Alderaan and Democracy?

Bail Organa considers himself a defender of "democracy". But I am wondering how he can even say that when his homeworld is not really that democratic at all. First off, it is headed by a type of monarchy; a HEREDITARY monarchy. Now, a hereditary monarchy in itself is not necessarily against democracy (a real-world example would be the UK). But the problem here is that this HEREDITARY monarchy does hold a great deal of political power. Queen Breha is both the head of state for Alderaan and the Minster of Education. Bail, on the other hand, has a hand in administration of the planet due to his place of the Alderaan High Council. And he is not only an executive minster, but also a senator in the Galactic Senate. In the United States, that would be the equivalent of a state governor serving as a U.S. senator during his term. And now imagine that this state governor got his position by birthrite and has it for a lifetime. Yeah, that would not be very democratic at all.

Perhaps I am missing something that the EU has tried to clear up, but when I look at this picture, I don't know how Bail can even speak about democracy when he knows nothing about it. If he really wanted to keep his people free, he should have stepped down from politics and let an average citizen have a share in it, BEFORE Palpatine became Emperor. But instead, he just comes off as a very irritating and hypocritical character.

 

Alderaan is a peaceful world, and the people there seem to be happy with their political representatives. If the mayority of the population agreed with the birthright-thing than it is a democracy. The empire, which Bail fought against, was ofcourse a different story.

 

Bail understands democracy, since Alderaan exists in a democracy which is known as the Republic. Though the planet had a monarchy, it also had democratic held government. The closest real world analogy would be the UK, since there is a monarchy there today, but it has a Prime Minister and Parliament. In essence, Alderaan is like Naboo in many ways. Except that Naboo's leaders are elected by term, while Alderaan's is by birth. But the Alderaan government could choose which bloodline has the right to rule. Jorus C'Boath mediated a dispute over which house had the right to have a bloodline rule as monarch. Alderaan was never oppressive like the Empire was under Palpatine.

 

If he really wanted to keep his people free, he should have stepped down from politics and let an average citizen have a share in it, BEFORE Palpatine became Emperor. But instead, he just comes off as a very irritating and hypocritical character.

Bail stepping down would do nothing to change the Alderaan form of government. He would be replaced by someone else from the Alderaan elite. The Senators in the GFFA Senate are representatives from a planet/system, not all of which are purely democratic. But the GFFA Senate itself does practice democracy, albeit a corrupt form, which Bail does know very well. I would liken Alderaan probably more closely to Burnei than the UK, ruled by a benevolent monarch/sultan.

 

Pretty much what sinister said.

Bail is a senator for the Republic, which is much more than just Alderaan. So he should know about democracy, even if Alderaan's leaders are there by birth. But they are a peaceful planet regardless of how their government works, similiar to Naboo.

 

I am seeing this alot of places and I am not understanding it. Democracy always seems to be associated with good and libety and peace in these posts. This is simply not the case. A Democratic government is always changing with the mood of its people. It is only as peaceful or violent as its people. Democracy doesnt have a mind of its own, how can it have an intention.

I assume that we have alot of Americans here, that would explain this misconception. I will try to explain it without offending, but simply by observing. After the 9/11 attack, the current government went to war. The people didn't question this, in fact they supported it. The reason for this is the mood of the populus. Americans were angry and wanted revenge, I am not saying its right or wrong, I am saying its the natural state of a "democracy". A true democracy can just as easily be about war as it can peace, thats what makes it a democracy.

Also the above statement about the people not complaining about the monarchy, thus its a democracy, is quite silly. No one knows why the masses are silent, or kept silent for that matter, in a situation involving monarchy. There are plenty of real world examples of a population being to affraid to speak out, this could easily apply in the saga.

Alderaan may be a peaceful planet, and Organa may be loved by the people. These things however have nothing to do with democracy. Also on Naboo the "title" of the elected ruler was Queen, but she was still elected and served a set term. This has nothing to do with heredity, and is quite different.

 

Indeed, we know from the examples of the ancient Greeks to democracies of our own time that there has never been a perfect democracy. Greecian democracy worked for the ancients, but was born and briefly existed within a confederation of warring city states ruled or overseen by various Spartan and Macedonians, Thracians and Thessalonian monarchs. Yet ancient Greek democracy worked for the Greeks. They were generally satisfied with the results.

None of today's democracies are considered absolutely perfect by any of the others. Yet each distinctive modern democracy is embraced with some level of pride by their respective citizens, usually due in part to the sacrifices entailed in the birth of those democracies. The Cromwellian revolt in the UK, the American Revolution, the French Revolution and others spread democracy among Earth's various 'tribes.' Who knows what planetary democracy may eventually evolve, but it will likely entail some level of elitist representatives raised and tutored for the tremendous responsibilities such a global democracy will one day entail.

So it is with Alderaan and Naboo -- democracies with a native twist, existing within the larger galactic republic. Naboo subjegates the Gungans, Aleraan has a hereditary monarchy. Yet Wiki simply defines democracy as: "A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control." Such representative 'governance' is always accomplished via a 'rule of law.' So if Bail and his wife popularly 'represented' Aleraaneans to their collective satisfaction regarding both domestic and galactic affairs.

