Thoughts on the Fel Empire

Except, that's only in the Confederacy. There are no Heroes in the Empire. Every one who serves the Empire is serving evil because there's nothing good in the Empire. That's something that Lucas explictly shows. The galaxy moves from a pointless WW1 conflict where neither side has the moral high ground to a Black and White Good vs. Evil struggle in the original trilogy.

and that's a woefully naive, if not outright ridiculous view. Limited Institutions have Checks and Balances to prevent dictatorships from forming and to protect the common people. When the Republic is destroyed, the absolute institution of the Empire is invariably formed. The Fel Empire proves there's nothing good that can come from Empire since it EAGERLY jumps into the Sith's lap.

I don't know, being a Jedi Knight maybe she's not fascist scum and that Leia raised ONE decent child.

That's just ludicrous. Even if the Empire is run by a decent and noble human being, it should be destroyed. It's evil in the Institution and even if the Republic is run by an evil person, its still better than the Empire because the institution is good and protects better than an Empire ever could.

 

So let me get this straight: an Empire run by good people is evil, and a Republic run by evil people is good. That it? If the people passed off on you, anything you do is OK?

 

Because, ultimately, individuals in a right handled institution DON'T MATTER. The whole point of a government with checks and balances is to prevent the abuses of government. A President should not be able to order a guy off the streets murdered. A Emperor may never ever do anything evil but it doesn't matter what he does because the next guy can have an entire planet flame broiled.

The problem with the writing is its STUPID. It treats the Republic and GFFA like Jacen Solo was Emperor and it treats the Emperor like he's trying to restore a Democracy.

It doesn't work like that.

 

I think the latest revelations about the IKs point to them being the checks and balances and that role for them is built into the way the Felpire was formed.

I'm certainly not arguing that the Empire is a better system them the Republic/GFFA etc, but it is not wholly intriniscally evil. That it's gray is the point--30 issues later people are still talking about it.

 

Well said, GrandAdmiralJello.

All I can add is that empires have brought about some of the most beneficial additions to the growth of civilization. The influence of the Roman Empire in my own field of work - civil engineering - is just awe-inspiring.

As for the Star Wars Empire - as it was originally founded - it was evil, but it came into being because some believed it could bring about something better. Soontir Fel is a prime example of a good person who fought valiantly for the Empire because he believed it served to better the galaxy. I don't think he's ever wavered in wanting to protect the galaxy, but he had to find a different way to do it. Perhaps the Felpire is the ultimate expression of what he had hoped the Empire could have been.

 

I think the key to this whole situation is how the Empire goes from its current position with Jag as Supreme Commander, to the point where a Fel is Emperor.

Pellaeon in so many ways answered to the Moff Council, or at least paid them enough lip service to keep them contented and in line. He needed their approval on major decisions as laid out from Dark Tide: Ruin, through the Force Heretic series and into Revelation.

Pellaeon often strong armed the Moff Council, manuvered a strong ally to its head and had the political clout to make things happen. He largely controlled the military in the early Remnant as laid out in Spectre of the Past and on to Remnant based on reputation and loyalty.

I bring this up because Jag has none of those abilities, none of Pellaeon's political connections, none of Pellaeon's allies. For the most part Jag's powerbase might even come from within Chiss space(assuming the Chiss do join the Remnant proper at some point). He is more in need of an iron fist than Pellaeon ever was.

Jag would not have the respect of the Moff Council outside of maybe Lecersen(who I think has his own agenda). In fact he is probably resented by most, looked down upon becuase he was appointed by Luke. Add to this the question of how much respect Jag would have within the Imperial Military. Other than his bloodline, Jag comes with really no attachment or history with the Empire.

This is kinda why I suspect a play will be made at some point to consolidate Jag's power. He needs to have final say and won't want to be swayed by a thirty member Moff Council, or really give them any say on big Imperial decisions. This large 25 to 30 member council was really Pellaeon's undoing in the long run, so I think Jag will move quickly to attain the throne and thus take away any federal power the Moff Council may have.

 

GrandAdmiralJello:

I would contest any notion that the British Empire was democratic at all during its heyday. It was a monarchical oligarchy dominated by a struggle between old landowners and newer merchant nobility. It was certainly susceptible to the views of the people--witness the British withdrawal from the colonies--but that would have been impossible without a receptive élite in the Whigs.

