloody revolt.

It's hard to say how that path might have changed. I don't think you can root out corruption from reforms. Someone who is corrupt doesn't care about right and wrong. The careless ones get caught. The others do not. The solution is to either call them out, appeal to their consciousness and hope they change, or to appoint someone with the authority to willingly enforce what's right and take the power away from the corrupt and punish them. Both rely on the existence of a moral framework that needs to be upheld/believed in by "everyone", top to bottom. Without that, it's pointless.

I never said that he was the cause. I said he fueled the problems in order to take advantage of them.

That's true.

 

Are there any major political stories we'd want told better in the saga?

 

The only thing that really bothered me about this aspect of the saga, was that Lucas caved to pressure from those who hated Jar Jar and made him into a weak pawn for Palpatine. As depicted in The Phantom Menace, I never got the impression the character would've fallen for that. He was clumsy, to be sure, but not stupid.
Also, some have said that Anakin's bitter line to Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith ("If you're not with me, then you're my enemy") was a jab toward a particular politician, but in truth such a stance goes back to a certain man who said, "Anyone who is not with me is against me, and anyone who does not work with me is working against me." Kenobi's somewhat dogmatic response ("Only a Sith deals in absolutes") is actually self-defeating, because as a committed Jedi he is absolutely determined to either defeat or even destroy the Sith. The only reason he doesn't kill Anakin on Mustafar is because in spite of all his former student has done, he still loves him.

 

How is Jar Jar's innocence and goodwill being used by Palpatine for his own goals means Lucas caved in to pressure from Jar Jar haters? There's no correlation whatsoever.

Jar Jar is given responsibility in the movie and is faced with a situation where he can help those in need. So he makes a proposal that the vast majority of the senators agree with. That doesn't make him weak. It makes him brave for being willing to stand up and help. That Palpatine used that for evil purposes is not a fault with Jar Jar. And as far as being a pawn goes, virtually everyone is unknowingly turned into or used as a pawn.

 

This thread got me thinking. Given that Lucas claims he wrote TPM (particularly) for children - what message is he sending those young minds? What does he show them? That democracy is ineffective, that it is doomed because of the greed of the Senators. If it is a film for children then is there not a level of responsibility there to portray a working democracy that is picked apart by Palpatine and his cronies?

 

That you must remain vigilant, not expect someone else to save you, be wary of folks with their own agendas. It was more of a plot device in TPM, with it being part of the larger arc only coming into play later.

 

In his defense, George has admitted to being the kind of person who doesn't trust many aspects of government very much. He has said more than once that the idea of the Rebels vs. the Empire in the original trilogy was designed to mirror many different real-world conflicts, like the British versus early American settlers during the Revolution and the Nazis fighting pretty much everyone else in World War 2. Lucas' grander aim was to show the strength of those who had been deemed to be weaker or inferior by mass society, and show them actually rising up to challenge the more powerful.

 

I agree mostly, but want to add something else I've seen.

With regard to A - that was definitely what things like the TFA Visual Dictionary and TFA itself seemed to suggest, but you're right that it seemed to shift from that explanation. I will also say this seems pessimistic in its own way - even a strong and ideal New Republic can just be completely overthrown if you're secretive and powerful enough. And a tad unrealistic.

With regard to B - yeah I hated this explanation.
---- The "compromise" version of this is that some Centrist worlds seceded, and they were the moderate and public "face" of the First Order. And only a few seemed to suspect or know about it having a secret base with perhaps secretary military strength composed of ex-Imperials who fled after the war and were never captured or prosecuted, and their children (and rumored kidnapped children).


For what the TV shows like the Mandalorian and Ahsoka seem to be showing are a genuinely idealistic New Republic, and wishing to not create their own reign of terror against ex-Imperials since that was most of the galaxy (with some leaders being sentenced to death but them being more of an exception), and most ex-Imperials given a chance to be rehabilitated. Yet due to the share amount, the rehabilitation programs are ineffective due to the huge bureaucracy to run it. It also wants to demilitarize, with both threats being reduced as well as seeing the militarization of the Old Republic for the Clone Wars being the reason why it was easy to become an Emperor (along with a Chancellor given too much power, even if for a war emergency). But despite the ideals of many in top leadership... they are learning, and they are making mistakes. And I'd say this is a very natural political story, and not as unrealistic as A or the non-compromise version of B. It's a new government, sometimes in over its head... and in my opinion, shows the difficulty with having such a galactic government of any type... it is what led to Old Republic corruption and Empire inefficiencies/incompetence/pride.


