# The future of government in SF?



## zorcarepublic (Jun 25, 2005)

Okay, which form of government do you think is the most likely to work in science fiction universes? Democracy? Autocracy? Theocracy? Technocracy? Anarchy?

Personally, I think that we will continue to have a democratic model...


----------



## Stalker (Jun 25, 2005)

I wish we could but I fear that the likeliest is autocrathy.


----------



## zorcarepublic (Jun 25, 2005)

Why?


----------



## Stalker (Jun 25, 2005)

In my opinion, democracies also may remain actual... on planetary level. However, if we depict an Interstellar Empire, in such a genre as Space Opera, Empire (monarchy, autocrathy) seems the most effective way of ruluing such an Empire not specially caring about economic effects of interstellar transportation as democracies would probably did.
In general, in the long run, if humankind survives all shocks and shakes of history, our successor may whitness all sorts of governments changing one another in the endless succession. Sinusoid of historical development, my friend!


----------



## ajdecon (Jun 25, 2005)

Depends what scale you're talking about. In a wide-ranging universe, with many different planets and societies, I figure you'd see the whole range. Monarchies, democracies, quasi-anarchist worlds... Local conditions and population would determine the form of government, and there's really no way to predict it. 

On an interstellar scale, though, it depends on the ease of transportation. Is getting to the next system fairly hard? You'll have no government, mainly weak trade agreements; no way to hold anything else together. Only moderately possible, with months or years between visiting ships? You could only manage something like an Empire: local officials in charge reporting directly to the crown, because there's no way to send any representation or regular reports. Fairly easy transportation might get you something Republic-style, fairly independent worlds sending reps to the capital to decide on limited matters. You could only get real democracy, where the central authority figures large in individuals' lives, if planet to planet transport was as easy as driving a car from Florida to New York, or one European country to another. 

On the whole, I find the first case most likely; but it's never smart to argue against the "impossible"...


----------



## Calis (Jun 25, 2005)

go the Dictatorship.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 25, 2005)

Any fragmented distribution of humanity (ie, on other planets) is almost certain to result in factional idealism of "independence" and "freedom", creating a scenario ripe for conflict of one form or another - though possibly more likely under liberal ideals such as democracy, rather than under actual powerful autocracies.

I'd actually put my money on a theocracy being the most stable, presuming you could get the entire human species to subscribe to it - which history suggests is not necessarily likely without very active manipulation on a receptive citizenship.

2c.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 27, 2005)

Who knows. I couldn't predict what the future form of government in our world will be, but there are SF futures for every political type - libertarians, monarchists, fascists, liberals, Trotskyists and what have you!


----------



## zorcarepublic (Jun 27, 2005)

Okay, lets assume that transportation is relatively easy. You can travel between worlds in days or weeks (Honorverse-time)


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jun 27, 2005)

So a huge galactic community?

If travel is so easier (faster than light or whatever), then at such a huge size, you have to have an organising force. Thus it would often lead itself to your bog-standard democracy.

Of course, I have no real experience of living under any other type of government, so its hard to say. I guess its possible that if one person holds the secret to said mode of travel, they could well run a dictatorship. Though on such a scale the practicalities require a larger organising... organisation


----------



## fungi from Yuggoth (Jun 28, 2005)

zorcarepublic said:
			
		

> Okay, which form of government do you think is the most likely to work in science fiction universes? Democracy? Autocracy? Theocracy? Technocracy? Anarchy?
> 
> Personally, I think that we will continue to have a democratic model...



I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking what the future of government is likely to be in real life terms, or what sort of government is most likely in a Science Fiction universe? If it's the latter then I have to ask, what is a science fiction universe?

As for the question itself, the answer would have to be: 'Anything you want.' Asimov imposed an Imperial style of galactic rule upon his Foundation universe, as did Frank Herbert in Dune. Simmons envisioned a US style democracy in Hyperion, while LeGuin and Card thought that an ecumenical theocracy was more likely. Then you have technocratic machine run societies in Banks' Culture novels. Most of these author's, however, assumed a thing which has come to be almost a given in SF: FTL. In LeGuin and Card's case FTL was impossible, but instantaneous communication via the Ansible was. Now this is a thing that I have the most problem with in SF. There is nothing that I am aware in current scientific circles of that hints that FTL is anything other than a fantasy, and I think that this will turn out to be the major factor in shaping future intergalactic governments. 

Personally, I bleieve a loosely bound Theocracy is the most likely form of government. Democracy, and other systems that rely strongly upon communications and media control, are likely to remain planetbound.


----------



## Stalker (Jun 29, 2005)

Back to synusoid. Transportation is comparatively easy. Still the question of distance and economics remains quite important. In course of human expansion into the Galaxy we may expect all forms of governments on the distant worlds, even the most weird ones. Until the population and economic disbalance between the colonies and the Centre equalises the latter will be easy to keep the colonies in centralised rule - then separation and independence becomes inevitable. I cannot predict what form it will take - a peaceful one or the military. It depends upon various factors and the question on if the Earth in the conflict is a unified force or a bunch of competing forces, the other issue is still economy - space battleships yet to be constructed and their allowed by the rival-states of the Centre (as in the latter case). To achieve this economically, the nations of the Centre will have to have highly developed space infrastructure, mining facilities in space, cheap technologies of space construction etc.
All right wars of secessions have been successful. Earth is defeated. In that case, the economic crisis related to the consequences of disintegration with the former colonies and military defeat may push the Earth into the chaos of revolution. Think what a monster will rise of the ashes of our long-suffering planet. As an option - another Empire. And Empires live as long as they expand. A new war is coming, a new ruthless enemy will threaten the new colonies. You may continue...


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jun 29, 2005)

I say Galactic Empire would be the best way to move forward because things can be kept under tighter control and there is no need to waist time in a parlament for something to happen, it happens there and then.


----------



## Stalker (Jun 29, 2005)

Aha! Some politicians of future world may think hard on this! The Empire would not care about our successors much though. I would not want that my great-great grandson to become a cannon meat for future star wars! Still, what can we do?


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jun 30, 2005)

i would much rather my future family to live under a galactic empire like that from sw then the universe of warhammer 40k.


To be a man in such times is to be amongst untold billions. it is to live in the crulest and most bloody ragime imaginable. Forget the power of technology and science. for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. forget the promise of progress and understanding. for in the grim dark future there is only war. there is no peace among the stars, only an eternity carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 1, 2005)

To the _brave new world_ then?


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jul 1, 2005)

lol


----------



## garreth Jacks (Jul 1, 2005)

are brave new world  

(song by Iron maiden)


----------



## Stalker (Jul 5, 2005)

borrowed Aldous Huxley's distopia of the same name


----------



## oliverez (Jul 8, 2005)

It's interesting that the type of government usually follows with the genre.  It also really depends on the story you want to tell.  My series starts out as fantasy with an Oligarchy of powerful mages, but as more sci-fi elements enter, the government gradually shifts to democracy.  A bunch of guards with spears can't defend a few despots against a populace that is discovering firearms.

In fact, the social unrest is one of the major plot devices.  Of course, it's all background in the fantasy world where the story takes place, but it definitely affects my characters.  There are several scenes where they get caught between factions on both sides and end up having to fight people they have no interest in hurting simply because it's the only way out (so far I've only finished book 1 - The Elder Staves).


----------



## Stalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Does that mean you are opposing technology (democracy) to magic (oligarchy, autocracy)?


----------



## oliverez (Jul 14, 2005)

That's what the smart money is on


----------