Bottom line: It worked, and worked well!

 

Indeed. Make no mistake, just because most are Americans here as this is an American based message board, doesn't mean that we do not see the flaws within democracy. However, when compared to the kind of tyranny that the Empire is based on, compared to the real world dictatorships, democracy is easily the safest choice. George Lucas is an American and he is a history buff. The Star Wars Saga has its basis in mythology, as well as world history.

"This idea of a democracy being given up and in many cases being given up in a time of crisis, you see it throughout history whether it's Julius Caesar, or Napoleon, or Adolf Hitler, you see these democracies under a lot of pressure, in a crisis situation, who end up giving up a lot of the freedoms they have and a lot of the checks and balances to somebody with a strong authority to help get them through the crisis. It's not the first time a politician has created a war to try to stay in office."

--George Lucas, Lenoard Maltin interview, 1999.

"To get an idea of the kind of man Palpatine is in the prequel trilogy you need to read about the Roman Emperor, Julius Caesar, and his spectacular rise to power in Rome."

--George Lucas, Lenoard Maltin interview, 1999

One of the larger issues that surfaced in the telling of Anakin's fall to the dark side and his rise to becoming a corrupt figure was that of the fall of democracy at the hands of the very people who initially fought oppression.

"You have the personal issue of Anakin and his turn to the dark side, but then the children later bring him back to being a human being," Lucas says. "But the larger issue is that you've given up your democracy, and that the bad guys never took it -- it was handed to them. That theme was there 30 years ago which came out of the Vietnam War and Nixon wanting to change the rules so he could get a third term.

I'm a big history buff and I was really into Caesar at the time," Lucas recalls. "I always wanted to know why the Roman Senate gave Caesar's nephew a dictatorship after they had gotten rid of Caesar. Why after the revolution in France did they create an Emperor? Why did the Germans after they had a Democracy after World War I, turn it into a dictatorship? Those were my initial questions 30 years ago."

--George Lucas, Star Wars Homing Beacon #142

 

Alderaan is a Constitutional Monarchy...like Australia and Canada. The only difference is that nowadays the head of state (monarch) has less of a role and puts her confidence in the decisions of the Prime Minister and the current government.

ANd if you think about it, the Galactic Senate doesn't really fit with any authoritative body we know of that exists...its not the same as the UN. So you can't really apply the same rules. It would be like all the countries we know coming together to makes decision about the world that have to be followed...we don't have a body that does that.

 

The Senate is based off a number of different government setups. Part comes from the current US government and some from the old Roman Senate. It's an amalgam of all the best and worst aspects.

 

You may see the flaws of democracy Sinister. However, there are plenty of threads, this one and others, that are evidence that many don't grasp that concept. I have seen far too many posts stating that democracy is not only the ideal government, but an ideal all to itself. "The Jedi strive for ideals like peace, liberty, democracy", quotes like this are disturbing. And while it may be my assumption that this is an American flaw, I don't see it too often elsewhere.

As you post in the second highlight, simply by default, you see democracy as a "good" thing. You can compare it to as many alternative types of government as you like, it doesnt change the fact that democracy has no connotation. Again a democracy is only as good/bad/indifferent as the majority of its population.

You state that it is easily the "safest" choice when compared to alternatives. A dictatorship run by a person who holds peace and justice close to there heart can be just as prosperous as any democracy. If you have a wicked dictator, its no different than having a democracy with vengeful citizens.

I am not asking you to see the flaws or blessings that democracy CAN offer. I am stating that it doesn't have a mind of its own, and it is surely not an ideal. I am a history buff too, doesn't mean I truly grasp everything I have studied.

 

Let me toss this out about dictatorships. So many wouldn't run from them if they lost faith in it. You'll see far fewer going for a dictatorship, than you'll see of those who leave it for a democracy.

 

You state that it is easily the "safest" choice when compared to alternatives. A dictatorship run by a person who holds peace and justice close to there heart can be just as prosperous as any democracy.


One of the basic problems of a democracy is that a lot of things that need to be done just dont get done, even very simple things. Too many polititians will block good projects for political ambition or for other greed. This happened in Eastern European countries in the early 1930's, the presidents of those countries overthrew themselves to become dictatorships. The bulk of the population didnt object as they were sick of petty politics. Those were benevolent dictatorships and progress ensued. It seems like Lucas used exactly those situations for the Prequels.

 

People need to get over the belief that their can be a perfect political system

Monarchy can turn into an Tyranny

Aristocracy can turn into an Oligarchy

Democracy can turn into Anarchy

Republic just tries to have some sort of balance of all the potential actors

But all rulers who obtain all power arent currupt and it can be rather efficient..rather than an democracy ran by uneducated people making society mediocre

 

Agreed, they need to realize that even if they believe in democracy, it's not an inherently good system. I still like Churchill's quote "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

I think the main argument for democracy as a system is that while there will inevitably be evil people who gain power, they are more likely to not stay in power for their entire life than they are under a monarchy or a dictatorship.

