"If the king, for example, or the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, took it into their hearts that parliamentary government had outlived its role and that parliament should be replaced by a dictatorship, the king or the commander-in-chief would very swiftly come under observation by the Constitutional Protection Unit."
-Stieg Larsson, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets' Nest (London, 2010), CHAPTER 12, p. 293.
A contemporary thriller can show a conspiracy to overthrow democracy but not a successful conspiracy. Sf is not limited to the here and now. In Robert Heinlein's Future History, an attempted military coup is defeated but later an elected President establishes a theocracy, becoming the First Prophet. In John Wagner's Judge Dredd, the Judges overthrow democracy in the name of the Constitution. In Poul Anderson's Starfarers, a military coup is successful so that henceforward every newly elected President has a permanent unelected Adviser. Sf authors continue the discussion and speculation into alternative futures.
14 comments:
With regard to the Constitutional Protection Unit bit, I would add: “Unless their first action is to have everyone in the CPU killed.”
It’s the old “mice want to bell the cat” thing.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: or "Who will guard the guardians?" I forget the exact Latin original.
Paul: I have to disagree with this: "A contemporary thriller can show a conspiracy to overthrow democracy but not a successful conspiracy." MANY democratically elected gov'ts have been overthrown by precisely similar plots.
And I am sorry Robert Heinlein never wrote that story about Nehemiah Scudder, "The Stone Pillow," that we see on his Future History chart. I know he disliked both evangelical Protestantism and Scudder himself, but I wish he had written it.
Hmmm, if the Solar Commmonwealth had not become so DISCREDITED, would Manuel Argos have become the "Adviser" telling SC Prime Ministers what to do in the Technic series?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, staying within the bounds of contemporary fiction, Larsson could not have described a successful coup in Sweden. If he did that, then the novel would cease to be contemporary and become alternative.
Paul.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Kaor, Paul!
I did think Larsson statement about NO successful conspiracy would or could overthrow a democratic gov't in Sweden irritatingly complacent! I also had in mind how an Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, set herself up as dictator, a few years before her assassination.
Re "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes," that's it!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that Larsson was just explaining the role of the CPU, not claiming that it would always be successful in preventing a coup.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with the SKEPTICISM Stirling expressed for such things. Who will guard the guardians?
Ad astra! Sean
The basic reason that the violence specialists don’t rule the Western nations is “they don’t want to”. That’s the only one that works, really.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, it boils down to our military not wanting to rule. And there can be varied reasons, of course, for that disinclination of the violence specialists doing the hard work of governing.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: correct.
As an aside, why would anyone want to rule the world? Too much like hard work.
The only convincing motivation for someone wanting to do that is that they have some driving purpose they want to use the power -for-.
In Garth Ennis's THE BOYS, the superheroes (1:1 parodies of Superman etc) are powerful enough to take over the world but see no reason to. They like it the way it is. When something eventually tips the big guys over into attempting a coup, it is a disaster.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, there are pleasanter ways of spending one's days than in bickering with pols, cracking the whip over recalcitrant bureaucrats, and reading and annotating reports!
So I can see why sensible violence specialists, at least in the West, are content to leave that kind of hard work to the king, president, or prime minister.
Some people want to rule because of lust for power, ego and ambition, or because they have ideas and policies they believe in, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
The problem with smash-and-grab is that you may end up smashing what you intended to grab.
Eg., the barbarians who invaded most of the Roman Empire in the 5th century wanted to take over a going concern; but their intervention destroyed the system they wanted to milk. When things settled down, the prize was gone — early medieval Europe had regressed to Iron Age levels of productivity and population.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
The Goths, during their rule of Italy, came closest to achieving that goal, but eventually failed. For one thing, they were unable to prevent the Eastern Empire from reconquering Italy. But the long struggle they put up against the Byzantines went a long way to wrecking Italy. The rest of what was once the Western Empire sank to the kind of barbarism you described.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment