89 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

It's both internal and external, but that's a different discussion for another day.

[Xilizhra]

Eh, this is a Council thread, and your ideas are at least interesting.

[Urazz]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

The TC has a logical conclusion as to why the Council remains inactive. That and of course Shepard's continual lack of evidence about the Reapers.

He did have some evidence actually.  Vigil on Ilos was evidence but he shut himself down after giving Shepard the warning pretty much.  Then there was Soveriegn's wreckage but that was scavenged by the other races and the keepers (for repairs to the citadel I'm guesing.).  There is also the fact that you would think the council would trust the testimony of one of their spectre's as evidence enough to at least investigate matters more.

[Dean_the_Young]

What makes you think they didn't investigate? The fact that they didn't come to believe you?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:03 .

[General User]

I think a key factor in reforming the Council is to limit their authority. As a general rule of thumb, the Council should be limited to those factors that affect EVERY species, and not matters between species.



So the administration of the Citadel and the Relay Network would be a matter for the Council, but disputes over, say... colonization rights, would be resolved in another fashion.



Convening and structuring multi-lateral conventions on the use of things like WMDs would be a Council responsibility. But they should have no power to enforce those conventions, since a violation would be a matter of one party vs. another, or even an internal matter of a signatory party (like on Taetrus).



The Council should also have no military, including the Spectres. Every power/empire/nation/colony should look to its own defense, in whatever fashion it feels is most appropriate, while contributing to unified independently commissioned commands to defend sites of joint galactic significance, like the Citadel itself, or Ilos.



Finally, and perhaps most importantly, representation on the Council should be based NOT ON RACE, but on nationality. There should be a British representative, and a Chinese representative, and an Elysium representative, and a Serrice representative, and a Taetrus representative, and a Mannovai representative, and a Clan Urdnot representative, and an Illium representative, etc. etc. etc.

[Dean_the_Young]

Meh. I'd be happy with a UN structure (by faction, not race), with a a bi-cameral style similar to the US Congress (one part favoring population and demographic size, the other giving equal weight by faction and letting smaller races/groups not be completely overwhelmed by larger factions). Not a direct analog, and with more powers invested in the proportional side than the one-group-one-voice side, but something that, while reasonably favoring larger powers, doesn't outright ignore the smaller ones.

Definitely a talk/negotiating shop, and not a government of the powerful, by the powerful, for the powerful.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:33 .

[General User]

For the Council, I’d favor a UN-style structure of ambassadors vice a US style elected legislature, if for no other reason than the UN structure is meant to accommodate non-republican forms of government, such as the krogan, or the salarians, or even the turians (to an extent) possess.

Each body would choose its ambassador/representative in whatever fashion they feel most appropriate. If an asari city-state, wants to hold an election, and a human colony wants to hold a confirmation hearing, and a salarian dalatrass want to pick her favorite daughter, etc. so be it all.

I agree, the Council’s proper role in the galaxy as one of providing structure and guidance, not governance. So, as long as vital day-to-day functions (like C-Sec, and traffic control) are in the hands permanently chartered commissions and not the full Council, I even have no problem giving every Council member (no matter how many there are) veto power.

Modifié par General User, 06 décembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

The main problem with a strictly faction-based approach is that it strongly favors artificial separation over any sort of unified front: the Asari, for example, have proven able and willing to speak with one voice, but if you give each city-state an equal voice with, say, the Ambassador for the Turian heirarchy, a singular government, or the Alliance, created by the earth nations for the purpose of speaking for them, the Asari front is going to be disproportionately huge.



But no fears, no democracy demanded of the participants. It's just a model for simaltaneously giving more weight to the bigger powers while protecting the interests of the smaller.

[General User]

Favoring separation is kinda the idea! I want individual nations, planets, colonies, empires to be independent of each other. While at the same time providing a structure that encourages disputes to be resolved peacefully.



But, like I said, any and every Earth nation, or human colony would send a representative to the Council. As would each turian political unit, as would every volus clan, etc. However a species chooses to organize their society, every sovereign political unit would/should have representation on the Council.



Given the Council’s history, I say it is much more important to limit the damage they can do than to empower them to strive for ANY ideal, especially one as vague as unity; which is why your concern about large powers overpowering small ones is so very, very valid.



I contend that giving every member-state on the Council the veto solves both problems, it limits the ability of the Council to do damage and protects small colonies from being overwhelmed by larger states.

[Dean_the_Young]

The question quickly becomes 'what is a sovereign political unit worth representing on the galactic scale'? The US considers itself a federation of 50 sovereign states, but it would be ridiculous to posit that it should get 51 seats at the UN. Balkanization and division isn't an inherently good thing either, and dillutes political negotiations the more names there are.



Then there becomes the impetus to claim units that deserve their own representative, even if they're lock-step with a higher unit. Again, for example, a US with 51 seats at the UN, or they could divide each state in two and get 101, or by three and 151...

[lovgreno]

@ General User: Your ideas are a very appealing from a democratic ideal point of view but in my, admittedly a bit cynical, opinion it's hard to make democracy of the more direct type work well on a bigger scale. If millions instead of hundreds of representatives would have to try to find a common consensus it would become just too complicated and time consuming. Especialy as this is just not different cultures but even spiecies and planets we are talking about.

