SubTrek: Egalitarian Societies with Ranks

How do you build consensus, decide on social movement and actually DO anything as a group if you’re all equal and of equal power? How do you do the actual policy of politics?

Let’s start with the First Contact line: "We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” 

I think the idea is that every citizen of the federation feels themselves a part of it in a direct way, personally responsible for moving it forward in whatever way they can, and equally sharing in its successes. All citizens contributions are equal, regardless of if your contribution is continuing the traditions of creole cooking (Sisko's Dad) and French vinting (Picard's brother), writing news articles about your dad (Jake), or committing horrific war crimes (Sisko). Even the greatest character of all, Reginald Barclay is still a citizen encouraged to contribute everything he can, despite only having his pornography addiction to contribute to federation society. (Reg does get jerked around a bunch before coming to the enterprise tho, implying that not everyone is in full agreement about the whole, everyone counts thing)

To be honest, that sounds really good to me, but that things are going great for the people its going great for is something of a trivial observation. What about the people on the outside, or the people who disagree, or the people who just aren’t that useful?

So, let's first take as an assumption that the federation really is broadly egalitarian. People seem to respect star fleet officers but most civilians don't seem to go much past fondness and occasionally mild irritation. O'Brien's father was disappointed when he shipped out, as it would have been preferable to Papa O'Brien for him to be a musician. And even once Papa O'Brien came around, it was Mile's accomplishment and work that won him over, not any patriotism and crucially not O'Brien's extensive war record. Civilian/independent spacers seem to think of star fleet as tiresome sticks in the mud and nerds. Overall hardly 'Thank you for your service' veteran worshipping.

Now, if everyone is broadly equal in societal influence, even the people with direct control of giant starships of physics breaking power, the question becomes what does a disagreement look like? And I think it looks mostly like constant debate. and sometimes unilateral action that is then morally justified or condemned after the fact. 

In “The Drumhead” (TNG) and "Paradise Lost" (DS9) we see that the federation has elements within it that are very happy to employ authoritarian tactics. And are given the resources to do so without question. That said, so is their opposition, Picard suspends the trial in "The Drumhead" Sisko changes sides on the coup on Earth once he sees it's going too far and puts a stop to it. In both cases, the conflict is depicted as a debate over the nature of federation society. I think this is the key to their society. Each individual citizen not only feels a part of and responsible for moving their society forward but they believe they have the power and responsibility to define their civilization. And where they disagree they must stand on their principles, possibly unto death. (The utter speed to which starfleet officers will resign in protest is ridiculous, and Sisko's Dad in Paradise Lost refuses medical testing from the government without a moments hesitation, leaving the starfleet officers trying to test him with no choice but to…ask him a second time). Power structures are existent, but porous. Easily moved by conviction, for good or ill. 

In "For the Uniform" (DS9) and "Star Trek: Insurrection" (TNG) and "Inter Arma Silente Leges" (DS9) we see a bit of how the Federation responds to threats. And it is overall to allow the authoritarian elements that unilateral action and hope no one notices or complains. Sisko poisons a whole world in "For The Uniform" but ends the Maquis conflict. He only asks permissions once it's done and has worked and he receives no discommendation for it. in Insurrection, Starfleet orders Picard out of the system again and again, because they know how he'll react and they want him gone before he makes trouble. "Inter arma Silente Leges" is basically just the title. 

There's another thing about those three stories that make them different from Drumhead and Paradise: The people being oppressed are not Federation Citizens. Maquis, Ba;’ku (I don't care enough to look them up), and Romulan respectively. So they get rights when a federation citizen chooses to speak for them. Because again, the power structure is porous to citizens. But this does mean their personhood is matter of debate. Picard feels all sentient beings have the same rights. Sisko thinks all sentient beings are fine provided they stay out of his way. In the end of Insurrection, the Federation has to let go of a miraculous medical technology that could save billions of lives because of Picard's moral convictions and because of the moral convictions of the Federation (that day). But a week earlier they had no problem with forced relocation and colonization of the very same people.

It's actually a point to me in favour of the federation that all of its citizens seem to be engaged in a constant debate about what the federation, star fleet and each individual person is for. A sort of endless horizontalism where the oxford forum meets a Maoist struggle session. But yeah, they are an empire amongst empires, and while they are kinder (most of the time) than others, they are only as good as the citizens you meet.

There’s a basic assumption about Star Trek that its society is utopian, and so the writers need to keep it undefined. This is how you can have people calling the Federation communist, liberal, imperialist and everything in between. Essentially, whatever your ideal society is, you can imagine the Federation being that.