political terminology

[springs]

I have a totalitarian regime which is, hopefully, going to evolve over time to a democracy. At the moment the regime covers a range of planets (about 40) and I envisage the planets either becoming wholly democratic, or being linked to 12 central planets with a linked governance to their lead planet; the lead planet being one of the twelve.

Is this devolvement or secession? Or something else....

I have 10 years to achieve the change with the head of the empire actively seeking to achieve it. Realistic or too short?

[Ursa major]

Regarding timescales: to some extent, it depends on how the state is already organised. Do the Twelve already have some ability to manage their own affairs in some policy areas? Does this include having dependant planets that take their lead?

If the structures allowing independent action already exist, different planets will develop differently and at different rates.

Try looking at the way different Warsaw Pact (and Comecon) countries were governed (e.g. Hungary as compared to the DDR). And also note that what an outside observer could have seen as a phony internal structure in the USSR - because the Union Republics were window dressing and everything was controlled from the Kremlin (or the Lubyanka), wasn't it? - developed almost overnight into fifteen more or less independent countries.

And something else you could see in the changes in Central and Eastern Europe: often the superstructure of democracy was put in place quite quickly; the development of democracy's healthy roots, and the creation of a civil society outside the control of the state, can take much longer. (And then there are those who just want to make a huge fortune....)

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by springs1971

I have a totalitarian regime which is, hopefully, going to evolve over time to a democracy. At the moment the regime covers a range of planets (about 40) and I envisage the planets either becoming wholly democratic, or being linked to 12 central planets with a linked governance to their lead planet; the lead planet being one of the twelve.

Is this devolvement or secession? Or something else....

I have 10 years to achieve the change with the head of the empire actively seeking to achieve it. Realistic or too short?

The historical example that springs to my mind is the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of the World War 1. In which steps were taken by the Imperial family to break up the Empire before they were forced to. (Have a look on Wikipedia for loads more on what happened).

The Emperor at the time, Charles 1, recognised the dissolution of the Empire and the right of the people to determine the form of the state they wanted (Note moral issue: would it be wrong to force people to become democratic? Surely they must be offered the choice? What if they don't want to be democratic?)

Interesting that the head of the Empire is also putting him/herself out of a job in your scheme!

As for 10 years being too long or short. If the peoples have generally no real knowledge of democracy and there is no culture of some of the basics (say free speech) etc... then 10 years would probably be far too short, and they'd probably be messing it up. On the other hand if they have been repressed and all came from societies of democratic flavours, then perhaps it would be quite easy to bounce back.

[David Evil Overlord]

But a story of those with no real knowledge of democracy messing the whole thing up could be interesting, too.

[Abernovo]

Both Ursa and VB give valid historical examples. Ursa's last, parenthetical, sentence is particularly true. A lot of wide boys were interested in making fast money, but that was more to do with the imposition of almost unrestricted market rules rather than political reform (although exacerbated by lack of political oversight in the changes).

However, getting back on topic - I think what you're looking at is devolution of power from a central government rather than secession, which is one (or more) of the planets resigning from the 'coalition'. From devolution, a planet could then become independent, but opt to remain in the coalition, in a similar way to ex-British Colonial states became independent and have chosen since to remain in the Commonwealth. I know at one point, it was not a choice, but almost an imposition required for independence; however, Commonwealth states now have the choice to remain members or leave.

As to ten years? Such changes have been achieved in the past, but not on the multiple planetary scale. Still, this is in the future, so communications, travel, etc., will hopefully be improved. It also connects to DEO's comment. In 10 years, it might not be 100% complete, so the prospect of people making mistakes, others taking advantage and any remnants of the old regime trying to sabotage progress could make for a very interesting story.

[Hex]

I think there's another aspect, which is that totalitarian regimes -- certainly before contemporary technologies -- don't exist in a vacuum. There is often an erroneous assumption that a single dictator, along with a corrupt government of a few people, is holding down an entire country of opponents who are just aching to throw off the shackles of totalitarianism and embrace democracy. They're not.

To have a regime that actually functions (however much you choose to argue regimes like late communism actually did) you need to have support from people. People will often support a system that offers stability and safety over uncertainty (all that stuff about the trains running on time matters) and structures develop that benefit people -- so there was a lot of stuff about how under Stalin a middle class developed whose interests were, naturally, to maintain the status quo.