So I think a few (hopefully more than the four or even just one somewhere in the ME future) Council representatives is what is practicaly possible. This means the Council can do what needs to be done for galactic stability without being tied down too much in diplomatic talks. Inevitably this power will be abused by those in top power but I think it is necesary to avoid more major wars. In real life Earth diplomacy and governmental discussions usualy ends in the will of the strongest anyway.

The Council already have a practicaly limited say in what a smaller part of the galaxy, like a planet, colony or city state, does. A even more limited political power over the the galactic individual would probably be good as it would encourage local government (usualy the best kind in my humble opinion), and make the Council more dependant on the positive feedback they get from home. Yes it is indirect democracy watered down to almost nothing but I think it's the best the big and diverse galaxy can hope for at the moment.

Modifié par lovgreno, 06 décembre 2010 - 04:58 .

[General User]

Fun historical note, that actually did come up when the UN was founded! Only it was the Soviet Union that wanted membership for each of their constituent socialist “republics.” The US’s counter-argument was that doing so would be as ridiculous as giving every state of their union a seat. The Soviets backed down.

The answer lies in the principal of Sovereignty, since I envision only Sovereign States being represented on the Council. Where does Sovereignty rest in a given society? When asking “is this body sovereign?” just ask “to whom can you appeal?”

For example, if a citizen, or group of citizens disputes the validity of a particular law of a given state. They are told “no” by the state courts, to whom can they appeal? If they are Americans, they can appeal to the federal government. But if the federal Supreme Court tells them “no”, that is the end of the story, they can appeal no further. Even if some international body would listen to them, said body would have no power of law to compel the US Federal Government. The American federal government is sovereign.

Balkanization is unfair. In many cases the opposite would be true! Take a place like Illium, or Elysium, or the Citadel itself, places with racially diverse populations. By setting up a system where people are identified by their nation and not species, racial tensions are discouraged. In the current system, “your species is your nation”, I say let your nation be your nation!

Besides, a society that drastically reorganized itself in order to gain seats in a body that has severely limited power (and can be dead-stopped by one veto) in the first place would be less than foolish.

@Lovgreno. I don’t want the Council to be a democracy, because I don’t want the Council to be a government at all. The Council should, generally, ONLY have a say (and even then not a final one) in matters that affect every single person in the galaxy. It should provide a framework within in which people from all over the galaxy can coexist peacefully, nothing more. As history has shown, the Council should not have the power to compel others to its visions.

Modifié par General User, 06 décembre 2010 - 05:24 .

[oldag07]

Xilizhra wrote...

After thinking about it for a while, I think I've determined what drives the Council through all of its most negative acts... amusingly, it's remarkably close to Renegade Shepard.

Namely, their fear of galactic war.

Where this comes from is probably obvious: two devastating wars one right after the other; first the rachni, then the krogan. After the krogan, the Council probably decided "never again" and to eliminate all risk of a galactic-scale war appearing on their watch. It's why they declined to aid the quarians against the geth and then ostracize them; the quarians could have started a galactic war if the geth had been more aggressive, and they needed an example. It's why they applied the second genophage; there were probably some asari still around who remembered the Krogan Rebellions from their younger days, and even those people who weren't had still heard many and vivid stories about the lethality of the krogan. Another unacceptable risk. And it's why they don't dare to do anything that might ****** off the Terminus Systems: the Council would probably win, but they'd deem the loss of life unacceptable, even if it means leaving human colonies out in the breeze.

Their prudence certainly helped Humans in the First Contact War.  They are just like all people, trying to do the best with the imperfect information that they have.

[Yakko77]

Xilizhra wrote...

After thinking about it for a while, I think I've determined what drives the Council through all of its most negative acts... amusingly, it's remarkably close to Renegade Shepard.

Namely, their fear of galactic war.

Where this comes from is probably obvious: two devastating wars one right after the other; first the rachni, then the krogan. After the krogan, the Council probably decided "never again" and to eliminate all risk of a galactic-scale war appearing on their watch. It's why they declined to aid the quarians against the geth and then ostracize them; the quarians could have started a galactic war if the geth had been more aggressive, and they needed an example. It's why they applied the second genophage; there were probably some asari still around who remembered the Krogan Rebellions from their younger days, and even those people who weren't had still heard many and vivid stories about the lethality of the krogan. Another unacceptable risk. And it's why they don't dare to do anything that might ****** off the Terminus Systems: the Council would probably win, but they'd deem the loss of life unacceptable, even if it means leaving human colonies out in the breeze.

I think this is accurate and to the do-nothing Council I say this,

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke

[lovgreno]

General User wrote..
@Lovgreno. I don’t want the Council to be a democracy, because I don’t want the Council to be a government at all. The Council should, generally, ONLY have a say (and even then not a final one) in matters that affect every single person in the galaxy. It should provide a framework within in which people from all over the galaxy can coexist peacefully, nothing more. As history has shown, the Council should not have the power to compel others to its visions.

Fair enough. But I do belive that sometimes those drastical things the Council decides was necesary for the greater good in the long run. For example the Council stopping the Firts Contact war, I doubt that a politicaly weaker Council would have been able to make the turians back down. I don't doubt it is always mostly selfish reasons behind it for the Council races though.