If you think I’m going to say something deep or important here — sorry -- OK, not sorry. I’m going to talk about the political implications of two very popular superhero movies that came out this year.
Black Panther and Aquaman, one DC Extended Universe and one Marvel, are surprisingly similar stories. They’re both pretty good and if you enjoy superhero movies, they’re worth the ticket price. But the structure of both movies is pretty much the same. Neither is entirely “McGuffin” oriented (like “Justice League” and “Avengers Infinity War”). There’s a McGuffin in Aquaman, but it isn’t the center of the plot the way it was in the two other films mentioned.
VAGUE SPOILER IN NEXT PARAGRAPH
The structural similarity is that both movies are centered around secret/hidden societies that have advanced (beyond the rest of the world) technology and choose to stay out of human sight. Both these advanced societies are monarchies, and in both cases, the ruler is chosen through ritual combat. In both cases, the titular protagonist loses that ritual combat, which allows the villain to become king, then comes back to defeat the villain and take his place on the throne. (That was the spoiler… I just told you how both movies come out. But you knew who was going to win before you bought your ticket, didn’t you?)
NO MORE SPOILERS
The first thought that comes to my mind is, why are these “advanced” civilizations never democracies? OK, I guess voting and campaigning are hard to shoehorn into a story that needs to include lots of punching, kicking and acrobatic special effects. You don’t need any superheroes if you can solve all your problems with debate, consensus and group action.
However if Atlantic and Wakanda are so advanced, why are they using a system of choosing leaders that prioritizes physical fitness over administrative experience and moral character?
I’m reminded of a gag from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
BTW, the Anglo-Saxons voted to choose their kings. It wasn’t a popular vote — only members of the witan, i.e., nobles, major landowners and church leadership got a say, but it was a vote just the same.
Furthermore, the pirates that ravaged in the Caribbean in the 18th and 19th centuries often voted for their captains. If the crew lost confidence in the captain, they might hold another vote and someone else gets to be captain.
Off the top of my head (someone may prove me wrong here), I can't think of any society historically that chose leaders through ritual combat. There was some judicial stuff (trial by combat) but none where you could become king by fighting someone else who wanted to be king.
So, maybe democracy is a “primitive” form of government, much as the Wakandan warriors fight with spears because guns are too primitive. In small groups, where everybody knows everybody else personally, it may be possible to discuss policy, come to a consensus and carry out a plan without too much acrimony. But when you have more than 500 million people, and most of them only know what the media tell them about the people vying to be leader, it’s less certain that we’re going to get the right person. Particularly when the simplicity of one person/one vote is undermined by an archaic electoral college.
And in the age of the Internet, it’s a lot harder to make sure everybody is getting quality information about the issues and candidates. There are so many streams of information, who knows what's real and fake.
So, if we were to dump our primitive Constitution and electoral system, would our society benefit from choosing leaders with ritual combat? Come to think of it, Hilliary Clinton might have won a cage match with Donald Trump. (That was offered with tongue firmly in cheek.)
So, how about it? Instead of a Democratic primary, let's have Beto O’Rourke and Bernie Sanders square off with quarterstaffs. Would it work?