I think (for what my opinion's worth) that we often get sucked into believing that totalitarian regimes are evil and terrible and no one except evil people supported them because after they've fallen, no one wants to have supported them. But people live in the situations they find themselves in -- they make the best of things so that they can feed their families and keep their children safe. After the regimes in Eastern Europe fell, quite a lot of (older) people were prepared to demonstrate to indicate how much they missed Communism (and others didn't demonstrate, but they disliked the changes -- even people who were positive found it difficult to live on $200 a year which often didn't actually get paid). I could go on about this at (even more) length, but I'll spare you.

My point (knew I'd get here eventually) is that a regime that works -- that's not constantly putting down uprisings etc -- has structures and genuine support. Almost everyone who's trained to know how the education system or food distribution works (for example) is likely to be part of it -- you can't sweep away the old regime without sweeping away most of the knowledge and experience that makes it possible to run a society.

And as far as 'devolved' is concerned -- I think it's a bit of a technical term. Could you replace with 'start ruling themselves more independently' or something more explanatory?

[springs]

I think devolvement is the term for what he wants to do in the first place; take central government and allow certain aspects to be ruled locally. It's certainly what we call it in N. Ireland. (although quite what they rule locally remains a mystery to the inhabitants, it's certainly not an education system. Or health. Or roads.... *small rant over*)

In terms of the change; he takes the position to stop the previous structures falling and a power struggle emerging, so it is a case of maintaining the status quo. At first. But over the space of the years, he wants to move it to dissolution. But you're quite right, it's not just a case of poof, there you go, enjoy yourselves.

So, in terms of how to start the process is devolvement the right way to go: the gradual handing over of plenary powers? Because he is going to start the process, I just don't want an absolute hash of it made.

Actually, having it sort of half and half and quite messy at the 10 year stage would be the best outcome for the story.

(VB, he's quite happy to do himself out of a job... this isn't all altruisic...)

[psychotick]

Hi,

First yes this is a devolution of power.

Second however, my thought about the time scale is that it seems remarkably short. I suppose it depends on the state of the country / world / people prior to the devolution of power from a centralised totalitarian structure. If there was in fact a lot of the structures of democracy in place prior to the devolving of power, and the people were ready for it, then yes, maybe. But if not then no.

Consider the Bosnia mess. The loss of a strong unifying regime to hold everything together, created a vacuum. And into that vacuum rode loads of prejudice and historical gripes. The result, war, ethnic cleansing and UN peacekeepers.

Consider Africa, most of the colonialised countries. They weren't ready for independance and democracy, so you ended up getting totalitarian regimes in some places, Zimbabwe, and long running tribal wars elsewhere, Kenya, the Congo. And now forty, fifty and more years on, some of these countries are still basket cases.

One wonders where Afghanistan and Iraq are going to end up shortly.

Cheers, Greg.

[Jammill Khursheed]

psychotik makes a good point... The vast majority of the time breaking up dictatorships or gaining independence results in civil war (Bosnia, America after they got rid of us British, the Boxer rebellion in China with the fall of the Emperor) or at the very least the states breaking down into smaller nations (The Chzec republic and Slovakia.)

Plus if they are that oppressed by the regime relations with the former ruling power would end up very strained at the least and possibly lead to wars and skirmishes against them (Georgia and Chechnya come to mind instantly.)

It seems like a MASSIVELY interesting idea though, a sci-fi devolution epic is something I don't remember hearing of before, and I know cos its exactly the sort of thing I'd look to read if I had...


Jammill

[Glitch]

History gives you many examples to look at. Compare devolution of the UK to the fall of the USSR or the government in Egypt. Iraq and Afghanistan had help from a foreign power who had the infrastructure and people to carry them.

Also in your story you had a form of mind control from the former leader, a bliss like feeling. People may miss that feeling and want it back without realising what that would mean.

I think you will have people keen to assert themselves in your new political system for very different reasons. Some will want to help change, others will want to ensure their own survival. The affluent will want to keep their positions and wealth.

Could be an interesting story to write in a group. Each author will want different outcomes for their planet, much like the politics.

[springs]

I like the bit about the missing mind powers, Glitch, and had started to explore it, so I might see how much legs I can add to that, but it definitely gave her an advantage..

Jammil, I fear I will disappoint - it is the backdrop as opposed to the central part of the story, but it is the general idea, I'm just possibly the wrong writer to make it as dynamic as it needs to be....