Poul Anderson presents a rich account of the complexities and conflicts of Hermetian society as he does with other colonized planets in the Technic History, particularly Aeneas, Avalon and Dennitza.
Christa Broderick, leader of the Hermetian Liberation Front:
"'I have heard many a Traver say that he or she is quite happy with things as they are. But ask yourselves: Is this not a subtle slavery in itself? Are you not being denied the right to tax yourselves for public purposes chosen by your democratically elected representatives?'" (p. 188)
Travers (workers) can be conservative as well as Liberationist. Too right. Reformers have to argue their case among their own class.
Grand Duchess Sandra Tamarin-Asmundsen, head of state:
"'I've lost more time out of my own life than I like to reckon up, listening to the self-pity of the Liberation Front.'" (p. 193)
Sandra calls the Front self-pitying. Broderick calls the aristocracy decadent. We recognize the language of political conflict.
"...the Liberation Front had gained strength. Much of [Sandra's] reign had gone into a search for compromises. Principally, Travers now had a vote in choosing municipal officers. Broderick and her kind were still maintaining that this was a mere sop; and they seemed to make even more converts." (pp. 190-191)
Compromises, sops and, despite all the aristocratic and commoner opposition to it, a growing movement.
"If [Followers] had by birthright a single vote each in domain affairs while every adult Runeberg had ten, what of it?" (p. 185)
What of it? Well, quite a lot, I would say! Further changes will happen.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I felt revulsion for Christa Broderick! Far too many times, since the Cromwellian and French revolutions, we have seen fanatics, demagogues, crazies, or cynical opportunists shrieking "Power to da peepul!" as they manipulate the deluded or gullible to grab power for themselves as tyrants! No wonder I'm so skeptical and suspicious of such creatures.
Ad astra!
Sean,
And there will continue to be movements for democratization as long as there is a class with ten votes each, a class with one vote each and a class with no votes. That issue has to be addressed before discussing the motives of individual leaders like Broderick.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
There are always going to be "classes," because human beings are not similarly or "equally" endowed in talents, virtues, circumstances of life, etc. Or even vices!
No objection in principle to extending the franchise, despite me not believing in fetishizing voting. Also, many people never bother to vote.
Ad astra! Sean
It's been remarked that envy is the only one of the Seven Deadly Sins that doesn't even give you momentary pleasure when you indulge it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I should have remembered that! I suspect it's one of the unadmitted motivations of Christa Broderick and many of her followers.
Ad astra! Sean
Sure. Anyone who wants to right wrongs like an inequitable voting system or, for the majority, a no-vote system can be accused of envy.
Oddly enough, when the US government was drafting the 18-20-year-old sons of working people to fight and (often) die in SEA in 1965-73, it was seen as a bad idea to ask young men who were not old enough to drink or vote legally to lay their lives on the lines for a rather murky "cause."
Amazing how recent that was ... Mr. Stirling, at least, is old enough to have lived through it. Anderson, as well.
"Fortunate sons" remain a thing.
Kaor, Paul!
No, envy and malice are real, so I can see demagogues playing on those things.
Disagree, because, like it or not, those who did not have the franchise on Hermes were also not taxed. To me that is still something!
When I recall how many people don't care about voting and never vote, well, I get skeptical about this obsession with voting.
Maybe something like what we see in Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS could be tried out. Those who want to vote should first do tough public service for two years, either in the armed forces or equivalent civilian service.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Envy is real but it is not the job of the well-off to preach to others about it!
To me, democracy means a society in which everyone can participate in discussion and decision-making. People certainly vote in large numbers when they perceive that they will be affected by the outcome. The Scottish National Party mounted a massive Independence campaign yet an even larger number of people did not campaign. They simply voted no to independence! People become demoralized and stop voting when their experience tells them that it makes no difference. In Britain, people occasionally vote the Tories out, then become disillusioned with Labour and go back to not voting, letting the Tories back in. I have become radically disaffected from that two-party Parliamentary system over my lifetime but would still defend it against anyone trying to set up a dictatorship.
It is officially recognized that we all have a right to literacy and to access to TV. Care homes must have a TV. People must be able to read newspapers and to see TV news (or hear a radio) if they are to vote. That is a minimum but we need much more public involvement. That comes when people experience the difference that it makes.
Paul.
I really do not get that "You want a vote? You can't have it but be grateful that you are not taxed!" argument!
Kaor, Paul!
I have some sympathy for your ideals, but I don't believe human beings, flawed and corruptible as we all are, are ever going to completely approach them.
I believe a stable two party system is the closest, in practical terms, that a large scale democracy can approach.
The general view seems to that Labour will win the next general elections. After being so long in office I think the Tories have become tired and stagnant. Some time being the Opposition would probably be good for them--esp. if Labour goes crazy and outrages too many people!
I think it's correct to say the Grand Duchy of Hermes was founded by libertarians with a mercantile cast of mind. That is, it began as a large number of private companies evolving into domains where voters seems to have been originally stock owners. That was probably how some voters could have more than one vote.
But this probably wouldn't work in real life--too much room for malice, envy, demagoguery!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: several of the Founders remarked that if men were naturally good and cooperative, government wouldn't be necessary.
Who was it who remarked that the clinching argument against systems like Plato's REPUBLIC was not that all men were so virtuous that they deserved the vote, but that -no- men were so virtuous that they could be trusted with arbitrary power over others?
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, which I am so skeptical of all kinds of political Utopianism.
I don't know who said that bit about how no one could be trusted with arbitrary power over others, but I agree with him.
Ad astra! Sean
Power should always be accountable, not arbitrary.
Post a Comment