The advent of true democracy (or rather, true representation) in the British system oversaw the dismantling of the imperial structure because it was more of a burden to the people than a benefit.

Excellent points. But even during the height of the British Empire it had the semblance of democratic institutions. The House of Commons gave the people a voice, even if not as directly as many would of prefered. But I concede that true democractic institutions didn't really gain prominence until the late 19th/early 20th century. The Empire was dismantled from a imperial form to the modern Commonwealth.

I disagree. I think he wishes he was an absolute despot. He is strongly limited by the power of the mofference. Whether this is a legal limitation or simply based on power politics is unclear to us at this time. You would be correct in saying he rules absolutely in exile, but that's not very helpful in characterizing the normal function of the Second Empire.

The exact scope of power posessed by the Moff Council is a bit hard to pin down. We know that they had to secretly apporach the Sith for an alliance, which leads me to believe that Fel's power was great enough that the Moffs had to tread very carefully.

I still like the idea of the benevolent and enlarged Empire in the Rim coexisting with the Galactic Alliance. John has made a point on several occasions to remind us that Fel's Empire was at peace with the Galactic Alliance. To the point that the Treaty of Anaxes was signed and Jedi Masters were common vistors to the Imperial Palace on Bastion.

Here's to hoping that the Felpire and Stazi's Alliance can work together to defeat the Sith.

--Adm. Nick

 

The best thing Jag has going for him at this point (aside from whatever thing DR is going to find in one of the myriad of holes in his back story) is that he's the only thing between the Moffs and the Hapans, the GA in various forms and Daala as the GA and personally. I'd throw Fett and the Mandos in there, but KT took her Barbies home for this round. As far as the galaxy knows, on top of allying themselves with a Sith Lord, the Moffs murdered a 5 year old. Luke probably wasn't exaggerating that much when he told the Moffs that it was Jag or a war crimes trial. The Imperial Mission as memorial to the not-dead Allana is a handy reminder to the Moffs of the alternative to putting up with Jag.

Jag is going to have to move fast, but more important than how does he consolidate power, is why? Luke maneuvered Jag into doing something that was anethema to him. Jag suddenly becoming a power hungry tyrant doesn't work for the character and it doesn't work for the sake of the story. In SW, good leaders are reluctant. Does Jag consolidate power to keep it from something worse? Preventing total anarchy?

 

Jag's a good boy. He'll do what he's told

I'm kinda wondering as well who's going to have the chief influence? Luke, Leia and Jaina or Soontir? I'm hoping for the unexpected here, but prepared for the obvious.

 

Personally, I am a great believer that Empires invariably lead towards exploitation and corruption. However, I am going to also point out that just because I believe Republican forms of government IF MANAGED PROPERLY are inherently superior, doesn't mean I'm going to say that Empires can't be successful. Despotism in one shape or another is the source of the greatest civilizations for most of the world's history.

The Roman Empire
The Chinese Empire and it's many Dynasties
The Persian Empire

The British Empire is actually a BAD Example because the British Empire IS a Democracy. Certainly, it had its affluence but Queen Victoria was an important figurehead with the real power having rested with Parliament since the Glorious Revolution. The Hereditary House of Lords may have still wielded tremendous affluence but the British Empire is a term for its affluence and expansive holdings rather than the form of government it was.

Basically, I have no problem with the idea that the Expanded Universe wants to forward the Fels as an alternative towards the GFFA but I also think that it's just insulting to Star Wars' themes to try and suggest that the Empire of the Fels is EQUAL to, let alone superior, to a Democratic Institution. It's just insulting to think that the Rebellion is something that fought for nothing but the destruction of Palpatine and they would have been happy to install someone like Luke Skywalker as the new Emperor.

That's an attitude that misses the entire point of Revenge of the Sith's Thunderouse Appaluse scene. The scene becomes merely about how it's bad Palpatine was the man in charge, not that he destroyed the Republic's Constitution and replaced it with an absolute monarchy.

Edit: AdmiralNick said my last bit.

 

Yes, Lucas said a benevolent Dictator was the best form of government.

