Democracy in ME?

[Cazoz]

What serious notions of democracy do we see in ME? Sure, Sam was the Mayor seventeen hundred times but this was really just a micro-scale rural deal. What instances of democracy and election were there in the larger areas such as Rohan and Gondor. Both were monarchies, but loosely based on the British set up, would there have been a Prime Minister or just a group of advisers?

And how about amongst the Orcs? Were the leaders merely those who’d proved strongest and scrapped their way to the top, were they appointed or were they in fact elected in a crude show of hands? All of the other ’baddies’ such as Nazguls, Balrogs and Dragons were all in poltical power and status as they were in physical strength; hierarchical. However Orcs are more widespread and seem to have differing classes (and actually more free thought and less servility) so I wonder how their class system was constructed. Maybe in the structure of a very sloppy trade union, considering (in my opinion) they were written to represent the industrial working classes, careless and malevolent towards the countryside and hypnotised by the progress and the big smoke.

It seems that wisdom and age (and usually birth) were taken almost ubiquitously around ME to be a determinant of status and power, as even witnessed with our four hobbits. In this case, Pippin and Merry are in fact of better stock but Frodo was the leader throughout, being the oldest and arguably wisest. On our earth, we have very questionable elections all over the place (from America to Zimbabwe!) and I was thinking about whether there many examples of these in ME? I know there were examples of coups and usurpations in Numenor and Gondor during the SA and TA.


It would be presumptuous, but it seems that the Valar in their councils had some sort of democracy going on. Is this coincidental that they would have the most civilised way of making decisions in their society? This having been said, Manwe was their leader appointed by Eru, so the buck stopped with him. And regarding the Council of Elrond, it was clear from the start that Gandalf and Elrond had already had the Council amongst themselves, and were presenting what decision they'd already made or at least knew to instigate. I don't really see it as an example of democracy, Elrond and Gandalf were much too superior to the others in their presence (and they knew it!) and the Council was merely a briefing with a bit of cajolery.

[burrahobbit]

Tolkien didn't really like democracy so much.

[Arothir]

Wow, my first post in like a month! Anyway, I could see the stewards of Gondor as a type of Prime Minister. Or maybe I'm thinking of Japanese shoguns and emperors. Anyway, the Kings almost seem to have some kind of divine right. Ingwe, Elwe, and Finwe were all chosen by Orome or the Valar. The Valar pretty much took Feanor's right to kingship and gave it to Fingolfin.

[Arothir]

Didn't Gondor have some kind of assembly. I think in RotK Pelendur the Steward counselled Gondor to reject Arvedui Lasking's claim to Gondor.

[Selmo]

I recall mention of a Council in Gondor.
This would have been a body of men to advise the King or Ruling Steward when asked. It would not have any authority of its own and the Ruler wouldn't be bound to take its advice.
I doubt if there was anything democratic about the Council. It would consist of heretitary Lords like Imrahil of Dol Amroth and men co-opted by the King or Steward.

The only elected leader I can think of in Middle Earth, other than the Mayor of Michel Delving, was the Master of Lake Town in "The Hobbit". I assume he would have been chosen by a very narrow electorate, just the rich merchants of the town.

[Iarwain]

Burrahobbit is right. After all, who needs democracy if the monarch is just, intelligent, and overall nearly perfect?


Iarwain

[Falagar]

It seems like the Elves were fairly democratic, Finrod was thrown out of Nargothrond when the majority of his people rejected him. Also, many Elves chose not to follow Fëanor (of course, they didn't choose their kings, but at least they had the ability to throw them away when they didn't want them). Or perhaps these were just 'special occations', the peoples seem to have the same opinions as their kings all the time (may also have something to do with them having the ability to choose which leader to follow)

It seems like those who got to be kings/leaders also were the ones best fitted to be kings/leaders.

[burrahobbit]

Finrod wasn't thrown out, he decided to leave when he saw that he wasn't wanted. The Noldor didn't all follow Feanor because he was only asking them to come, and Finwe was their real king anyway (he ought to be coming back any day now!).

[Lily Bracegirdle]

As Iarwain said, the most efficient/progressive ruler is the benevolent despot, so life under Elessar Telcontar would have been pretty good, I guess. Democracy compensates for the fact that most despots aren't good and is the best system for real-world governments, IMO.

But on topic, isn't ME supposed to be a mythic/prehistoric Britain? If so, it would be weird if democracy (a Greek invention) were the order of the day. It's ok for Hobbits, because they no longer exist in our world and had no influence on how things were run in the rest of ME, but if the Numenoreans had democracy, Tolkien would have to explain why it disappeared later in Britain's history. Plus, democracy is never the first government a society comes up with. First come warlords, then kings, then maybe some kind of republic... etc.

What do you think?

-Lily

[Arothir]

Middle-earth started as a prehistoric Britain, but I think Tolkien ended up changing his mind about it way before LotR was published.

[Falagar]

Finrod wasn't thrown out, he decided to leave when he saw that he wasn't wanted. The Noldor didn't all follow Feanor because he was only asking them to come, and Finwe was their real king anyway (he ought to be coming back any day now!).

True, but I thought he left because he knew that he didn't have any support? When he asked for followers, only a few volunteerd. I don't think he would have been able to force his people to help him.
Concerning Fëanor: True, but he was the rightful heir when Finwë died. Of course, he asked them to come, but again I don't think he'd been able to force them to come if he had tried. And many abandoned him for Fingolfin (or decided to stay home with Finarfin), who they liked better.

When I think of it it is not really democracy (or anything like it), it is just monarchy with the power to rebel when your ruler does something you don't like (which of course they had in the middleage too, but then they would have to take into concideration that they could be beaten down).

[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Falagar ]

[Finwe]

(You asked, and I returned, burra!)

Finrod definitely wasn't kicked out of Nargothrond. He merely got together a group of loyal followers, abdicated, and left with Beren to fulfill an oath that he felt morally obligated to keep.

The reason that the Noldor followed Fëanor was that he was a brilliant orator and capitalized on their desire for freedom and to rule their own destinies. For a group of people who had been under the rule of the Valar for most of their lives (if not their entire lives), freedom is extremely tempting. Fëanor knew that, and in the first flush of enthusiasm, almost all of the Noldor followed him. Of course, when they had that joyous rendez-vous with Mandos by the sea, most of them realized what they were truly doing, and many of them turned back with Finarfin. But, the majority of them, who either agreed with Fëanor (the Fëanorians) or felt obligated to follow Fëanor (the Fingolfinians), continued onwards. The right of Kingship went to Fingolfin and his House because the House of Fëanor became the Dispossessed. The only rights that they retained were the rights of Elven nobles, related to the royal house. They were no longer "The Royal Family," just cousins with awkward statuses.

In ancient times, many people looked askance at democracy. Much of the world had "grown up" regarding monarchy as the way to go, since it was much more efficient to have one person in charge of everything, rather than having a group that would squabble over issues. In Ancient Greece, some city-states remained monarchies, and the Athenians were the unique ones, not the run-of-the-mill Greeks. Greek legend has it that when a Theban ambassador visited King Theseus of Athens, he asked the "King" how a city-state could be run by a "squabbling mob, that twists this way and that."

Both monarchy and democracy have their pros and cons. In the case of a monarchy, the opportunity to abuse power is really great, but there is also the opportunity to run a country more efficiently, so that you won't have to squabble over issues (effectively delaying those issues). In democracy, the opinion of the people is heard more, and most people consider it a fairer and more just form of government. One bad thing about democracy is that issues can get easily bogged down in bureaucratic squabbles, which is the case in many countries today.

[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Finwe ]

[Olorin_TLA]

Tolkien didn't like democracy, but that doesn't mean he thought we should be under dictatorships - take a look at Morgoth, Sauron and Saruman for examples of what happens then. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
He treats monarchies fairly, although ebcause of the Elven influcence there are more good monarchs than in reality. But Numenor, Rohan, Gondor, all had monarchs ranging from inadequate to evil.
From his letters it seems to me that he didn't like how democracy had turned out - just look at the corruption and sycophancy in modern politics. He actually stated in one letter that he was a political anarchist - ie, nobody is ruled by anyone else.