THE PRIME DIRECTIVE

PERSONAL

When I set out to compile this article, I did not at first realise how involved or long it would become. A number of non-[Voyager] stories have to be included, which is inevitable as the establishment and evolution of the Prime Directive are laid down for the first time in many pre-[Voyager] stories.

Given the shortness of episode entry Notes compared to Personal Log entries for [Voyager], I do not waste non-[Voyager] space to say which non-[Voyager] stories are particular favourites or why. But you can doubtless tell that I am a fan not just of [Voyager].

After the length of this article, it might surprise you to know that the Prime Directive, in itself, does not interest me nearly so much as its use as a plot device. I am an average Trekkie who watches to be entertained, and to be involved with beloved characters in an exciting and familiar-enough-to-feel-at-home environment (starship, many known planets and species, Treknology). When my heroes are faced with a Prime Directive problem, I tend to see it from their viewpoint or else think, emotionally, "what would I do in those circumstances?" - do not expect a rational judgement. I would always opt to save the hero starship and the crew, er, and in that order - the crew are actors but the starship is REAL! and besides, heroes usually do not stay dead.

However, whilst my HEAD understands and lauds the philosophy of the Prime Directive (and I applaud Gene Roddenberry for placing it within Star Trek; the Creator of the show was not one to shy away from dealing with controversial subjects), in my HEART I am unsettled by the very existence of the Prime Directive. I agree with Picard, in [TNG: Symbiosis], that the Prime Directive is a philosophy not a set of rules, and thus I disagree with Worf in [TNG: Pen Pals] that it is absolute. It is a profound philosophy and one which means there can be no neutral position (there is interference and there is non-interference but no really viable inbetween), so not even the "default" position is neutral, yet, for me, the Prime Directive should be amended, possibly in importance, but at least so that it is not worded so absolutely. I suggest its status and authority should be embodied in a less rigid system of codification, being more like a set of archived incidents (whenever a decision involving it is recorded it is added to the archive) upon which officers above a particular high rank (to include Captain) can draw for guidance i.e. similar to 'common law'. (WordWeb USA dictionary defines 'common law' as "A system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws; common law originated in the unwritten laws of England and was later applied in the United States.") Decisions would then fall under the category of command decisions, which is how they are usually treated in Star Trek, but would thus also be shorn of the burden of being the highest law and we could also dispense with the oath to sacrifice one's life and/or sacrifice the lives of one's crew. Regarding the latter, we could rely on 24th century Man's philosophy of aiming to better oneself, as explained by Picard to Lily Sloane in [Star Trek VIII: First Contact]. Apart from providing these officers with a large number of precedents quickly and easily accessed via the voice command facility of LCARS, at any one moment and over time, as trends in galactic development and inter-civilisation interaction change, the philosophy of the Prime Directive would become obvious after consulting the archive. As with any other aspect of their command, officers would be open to formal investigation. To ensure that the threat of discipline exists viably and consistently in order to prevent undermining the perceived worth of the Prime Directive, a formal enquiry could be made automatic under certain circumstances, in the same way that in Britain every time one of the few law enforcement officers who are tasked with carrying firearms fires his gun the circumstances are automatically formally investigated no matter how straightforward the circumstances, and during the enquiry the officer concerned is, depending on the gravity of the circumstances, either temporarily placed on suspension or transferred to duties for which firearms are not carried (procedures are currently under government review).