Lit Why Even Rebel in the First Place?

I mean, say of the Empire what you will, but it managed to get close to the people in a way that the Republic never could. It made a lot of people and planets feel like they were a part of something greater. That's something the Old Republic never quite effectively managed to do, not without an external threat like the Sith Empires, the Hutts or the CIS in its twilight years. And even then, the cause was always 'fight for us, because at least we're not Sith/Hutts/Megacorps'.

Now space fascism isn't the only way to get people to participate in and support your government, I should hope... so what the New Republic should've done is gotten people more invested into the government. Keep the laissez-faire system as your cornerstone, yes, but add in some checks and balances that would both get people active in pan-Republic activities, willingly, and also make it so very hard for Imperial elements to subvert your New Republic. In Legends, the reason the Felpire managed to gain such a large traction is because the GA failed to come up with a solution to the Imperial Mission.

Templin Institute have a really great take on the New Republic as it should've been.

If you have 30 minutes to waste.

 

Genocide, Slavery, the Death Star
All of those were things that were worse than during the Republic.

 

Death Stars

Along with under construction Starkiller Base on Ilum and the Xyston-class Sith Destroyers on Exegol.

 

I'll say what I want about the empire. Space nazis.
Nazis are never the better choice.

 

Has it been confirmed that starkillers construction started during the empire?

although to say there is really a difference between the first order and palpatine’s empire is well it’s like saying there is a difference between eastern Rome and western Rome. The first order is the empire the people who ran the empire after palpatine “died” ran the first order. Or their children did.

but ya the enslavement of the Wookiees, Geonisians and several other species by itself means the empire was worse than the republic.

then you add on the genocide.

then you add on smaller things like no freedom of speech. And in literally no conceivable way is the empire better than the republic both new or old.

sure that enslavement may be representing like 2% of the galaxies population, but legal slavery of anyone is one person to much. Forget everything else.

I don’t really care if 95% of the galaxy doesn’t notice a difference. It really ****ing counts for that 5%

 

The empire had an ideology behind it, but it never really took root in the minds and hearts of the public. A government's durability is often less defined by its military power and more the emotional and filial loyalties it engenders. Very few people were willing to die the Empire, notably the Republic needed a clone army to fight for it, as not even the Sith could make the galaxy's denizens willing to fight a government they helped make more corrupt and rotten.

The New Republic did however inspire this sort of devotion. People were risking everything to join the rebel alliance and sacrificing a lot for it. It also lost it.

As you note the GA had no unifying ideological vision to invest the citizens of the galaxy's in its longevity.

Democratic countries do struggle with this though-because if you give people a choice, they might choose not to care.

If there's one long running political pathology in SW-its general apathy. For most people from Csilla to Nal Hutta-the government and fate of galactic history is something remote and abstract and utterly outside their control, so they don't care beyond what effects them locally.

TBH I think at a galactic scale its impossible to get this sort of investment and commitment. So you run into these perpetual problems-but by the end of Legends, there is an actual goal.

Galactic unification. Something the New Republic and its successor only adopted after resurrection.

 

In all fairness, the Republic needed a clone army because the CIS had a droid army already made and which could be replaced almost endlessly. There wouldn't really be time to raise and train a conventional army, and we do see plenty of militias and paramilitaries fight for the republic.

In fact, I kind of get the impression that at first everyone was expecting a straightforward war in which the Republic would have a numbers advantage, until the revelation of a united droid army totally flipped the script and made everyone too packed to think too hard about the Clone Army - either the ethical implications or just the "why was there a huge army just lying around?" factor - because it was what was needed to make the war not a curbstomp.

In fiction at least, from what I understand democracy actually tends to have more political buy in from the populace and support during wartime - since even if the war itself might not be popular, the act of participating in the government, even if just voting in the most lazy way possible, tends to make many feel like their government's war is their war, rather than the leader's personal conflict. Specifically, dictatorships tend to have a lot of buy in for the start of a war, but if it doesn't go well or drags on the people are more likely to turn on the government, while democratic societies tend to have less war weariness and fight on longer. There are some rather notable exceptions of course, hence why some democracies become autocracies, but it is worth noting that the overall pattern has been a shift from autocracy to democracy despite the longstanding legitimacy of many autocratic forms of governments

Very well stated. I think one of the primary themes of star wars, especially the prequels can be summed up with Jamilia's line "The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it." That the price of freedom is constant vigilance, but often people take their freedom for granted or become too cynically apathetic to try to fix things. That the Republic can work, if people are willing to put in the work to make it work, rather than trusting everything to charismatic dictators like Palpatine and Dooku.

 

On its own this is pretty meaningless. It’s only good in so far as that can be a material benefit to its citizens, and the Empire did no such thing.

This is a bit of a misuse of the word reactionary, because that term is wedded so strongly to our worlds slow trend toward more ‘progressive and democratic’ policies since the 1500s. If a country of a long liberal democratic traditional became a fascist dictatorship, would we really call the people asking for the return to the liberal order ‘reactionaries’?