While I don't think it's ideal, I think the natural next step for the galaxy is to have dozens to hundreds of independent republics (and kingdoms). Maybe even as many as an independent government per sector. There should just be distrust of galactic government of any type at this point - and as a bonus, it would allow for more diverse and fun storytelling, and also make the next big threat not be a repeat of a Newer/Third Republic failing again for some reason. Also, now we do have a golden age of the Republic where stories are being told - the High Republic error (even if there are faults, especially by the time of the Acolyte, it's still a golden age).

If we do get a Third Republic (whether it's called that or seen as a recovery of the New Republic, since the Sequel Trilogy was only 1 year even if devastating to the status quo) then they need to think carefully about the balance between the Chancellor and military being too strong (to repeat the PT) or too weak (to repeat the ST). And give hope that a near-ideal Republic can't just be overthrown overnight. Which would mean any galactic-stakes-level story would need to not be an underdog story, but of an ideal and competent Republic in a new golden age against a competent threat of near-equal strength. Which I think should be fine by this point - I hope the ST got enough backlash that you don't always have to make the heroes be an underdog. Have the characters be underdogs as they grow, and in the key situations they're in, but have their side overall be a competent government.

 

Oh boy, do I object to this Rian Johnson level deconstruction. Not that I think Thrawn is correct (he’s very clearly tragically incorrect in his worldview) but you are essentially asking for quite a bit of established storytelling with the Chiss and the Grysk to be sacrificed at the alter of propping up TFA.

 

I don't agree completely, but I agree with a lot, and I like all 3 of your ideas - I've also just assumed the First order was something like: 10% of the First Order is the First Order Centrist separatists who leave in Bloodline, and 90% in the Unknown Region, and part of that 90% is territory the FO conquered from the Chiss.

But for this part I'm quoting in particular... unfortunately, we've seen this happen in real life, so it is actually realistic.

 

You’re being a little presumptuous in assuming none of the published material with Thrawn is going to count. It was, after all, material from the books that was used as the core of his relationship with Ahsoka in live action. We can’t really dismiss the material out of hand or assume that nothing will come of it (we still don’t know exactly what the threat will be in the NJO, for instance.)

That he doesn’t just paint Thrawn as a foaming at the mouth fascist isn’t a flaw to me. From his inception in Heir to the Empire he was always presented as “more” than just a typical Imperial, so the “Unknown Regions-Anakin” parallel Zahn’s drawn with the character across the more recent novels feels appropriate to me. He can be correct about the Grysk being a threat and incorrect about a military junta being the only way to stop them, and that’s a juicy, dramatic story. Especially since it’s made clear that Thrawn is essentially becoming the Grysk to defeat them and it’s a tragic path of a extraordinary man losing his way.

Well, speak for yourself. I found the Chiss characters, the worldbuilding that went into creating that society, the different factions and family dynamics, the thousands of years of history, the general concept of trying to maintain a society within what is essentially the Bermuda Triangle of space...all of that was far more interesting to me than anything I’ve seen from the First Order across the franchise. To see it all bulldozed to try and patch up a less interesting version of Dark Empire...just seems like a waste.

 

I'd say Thrawn is the Empire... minus the "obvious evil." He exists to show competent Imperials, and also why more rational Imperials are still a force for darkness that should be opposed.


As for what you say on the Chiss... I don't think the First Order taking them over would undo that. If anything, it sets the stage for the Chiss having their own secret rebellion/resistance, and when the FO is defeated then really reflecting on their society and making some changes. France and Poland still existed after the Nazis were defeated.

 

He’s presented as a villain to be defeated, but I wouldn’t agree that he’s meant to be another bog standard Imperial. From the moment we meet Thrawn in Heir to the Empire, his cultured personality, rational leadership style and his very nature as an alien makes him a contrast to the Imperials we had met up until that point. And that’s by design, Zahn’s been pretty open about how he went into HttE trying to create a villain as different from Vader and Palpatine. The character was always meant to be a little bit extra and I think that’s more interesting on a dramatic and character level than a fascist with nothing else going on.

There’s a conflict that’s already in place that would deal with some of what you’re suggesting, and would be more natural with what’s been established and I think pertinent to today’s geopolitical climate than retreading WW2 iconography. Trying to retcon things and then put in the First Order feels incredibly redundant, and mostly just to finger wag at a villain while hobbling established worldbuilding.

Plus I’m also of the mind that trying something new is superior than simply retreating Stormtroopers and Sith.

 

I will say it means the Mandalorians may actually be one of the most complex and multifaceted societies/cultures in Star Wars now, as a result of all the interpretations and perspectives. Very different from the worlds with one climate, one culture, sometimes one species, etc.
One other thing I want them to do it take a page from the old EU (and the implications for Grogu's future) and have more nonhuman Mandalorians. Maybe even a decent chunk of the always-helmeted faction could turn out to be humanoid aliens (since the other faction we saw the most of in the Mandalorian seemed to care more about blood purity).