 

Okay, I think some of you may have missed my point. I personally have no problem with what a person believes is the perfect form of government, because as some have stated, there really isn't one. Democracy might work for some while fail miserably for others.

Here is the issue: Alderaan is NOT a democracy. I don't care how anyone tries to spin it: any society that is run by a hereditary elite family is not democratic. I'm not saying that Alderaan is a brutal dictatorship that committed mass murder on whim. In fact, it appears that it was very peaceful and prosperous under its monarchy. What I don't understand is why Bail immediately freaks out and foresees doom when Palpatine declares himself Emperor of the Galaxy. Keep in mind, at this point in time, Palpatine was not oppressive and a cruel tyrant (as far as Bail knew). But as soon as Palpatine creates a galactic monarchy, Bail inherently assumes that it is going to be a BAD thing. In the deleted scenes, it is already shown that the Rebellion is being formed. But why would he think that? It can't be because it goes against the wishes of the senators, because from what he saw at the declaration, every other senator was on their feet applauding. And obviously he has no problems with monarchy, since he wallows in the benefits on it at his home planet. Is monarchy only okay when Bail is in charge of it, at the planetary level? Is it because a Galactic Emperor would take away some of the power that Bail enjoys as a senator? I hope I'm making sense here and saying this clear enough. What I am getting at is how HYPOCRITICAL Bail is. He is okay with a monarchy on his planet, but when there is one on the galactic level, then it suddenly becomes a threat to freedom and not an okay system of government. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

I see your point, but I'm sure England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all see themselves as democracies eventhough technically their head of state is the Queen of England.

 

He is okay with a monarchy on his planet, but when there is one on the galactic level, then it suddenly becomes a threat to freedom and not an okay system of government. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Its an issue of scale. With about 20,000 systems in the GFFA, A planet in the GFFA is more like a county (county not country, smaller than a state) or political district on Earth. As such, Bail is looking at the big picture.

 

Does anyone know what the planetary governmental system of Alderaan is? Does Bail and his family govern the planet day to day, or is there some kind of elected (or otherwise) body which does that, leaving the galactic representation side of things to the monarchy?

Edit: And if so, what's the source please?

 

Alderaan is clearly not like the constitutional monarchies in the real world. While the Queen of England is only a figurehead with no power, members of the Organa Royal Family actively participate in politics and hold a great deal of executive clout. Even though there is the High Council, which is basically their planetary senate, the Royals still preside over it and have the final word. That would make the High Council little more than an elected advisory body. And since he also holds a position in the Galactic Senate, he can really shape the policies of his home planet.

I don't think that scale makes much of a difference when it comes to forms of government. Tiny Greek city-states have been true democracies while gigantic empires have been headed by monarchies. Either Bail thinks a monarchy works or he doesn't. It becomes a double standard when you start picking when it is and is not acceptable. A republic can become just as corrupt and oppressive as a monarchy---go ahead and read about one of the many fine "republics" in Africa.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult, but where does it say that someone can only believe in the effectiveness of one governmental system? There are effective monarchies and dreadful democracies and vice versa. A governmental system is only as good as the people governing and / or those who put them there.If Alderaan was an example of good government under a monarchy, then why change? If he Republic worked well through democracy, why can the two systems not coexist?

 

Exactly. Bail's planet has a good, peaceful government that actually cares about its people. Who knows why that is, maybe they have a semi-utopian society, maybe it's just in recent history, but regardless it is working well for them at that moment. And one planet is not an entire galaxy with thousands of individual planetary governments. That would be FAR harder to rule as a monarchy. The best for the Republic, Bail and others believe, is a more democratic one. You can believe in both systems of government as long as they work. Also remember that at first, while the Jedi and some senators were wary of Palpatine's single-handed power, they didn't outright oppose it until it was very clear he was corrupt and abusing it.

 

Although a democratic society, Alderaan was headed by a hereditary constitutional monarchy, with the Royal House of Organa presiding over the High Court and legislative High Council of Alderaan. Its monarchs have variously borne the titles "Prince," "First Chairman," and "Viceroy." Traditionally, the heir of the Alderaan throne also serves in the High Council of Alderaan and a term as Senator of Alderaan. A vizier helped the monarch rule.

Alderaan's government deliberately halted itself from so much as questioning spacecraft leaving or arriving on the planet.

Several decades before the Clone Wars, a political conflict between the high houses of Alderaan arose. This conflict, known as the Alderaan Ascendancy Contention, was the result of the inability of the great families (among them the House of Organa and the House of Antilles) to choose the next Viceroy of Alderaan. Three separate votes yielded no winner, and so the Alderaanians asked for Jedi mediation to resolve the contention. The Jedi, including Jorus C'baoth, considered the intricacies of the situation, and decided that House Organa bore the rightful claim to the throne.

Bail Organa was the leader of Alderaan and was on the planet when it was destroyed, while his heir and (secretly-adopted) daughter Princess Leia served as Senator of Alderaan in the Imperial Senate.

--Alderaan on Wookieepeedia.

Ergo, Alderaan was a democracy. The will of the people had a say in what was done. Unlike the Empire where only Palpatine and the Regional Governors had a say.