"There was a strong communist movement aboard, chiefly under Wilson's leadership. That fat demagogue! A lot of say his precious workers would have if he got what he wants!" (p. 105)
The italicized sentences are the thoughts of Evan Friday. Although set inside a multi-generational interstellar spaceship, this passage is authentic in two respects. First, there are demagogues like Wilson who use communist rhetoric to gain personal power. Secondly, there are critics like Friday who think like that about men like Wilson.
However, there is another possibility. First, each section of workers insists that they should be represented by a recallable committee. Secondly, those committees then send one or more recallable delegates to the Ship's Council. Full workers' representation and the end of any dictatorship by a man like Wilson. There should be at least one group arguing for this within the workers' organizations. Whether such a group would succeed against existing power cliques, including Wilson's, would remain to be seen.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The problem with recall elections is how unlikely they are to succeed. Recently, in the US, the bungling, corruption, and general idiocy of the left wing Democrats dominating California stirred up enough opposition to force a recall election of Governor Newsom--which he won!
I also recall how Lenin AND Trotsky crushed the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921 because some foolishly took seriously their lying propaganda about "All power to the Soviets." So I'm not so sure it would be that easy to dispose of demagogues like Wilson on the PIONEER.
Ad astra! Sean
To what Sean says, add in that anyone who gets elected -wants- power and wants it very, very badly, because electoral politics are an unpleasant occupation -- I've experienced them at several levels, and even most political addicts think so.
And if someone wants power very badly and gets it, they will do just about anything to keep it.
One of the virtues of monarchy is that it opens leadership to people who have not spent their lives working -- lying, scheming, betraying, often killing -- to get it. They were just born with it.
Sort of like what some ancient Greek states did, appointing leaders by lottery!
In that case, a genetic lottery.
NB: no matter what the system, people will 'game' it.
NB(2): Power is a positional good. The more one person has, the less others have -- and vice versa.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! The only thing that makes electoral politics, with all its grubbiness, tolerable is that it's better than simply shooting one's way into power.
Gavin Newsom and his Democrats certainly did everything they could to beat that recall election!
One problem with your comments about monarchy is that for it to work, the monarch has to be a reasonably able, stable, and decent person. What if he's a blundering dunderhead or a murderous tyrant a la Ivan the Terrible of Muscovy?
I recall your comments about the British and Japanese monarchies. Too simply put, in these monarchies the sovereign became the revered, august, and unifying symbol of the nation, with most of the actual, day to day governing being handled by prime ministers and shoguns.
That did not mean the king or emperor did not retain a good deal of influence--they did! And in the UK/Japan I think the monarch holds "reserved powers" to be used only in emergencies, when the politicians had so badly messed up the sovereign had to intervene.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: as Walter Bagehot, a shrewd Victorian observer noted, constitutional monarchy separated the "dignified" and "efficient" parts of the political system.
One good aspect of this is that nobody had to "revere" the actual politicians. This is a weakness of the American system, where the President is both an active politician and a national symbol.
The American founders' vision of the Presidency was an idealized version of a rather old-fashioned British Whig conception of the British monarchy, dating back to the time when the King was actually the chief executive.
George III had ambitions in that direction, but not much capacity, and in fact by his reign the legislature was in charge -- but this hadn't fully sunk into the general consciousness in Britain, and still less in the (culturally rather backward) colonies.
The British setup eventually made Parliament omnipotent. Which, once disciplined party structures were in place (a development of the 1850-1880 period) mean that the executive (the prime minister and Cabinet) were omnipotent.
But that wasn't the way they saw it in the 18th century, even when it was well along the way to getting there.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for these interesting comments. Yes, commentators have noted that what the authors of the 1787 US Constitution did was to set up a disguised elective monarchy, probably with the idea George Washington would be repeatedly elected President for life. And HE did manage to balance the "dignified" and "efficient" aspects of his office more successfully than many of his successors.
And I recall how, in the 1780's, as the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation became apparent, there was some support for the idea of the US becoming a monarchy, with either Washington or a foreign prince invited to become king. If Washington had not been childless, a serious effort at persuading him to accept a crown might have been made.
I mostly agree with your comments about the UK's political system. But I do think George III was not that incapable, at least not before his first bout of porphyria induced dementia weakened him. Before then he knew how to manage Parliament using patronage, and frankly, bribery in handling Members of Parliament.
Also, sometimes I wonder if too much power has been concentrated in Parliament, esp. the House of Commons. Would it be so terrible if the Lords and the Crown regained a small bit of their former powers?
One scenario I've thought of was of a PM becoming so obnoxious in the Commons that he loses a No Confidence motion and REFUSES to submit his resignation to Charles III. In that case I can see the king, after consulting the other party leaders and making a last effort to persuade the PM to resign and being refused, using his formal of dismissal to fire him. That might be one time most people would agree the king was right to intervene.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: I do think Parliament is over-controlling.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Thanks! Albeit, I don't how best to reduce this over concentrating of power in Parliament.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment