'How Liberty Dies in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: Star Wars, Democratic Decay, and Weak Executives' by Conor Casey and David Kenny in (2023) 35(2) Law and Literature comments
In this article we argue that the story of Star Wars has much to tell us about perennial questions of constitutional design. The series offers a rich cinematic exploration of some of the most pressing real-life issues of politics and constitutionalism and is, we suggest, a fruitful source of insight for issues of constitutional design and regulation. This article proceeds in three parts. In Part I, we sketch the political context which grounds our analysis, outlining the key constitutional institutions of the Galactic Republic, and their rapid decline and fall as documented across the prequel trilogy. In Part II, we outline the existing contributions commentators have made in respect of Star Wars and its lessons for constitutional design and regulation—the problem with the concentration of government power in one person and the risks posed to political systems by excessive delegation of authority to the executive branch. We then introduce three more nuanced lessons that we think the films offer: the ‘Publius paradox’; the hollowness of legalism; and the dangers of confusion at the apex of power. In Part III, with detailed analysis of the films, we show how the Star Wars saga clearly illustrates these lessons: that a constitutionally weak executive, rather than a strong one, can be a cause of democratic decay and autocracy, as it proves incapable of meeting the demands of governance; that commitment to and obsession with law is not per se any bulwark against autocracy; and that unclear lines of constitutional authority pose a huge risk at times of strain and crisis. We argue that the constitutional problem Star Wars illustrates is more subtle and more important than the dominant accounts suggest: that under concentration of power creates the risk of overconcentration of power. If we fear the decay of democracy into autocracy and wish to respond to it, we must be careful not to excessively limit or diffuse power. If we do, and begin to see constitutionalism as solely or primarily a means of restraining government, we may limit government so much that we cause the very problem we seek to prevent.
The authors argue
Despite their massive impact across the culture, and being subject to sustained analysis in fields such as philosophy and even other aspects of law, the Star Wars films have not been subject to sustained analysis by constitutional scholars. An exception to this is Sunstein, in his popular book on The World According to Star Wars, who highlights the politics of the saga: Star Wars isn’t a political tract, but it has a political message… That’s one of the reasons for the universal appeal of the saga. Whatever your political convictions, and wherever you live, you’re likely to see an Emperor of some kind, and you’re likely to have some sympathy for the rebels.
The saga, Sunstein says, criticizes ‘central authority, and its rebel heart lies with those who try to resist it.’ The prequels, he notes, deal with ‘the rise of tyranny and the collapse of democracies’, offering ‘a warning about the need for citizen vigilance against the countless would-be emperors who try to accumulate power at the expense of the public.’
Star Wars’ grasp of the nuances of politics is somewhat thin, which is forgivable for a series of science fiction action films. The films initially read as naïvely anti-political, believing that politics as practiced in the real world—as a series of pragmatic compromises—is equivalent to corruption, and that political ambition is fundamentally suspect. It harkens back to a time—which is always mythologised, in civilisations past or in a galaxy far away—where politicians were truly civil, listening, reasoning and debating, acting for a pure people rather than a corrupt elite. Sunstein is, perhaps for this reason, sceptical of the depth of Star Wars’ insights into constitutionalism. Though he notes Star Wars is ‘obsessed with the separation of powers’ it does not ‘have all that much to say about constitutions, at least not directly’. Sunstein maintains, ‘if you’re looking to learn about constitutional design, Star Wars probably isn’t your best bet.’ We respectfully disagree. We think that, in spite of its lack of political sophistication, the story of Star Wars has much to tell us about perennial questions of constitutional design, and it is much more interesting than its basic anti-politics. The series offers a rich cinematic exploration of some of the most pressing real-life issues of politics and constitutionalism and is, we suggest, a fruitful source of insight for issues of constitutional design and regulation.
This article proceeds in three parts. In Part I, we sketch the political context which grounds our analysis, tracing the form and structure of the constitutional institutions of the Galactic Republic; the political culture of this polity; the challenges facing the Republic; and its rapid decline and fall as documented across the prequel trilogy. In Part II, we first outline the existing contributions commentators have made in respect of Star Wars and its lessons for constitutional design and regulation—that the films’ commentary on constitutionalism is as a story of the ‘problem with the concentration of government power in one person’ and the risks posed to political systems by excessive delegation of authority to the executive branch. We then introduce three more nuanced lessons that we think the films offer: the ‘Publius paradox’, the hollowness of legalism, and the dangers of confusion at the apex of power. In Part III, with detailed analysis of the films, we show how the Star Wars saga illustrates very effectively these lessons: that a constitutionally weak executive, rather than a strong one, can be a cause of democratic decay and autocracy, as it proves incapable of meeting the demands of governance; that commitment to and obsession with law is not per se any bulwark against autocracy; and that unclear lines of constitutional authority pose a huge risk at times of strain and crisis. We argue that the constitutional problem Star Wars illustrates is more subtle and more important than the dominant accounts suggest: that under concentration of power creates the risk of overconcentration of power. If we fear the decay of democracy into autocracy and wish to respond to it, we must be careful not to excessively limit or diffuse power. If we do, and begin to see constitutionalism as solely or primarily a means of restraining government, we may limit government so much that we cause the very problem we seek to prevent.
