Star Wars and the Wages of Weak Government

Because of the rerelease of Return of the Sith in cinemas and launch of the new season of Andor I thought now was an opportune time as any to introduce our readers to what is, undoubtedly, the most ridiculous piece of scholarship I’ve ever penned. In 2021 I co-authored a piece with Professor David Kenny in the journal Law & Literature titled “How Liberty Dies in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: Star Wars, Democratic Decay, and Weak Executives”.

The thesis was as follows:

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.

I won’t rehash the full suite of arguments here, but will touch on just one that is of perennial relevance: which is that Star Wars shows the risk of not knowing who is in charge.

In the films we see serious confusion over who is the ultimate guardian of the common good of the Republic and defender of the constitutional order: the supreme chancellor or the Jedi Council. It is clear that both consider themselves the ultimate custodian of the political community.

Even before the Jedi discover Palpatine’s true identity as a Sith Lord, they had already sent one of their own to spy on him and secretly discussed deposing him and taking “control of the Senate in order to secure a peaceful transition”. This suggests the Jedi see themselves as having an unbounded, plenary power to defend the Republic by whatever means they think necessary.

This all ends badly, with Jedi master Mace Windu trying to overthrow Palpatine because he has “sensed” a plot to destroy the Jedi. It is unclear who, if anyone, authorised him to depose the elected head of the Republic.

Confronting him, Windu places him under arrest ‘In the name of the Galactic Senate of the Republic’, though it is unclear that there was any actual authorisation of this police action by the Senate. This action is made even more legally dubious given that, throughout Revenge of the Sith, the Chancellor is clearly reliant on the Senate and is not (yet) an autocrat. The Senate votes to continue the war; the choice is not his alone. Palpatine—not without cause—suggests that this is ‘treason’ and ‘the Jedi are taking over’. Windu then concludes that Palpatine is “too dangerous” to stand trial and tries to summarily execute him. The fact that Palpatine’s version of events - that the Jedi were trying to overthrow him and take over - was readily believed by the Senate shows that the Jedi’s betrayal was a risk within their contemplation.

Star Wars shows the risk of having two rival guardians of the political order, with no means to choose between them. This constitutional tension tips over into chaos when their opposing claims meet in violence, and Palpatine uses the fact of this plot as a reason to consolidate the Republic into an Empire with him at its head. There is a lesson here for any who want to build a stable constitutional order.