Napoleon was also far more progressive than the aristocrats of the old Bourbon dynasty, unlike Palpatine vis-à-vis the Old Republic ruling class.

 

@Jedi Knight Fett - when Cal visits Ilum in Jedi: Fallen Order there is a planetary trench already around the equator. I'm reading that as Starkiller construction.

 

I'd say in later Legends, this had already occurred. As by the end of it, you have the Galactic Alliance Triumvirate, and prior what seems to have been a less than responsive GA government, but also the Fel Empire and One Sith.

Jacen Solo, Cal Omas, and Natasi Daala I think together propelled the GA on a course and the galaxy towards both the long term aim of galactic unification, and a tacit rejection that democracy was viable.

 

But the main cause of it was Yuuzhan Vong War.

 

Oh, without a doubt, I think that solidified that "democracy" meaning relatively loose and free flowing government was simply not going to function. So the galaxy both needed to be unified, and to be done so under a government that could protect itself and pursue its objectives.

 

I'll need to find it again, but I was recently looking up George Lucas statements about symbiosis in relation to Star Wars, and he at one point said that all kings and queens in Star Wars are intended to be democratically elected.

 

That was just a mining accident. Untested new equipment failed catastrophically, causing a major explosion. All this talk of a planet-killing space station is just dissident fearmongering. The Empire exists to protect people and maintain order. They wouldn’t build a weapon whose sole purpose is to destroy the very planets they govern. The very idea is ludicrous.

I’m obviously being facetious but it’s scary to think how many people believed that. For every person that rebelled there were a thousand people who kept their heads down and didn’t look at the Imperial flag flying in the sky.

 

Yeah....I love Legends, but there are some parts about it I definitely don't miss.

Also I kind of amused that democracy that worked great for thousands of years is suddenly "not viable" and the GFFA kept going for triumvirates and oligarchies which got corrupted and fell into civil war much faster.

Here you go:
https://writerbuddha.tumblr.com/ post/669678438413746176/the-jedi-order-and-the-republic
(Space added for weird formatting reasons)

Some bits that really stood out to me:
"As Lucas explains, this is exactly what the Galactic Republic, the galaxy-wide democracy is: a “symbiotic relationship,” a “symbiotic circle” of 100 000 star systems. “I wanted to emphasize the point that the Republic was a democracy” Lucas tells us, and the Queens, Kings, Doges, Duchesses “are all elected officials” and their titles are “a designation of a ruler, like president.” During the thousand years while Republic was functioning, the galaxy, the whole ecosystem, which is life itself - the living Force, both light and dark - was in "balance.”

"The Jedi Knights are guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy; their job is “to convince both sides to resolve their differences and not to go to war” and who “try to convince people to get along.” Thus, they are the guardians of symbiosis, shepherding the universe so they can all be one. And as a direct result, the allegiance of the Jedi Order is naturally to the Republic, to democracy and the Galactic Senate. The Jedi Order did not serve the Senate because of a political affinity of some kind, but because the unity of the galaxy in one gigantic democracy is the universal symbiosis realized, it is a galaxy governed by the principles of peace, freedom and justice, with the Jedi guarding these values. The Galactic Republic “prospered and grew under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the venerable Jedi Knights.” "

In particular, the way in which the spiritual and political are intertwined is interesting with the balance of the force itself reflected in the political state of the galaxy - corruption, greed, and conflict create the dark side that clouds everything. Nowadays the fandom consensus seems to be that the jedi became corrupted getting into politics and serving the republic, but with this it seems to be impossible to serve the force without getting involved in politics and helping secure galactic harmony. That the symbiosis of the balanced force is intertwined with the symbiosis of a healthy, functioning, and free republic.
If nothing else, hard to keep the peace without negotiating, which is really the basic essence of politics right there.

 

TBH I don't think Lucas thought his own worldbuilding through in that regard. Out of a galaxy of millions of worlds and thousands of civilizations, many non human that none of them would be non democratic.

Same with the "galaxy prospering under the rule of the senate"-that's not how Senates work. They don't rule, they represent. Especially at a galactic level, power would be distributed over many echelons. Add on a judiciary and executive and no one "rules" the way Lucas is using the term.

Just reading that paragraph and oh boy yeah Lucas clearly thinks in Mythic terms, but one he really is incapable of executing this(I expect that's the prequels' problem he's trying to do a mythic tale of tragedy and decline and it doesn't really gel with "trade disputes") and hasn't considered the implications of his own creation.

I think that really shows Lucas ambitions and his limitations and why its maybe best that SW fans cease treating his musings as gospel.

in-universe? I think the Vong war and the perpetual problems of Coruscant and the Core versus wealthier worlds that don't like Coruscant and the periphery(the rim) combined with the endless Jedi-Sith waltz.

 

I don't think it's a problem of his world building, I think the problem is people expecting Star Wars to have a kind of one-to-one translation into real politick. George's conception of the Republic, Jedi and symbiosis is no less aspirational and idyllic than Roddenberry's conception of the Federation. Or Tolkien's conception of Gondor after Aragorn is crowned.

Star Wars isn't supposed to be cynical. It's not Dune.

