Warning:
The following contains light spoilers for The Walking Dead.
This
past Sunday was the fifth season finale of the immensely popular The Walking Dead. Because I am a big
political nerd I cannot help but notice that many of the seasons following
season one are wrestling with questions of governance. It should be noted that The Walking Dead is no way unique in
this. Post-apocalyptic literature, film, and television have often tried to
deal with the questions of rebuilding order when everything falls to hell. Part
of the explanation for this is the close relationship between the
post-apocalyptic and dystopian genres. Very few stories simply deal with the
aftermath of the collapse of the 'old world', but instead include the tendencies of our fellow man in dark and
twisted new societies.
 |
| If there's people, someone must be in charge. |
Most
of the time in post-apocalyptic fiction the narrative focuses on a small group
of survivors, usually fewer than twenty. Is that really government? Government
is a complicated word and imbued with a lot of what we think of as the state.
Governing per se is nothing more than providing management and direction. The
lesson of most fiction indicates that lone wolves who exist outside of a
community or group are usually not long for this world. Any time two people
interact there are structures and patterns in place to 'govern' behaviour, but
as a group grows in size these patterns must be strictly outlined and made
formal. So, while a group of survivalists picking through the ruins of our
civilization may not seem the same as what happens in the House of Commons (or maybe
too similar...) there is a common thread there.
First
let's take a look at the arc of The
Walking Dead. Season one of the series was much more focused on the
question of what has happened and how to survive. Rick Grimes, a former sheriff,
and close associate of several among a group of survivors instantly becomes the
de facto leader. However tensions exist within the group, particularly with his
best friend and former colleague Shane. Season two and onwards much more
tackles the question of governance. In many ways the failures of the group can
be tied to factionalism and rival leadership camps. Famously at the close of the
second season Grimes says after challenging the group about his decisions,
"If you're staying, this isn't a democracy anymore." How to govern the group is often at the heart of conflict in the series.
Since
that point, despite the fact that Rick's power in the group has waxed and waned
and waxed again the fundamental element has remained in place that once Rick
has made a decision the group keeps to it. Instead of infighting the group has
produced a number of trusted advisors who counsel Rick (Herschel, Glenn,
Michione, Carol, to name a few), but ultimately stick with his policies, even
when they disagree. In brief, season three saw the consequences of Rick's
unchecked powers and approach. When the group was established inside the prison
in season four we see Rick relieved of leadership and a "Council"
take charge of running day-to-day affairs until things reach a crisis point.
Season five saw the return of Rick's advisor-assisted leadership. The central
conflict in the most recent season was the tension between two different
governing structures: Rick's group with a centralized, pragmatic and harsh
leadership style versus the more traditional, theoretically democratic and
lenient style of the Alexandrians. Remember, governing is not just about making
decisions and giving orders; how to carry out justice and relationships with
outsiders is also part and parcel of the responsibilities of leadership.
The Walking Dead is hardly
unique in this depiction. Within the zombie genre Max Brooks' World War Z rarely shows a vibrant democracy, but a much harsher, more centralized,
more militant, less democratic governance all around the world. The 28 Days Later/28 Weeks Later films depict military-based
governance, as does the video game TheLast of Us and TV series Falling Skies.
In all three cases the military is depicted as a means of providing security
(the most precious commodity in instability) but also oppression or containment
of the people they are protecting.
 |
| Communities tend to find creative places to call home after the end. |
Interesting
enough is that even democratic governments that survive in many pieces of
fiction immediately take on extra-legal powers to control the chaos. In the
novel One Second After or the TV series Jericho)
the elected municipal governments begin acting like city-states to try to
survive in the absence of the state and national governments.
Another
common trope in the post-apocalyptic genre is the theocracy. In times of crisis
people often turn to religion as it is a powerful unifier that provides social
cohesion in a way a single leader often cannot. Margaret Atwood's A Handmaiden's Tale blends the military rule and religion quite nicely, but the results are the
same. James Kuntsler's series of post-collapse novels prominently features a strange religious group with a
prophet-like figurehead and a charismatic leader in the ruins of Upstate New
York.
The
theme repeated over, and over again in hundreds of books is remarkably similar.
The new leadership class tends to come from ex-military (Mike Havel in Dies the Fire),
police (Rick Grimes in The Walking Dead),
former/current politicians (Johnston Green or Senator Tomarchio in Jericho or the Warden in Children of Men)
or a charismatic, capable person (Carnegie in The Book of Eli or
Caesar in Fallout: New Vegas).
Ultimately the "Strong Man" governance all likely stems from the
inverse sentiment of the Benjamin Franklin statement, "Those who would
sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserves neither." As wise as Benjamin
Franklin was there exists many instances when centralized control is badly
needed in emergencies. Post-apocalyptic fiction trades on the fact that scared
people will surrender a great deal of authority to those who can protect them,
provide for them and keep them safe. To be sure this is not a new phenomena.
Think back to the Republic of Rome who would surrender its semi-democracy to a dictator
in times of profound crisis. In the modern United States there are any number
of provisions to institute martial law to keep order.
In my
opinion writers in this medium and consumers of it are attracted to
authoritative or authoritarian for some very simple reasons. While the
leadership model provides a structure for traditional hero narratives it also
harkens to our own thinking of how to deal with issues. In addition we admire,
just as the other characters within the narrative, competent and capable
leaders. It also helps from the perspective of elevating characters and
creating drama. Believe it or not, but The
Walking Dead and other post-apocalyptic fiction are deeply political. They
are not only critiquing social issues but providing a framework to work out
fundamental philosophical questions at the heart of governance and ethics that
have been debated since before Ancient Greece. I know a lot of people have had
the conversation/debate over what their "Zombie Survival Plan" is,
but have you ever thought what your plan to rebuild and get along with your
fellow survivors might be? Ultimately that's what might keep you alive longer
than any machete or canned food.