However, I remind you that the Rise of the Empire is also based on the Fall of the Roman Republic which is presented as an explicitly bad thing. Palpatine incorporates elements of Nixon, Hitler, and (oddly enough) Caesar Augustus into his portrayal.

Fundamentally, it's still about Democracy.

 

Well the main philosophical argument for an Empire, or really for any form of Government at all, goes something like this:
***The people cannot always do for themselves what needs to be done. Whether it be for security, or peace, or justice, or progress, or science, or education, or infrastructure, or healthcare, or prosperity, etc. It is then the government's duty to take care of the people when they cannot take care of themselves, to protect and provide for the people when they cannot do that for themselves.***

I think Soontir Fel said he believed in the human-centric Empire because he believed humans were stronger, and that it was their duty to take care of the poor, weaker, alien species in the galaxy that needed human support in order to survive and be protected for their own good. Then he met Thrawn, a brilliant alien, and became disgusted by the Empire and its anti-alien prejudice. Then he later met up with Thrawn, and realized the Empire didn't entirely throw him and his ideas out because of his species, and Soontir Fel's support for the Empire and its underlying principles was reaffirmed: it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. Soontir just no longer believed humans were necessarily stronger, and aliens necessarily weaker.

Here's a quote by Ars Dangor, the man responsible for the day-to-day management of Palpatine's Empire:

Basically, the preferred form of government isn't Empire or Democracy... it's to have no government at all, with every sentient capable of taking care of itself. But the truth is that most people, in the GFFA and in real life, depend on others in order to survive and prosper. Until the day comes where everyone is able to take care of themselves without need of government, a government will be needed. Some times may call for a stronger and more centralized government (like an Empire). Some times may call for a weaker and less centralized government (like a Republic, or Federation, or Confederation, or Alliance, or Democracy). Of course the form of government with less state power and more individual freedom is always preferred, but that's not always realistic. Whatever the situation, a good government is a flexible and smart government... which helps the people progress towards independence and freedom from the government, and does not make the people more dependent on the government.

That's why I think it would be best to split the galaxy between the Galactic Alliance and the Fel Empire after the One Sith are defeated, to keep one another in check as well as having some long-term diversity and stablity in the galaxy, since either could easily be corrupted.

 

Exactly. When do the movies ever say anything about democracy, really? Padme isn't upset that democracy died to thunderous applause -- what's important is that liberty died. We never see Rebels talk about how they're fighting for a vote -- they're fighting for freedom. The evil is oppression and tyranny, not lack of elected representatives.

Not only do the films not really care about democracy specifically (they're interested in freedom, not the particular political structure under which it's gained), but the EU never has either. Mon Mothma is a self-appointed dictator running the Rebellion. She's an autocrat, not a popular-vote-getter. Popular vote never plays into the plot, except when the idiot citizens elect evil former-Imperial people to the Senate. It's all about presidents appointing their successors, and votes from within the Senate to select them. No one gives a damn about popular representation. Witness Tycho's statement in Mandatory Retirement: "We have elections? Do we get to vote?" He's not far off the mark at all.

 

Exactly. It's about the direction, not a frozen way of viewing people and government systems. Life is a journey. Everything is always in movement, nothing ever stands still, something is always changing, the galaxy is always in flux. It's about what direction you're going in that counts. For a Jedi, they are to be judged if they're progressing to the light side or not.

For a system of government, it's whether it's progressing towards freedom or away from it.

If Roan Fel's Empire was progressing towards greater freedom, and the Galactic Alliance was progressing towards greater freedom, then both are good governments doing all that they can do.

Roan Fel's Empire may be authoritorian, but it was seemingly progressing towards something better.

Then you have the democracy of the Galactic Alliance under Jacen Solo or Natasi Daala, which is progressing away from freedom. Or how about when Palpatine was still Chancellor of the Galactic Republic?

I would say Fel's empire is a better government than either Daala or Jacen's government, and Fel's empire is definitely better than Palpatine's democracy.

 

I remind you that the result of Augustus the Caesar's domination of the Roman Republic and transforming into the Empire were also mitigated by the fact that the Senate was still reasonably powerful at this time and formed a very efficient bureaucracy underneath him. Augustus Caesar's enlightened rule was certainly wise and powerful but it gave way to Tiberius who was his inferior in every possible way who gave way to Caligula and so on.