I think George would probably say the Sith were the devils whispering in the ears of people to sew corruption and discord long before Sidious rose to power. His whole thing with the light and dark sides is that they are representative of selflessness and selfishness. The Sith are selfish, and they encourage selfishness. Otherwise, it's kept in balance with selflessness. George works very broadly and built his world to also work with very broad archetypes and concepts. That kind of clear delineation makes it possible to tell the story he's telling without muddying the water so much that you can't really tell what is good and what is bad.

 

Bro, what is this thread?!?

I am greatly concerned with anyone who unironically supports the Empire. Sure, their fiction but a lot of the horrible things they do and believe in are rooted in real life extremism and authoritarianism. George Lucas was very clear right from the get go of the first movie: The Empire is bad, the Rebellion is good. Everything else is commentary.

 

Ah I always read it as strip mining the planet and later the first order made Starkiller. but both work

I am also confused where it comes from since in no book is the empire ever seen as good. Unless you think authoritarianism and fascism are good things before even looking at star wars

 

What we see says otherwise, though. We had people leaving the Core to go to the Imperial Remnant in Legends. In Canon, we're seeing Imperial loyalists embedded into the NR economy/political sphere that are willing to go suicide bomber-tier over their ideology. If it really was about money and power, as Hera says, then there's no way someone would literally get themselves killed over it. But we've seen time and time again. Disregarding the morality of the Empire, its pretty clear that people are willing to literally kill themselves for it.

Three things to address here. I won't do it in order. Yes, the New Republic/Rebellion did inspire similar devotion as the Empire. No, democratic countries don't really struggle with inspiring loyalty. The USA, UK, France, all liberal democracies with a founding myth that people have historically fought and died for. To what extent the canon NR died, we can't say, given that post-ST and even ST expanded universe content seems to be taboo even 4 years later. But we can confirm that it basically repeated the same mistakes of the late Old Republic, pre-Palpatine. Basically all too easily ignored, and people that were looking for a myth found it in Palpatine much as they did during the Old Republic.

Now, as to the Galactic Alliance in particular. It died because it became an autocracy, but one without any ideology to speak of. It had the trappings of the Rebellion. The Starbird, the X-Wings, the fickleness of the late OR (constant coups, unstable governments as a counterpart to the OR's Senate gridlock and corporate control) and at times it tried to exercise the government control of the Empire, but without any of the backing ideology. Daala and Niathal were autocrats for autocracies' sake, not for any ideological goal. Meanwhile Caedus was a quasi-Imperial return, ironically while the original Empire still existed. With all of this in mind, if the GA remained on the same path in-between LOTF and Legacy, its no wonder people shifted to a returning Empire. I mean, if you're gonna have a dictatorship, may as well have it be the seemingly more competent one.

Autocrats of varying stripes ironically benefit the most from political apathy. The most desirable outcome for a dictator is a moderately large supporting base, and for anyone not part of that base to at least not care enough to intervene against him.

 

And from a worldbuilding perspective this is fundamentally a mistake. Its why writers after Roddenberry abandoned his idyllic conceptions of what the Federation was-at least in part if not spirit. Tolkien describes what Aragorn does after LOTR in the appendices, the wars he fights and some of his policies as King. Lucas was interested in making a mythic tale about grandeur, tragedy and decline-something he firstly did not execute that well(despite the clear intent and effort), and secondly creates large wholes in the worldbuilding.

Again this doesn't really make any sense. He's not treating the Jedi, Sith and Republic as entities, factions or groups of people in a fictional world that have their own goals, motivations or ambitions. But as props for his morality play.

The Empire didn't have the outpouring of mass support after Palpatine died. Yes it had loyalists and die hards-but in a galaxy of quadrillions that means very little. Imperial upper echelons are a tiny fraction of its citizen population.

The GA's ideology seems to be an ideal of a galactic federal government-with teeth that can protect the people, enforce its laws and deal with disorder, external threats and crises. That was why it was founded after all. Caedus, Niathal and Daala regardless of their idiosyncratic political goals all operated under this framework-that a strong central government is good, opposition to it is bad. That is an ideology.

 

According to the TFA Visual Dictionary, it did force member worlds to democratically elect their Senators... a change from the Old Republic.

It didn't mention it for actual local governance, but at least with the Senate it's a big step in the right direction.

(and it's beside my point, but I think the monarch of Naboo is really just the same as say a U.S. president, they just called it a king/queen and had a fancy dress code)


EDIT:

@Darth Invictus - it's good to have a vision of an ideal society... especially in fiction. I'm glad the High Republic is finally showing us a Republic worth ruling the galaxy, worth fighting for, and worth the Jedi to explicitly ally with and serve it.

As for Legends... there was too much of a focus in the old Star Wars EU on pandering to the military sci-fi, "politicians are stupid, coups are fun and interesting and show the characters have spirit" pattern for drama and as part of cynical backlash to the PT at the time. I think it's best to leave Legends out of this discussion. Let's just say the GA was a mess of contradictions, inconsistency between authors (and sometimes even between books by the same author), and overall a flop both in-universe and out-of-universe.