That the Roman Empire managed to survive a series of disastrous rulers in between the decent Emperors is a reminder that it had been built on incredibly firm soil but it would be absolute foolishness to ignore the fact that the expanded power of the Emperors and their largess contributed heavily to the crippling of the Roman Empire. Attempts to reverse its decay were also hampered tremendously by the fact that the corruption you indicate that Augustus dealt with, never really went away either.

Actually, my point is that it's the Galactic Empire. It uses TIE fighters, it has an Emperor, it has the same name as the organization and it was created from the Imperial Remnant. It's not the original Galactic Empire of Palpatine but it's certainly as similiar as the Byzantine Empire was to that of Caesar Augustus.

I don't necessarily think that the Fel Empire has to be baby eating bad. On the other hand, I don't think that treating it as a bit like the Soviet Union with the GFFA is a bad idea either. There's something to be said for being "uncomfortable allies" as opposed to the two being "different strokes for different folks."

Havac, are you typing that with a straight face? Seriously. You are actually stating that Padme, the girl who was obsessed with term limits and the girl from the planet where Sio Bibble says "We're a Democracy, the people have spoken" when threatened with genocide doesn't care about the fact it's a Democracy or not?

And seriously, there is no such thing as freedom in a monarchy. It's an impossibility. Only through having a voice and say in the government can freedom exist. The two are intertwined and I think trying to say that the Rebellion isn't about Democracy is bluntly, NEWSPEAK.

I.e. saying Freedom is Slavery. I.e. confusing the issue by stating something is the opposite of the truth and hoping it somehow sticks.

 

Padme might care. The movies don't.

The movies never go out of their way to establish that the structure of democracy is important. There are never people explaining why it's important that you have a vote, or why the Emperor is evil because he's subverting democracy. Lucas never has Padme rail against the fact that the people's will is not being expressed through their elected representatives (probably because they still had elected representatives under the Empire). He has her complain that freedom and liberty are gone. He never has characters explain that freedom and liberty can only be obtained under a democratic system of government.

And the only "newspeak" I see here is saying "freedom is impossible under a monarchy" and hoping it sticks. The English monarchy presided over one of the freest damn governments in existence over its entire history. You can have all kinds of civil rights and civil liberties, which is all freedom can really mean, under any kind of government.

You're confusing form of government with morality, rather than actual, you know, morality determining morality.

 

I respect your opinion, Havac, I'd like to give an actual reasoned argument as to why I disagree.

(I suspect you're saying to yourself "There's a first time for everything, isn't there?")

There are several scenes that seem to imply that this is definitely something that people take for granted, actually, Havac. I don't think that they ever directly state that the important of free elections and so on is absolutely important but I believe they go ridiculously far to point out that it is important and the opposite is something that is to be avoided at all costs.

* The conversation with Anakin and Padme is one that talks about the importance of negotiation and settlement that is reached through mutual compromise and respect as opposed to Dictatorship. This is more an indictment of dictatorial forms of government but the fact is that if you are opposed to dictatorship then really mutual consent of the people is the only other way to go.

* Sio Bibbles' passionate, if hypocritical statement, "We're a Democracy, the People have spoken."

* Padme's refusal to associate with a government that is controlled by business interests and betrayal of the Republic.

* The secret meeting of the Petition of 2000 is fundamentally about the powerlessness of the Senate and the expanding power of the Executive to eclipse it. If Palpatine gives back his emergency powers then he's not doing anything more than restoring the Legislative that is a Democratic Institution.

* Palpatine says "I love Democracy" and the naked HYPOCRISY of this statement is to show exactly what George Lucas thinks of Palpatine's viewpoints. That Palpatine is the enemy of Democracy.

* "The Day we stop believing in Democracy, is the day we lose it." A very telling sign Havac. One you'd do well to notice.

The association of the Republic with Democracy and Liberty is something that is pretty innate since a Republic is a democratic institution. The people elect representatives to enact their will. The Fall of the Republic can ONLY be construed as the Fall of Democracy because the Empire (an institution called "Evil" In the opening credits) is one that is not reformed. The Empire is DESTROYED at the end of Return of the Jedi rather than accepted as a good idea that is corrupted by Palpatine's inherent sliminess.

Again, there is no new Empire. The Republic, warts and all, is restored.

I think something called the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution would rather bluntly shoot down this argument. A very large amount of English blood was spent in order to cripple the power of the English monarchy. I say this as a person (like most people of British descent I suspect now) as someone with bloodkin to the late Charles II but the fact is that the whole importance of the Glorious Revolution was as soon as the monarchs attempted to restore some of the powers from the Pre-English Civil War, Parliament proceeded to kick their sorry behinds off the throne. The defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie more or less sealed that there

 

In actuality, Jello, I think that the movie version of George Lucas' Republic vs. the Empire of the Expanded Universe bears out what you're suggesting. Really, the Galactic Empire's claim to fame was that it was going to be a much stronger government that the disorganized Federation (a funny word that gets used in Star Trek a lot despite the fact that Starfleet is treated as the "Word of God" yet it explictly is a weaker form of government) that the Old Republic was.

I believe the classical form of government largely only existed to provide a certain degree of protection from outside forces through military strength. Later, around Hamurabi's time, it existed to enforce the law. The administration of Justice and Protection of Property are pretty much the foundations of all modern (and classical) government.

Of course, the view that the government should also provide a Dole to its citizens is not something that is new either.

While it fears weird to defend a Science-Fiction Fantasy version of the Schutzstaffel and Hitler Youth, the fact is that COMPNOR was actually very important to the Empire. The notion of High Human Culture was something that United effective seperate States into a single cohesive entity. The censorship, the political suppression, and so on was all very effective in creating an Imperial culture where no equivalent existed. The idea of "Core culture" being something that predated the Emperor is just plainly ridiculous from what we see in the movies.

Palpatine is the architect of Pan-Coruscantism (Imperial Center)

 

I'm not disputing the success of Caesar Augustus or even his predecessor. Julius Caesar and he were incredibly talented administrators that learned the value of populism that most rulers took for granted until the 20th century (when it became the key to dictatorship acquisition---which is one of the flaws of Democracy)

Augustus, frankly, made very few mistakes in his lifetime. One of them was the fact that he attempted to keep the Imperial Seat within the family lineage. The attempt to keep it within the House of the Julii kept hitting the group in the face.

By the time of Claudius, really, no one had yet established a good system for replacing a fallen Emperor and the fact is that no one ever really did. Too much power was concentrated in the seat and the seeds for the Roman Empire's fall were already lain.

I'm a fan of Republicanism versus Straight Democracy anyway. The Masses should choose from Elites in mind and charisma to lead them. While power was restricted to a certain rank, I'm not disputing the Senate's own infighting and jockeying for power played a role in the collapse of the Empire.

I'm simply pointing out that systems which rely on one man tend to lead to despotisms and eventual incompetance when they do not have someone who can lead as effectively as the original.

Given they are the granddaddy of all smackdowns on monarchs, from Edward the First to Prince John to the English Civil War to Glorious Revolution, to the Colonial Rebellions, are they really a good example?

While the position seems extreme. It's merely a point of reference. Under the Mongols, you might have total "freedom" so long as you pay your tithe. Yet, if you miss a tithe, they kill you without recourse. There is no way to resist this fundamental law.

Is that really freedom?

It's a legitimate point, I believe that true freedom requires some form of recourse against abuse of power.

To bring this back to Star Wars, I think that we're already seeing cracks in the Fel Empire. Roan Fel's desire to use the Sith Talisman being one and the fact he's already persuaded Ganner to support him unevocably despite the fact that his Praetorian Guard is supposed to wield assassination power over him (or Tyranicide if I may cop a term from the Roman Republic).

The fact that Roan Fel's Empire is really in the hands of the Sith due to the fact that he suffered a military coup'de'tat is not something I'll use to reinforce the point I'm trying to make. Frankly, anyone can be overthrown militarily and blaming the Imperial System for that ignores all the Democracies throughout history that have suffered similiar fates.

I just think it is a poor message to send to have the daughter of Princess Leia, her only surviving child no less, marry into the Imperial Household.