Headscratchers / The Legend Of Korra Government And Law

Headscratchers pertaining to the laws and government found in The Legend of Korra. Return to the index for more.

Are we ever going to see Republic City call for help in dealing with The Equalists?

• This would seem to be a situation tailor-made for a group of non-bender combatants to at least come in and consult with Republic City's law enforcement. Like, say... the Kyoshi Warriors (assuming they're still around, of course). For that matter, wouldn't word have gotten out about the Equalists by now, and the other three nations would've probably made inquiries about how they could help (if for no other reason than to keep the Equalist movement from spreading to their territories)?
  • It's mostly a matter of politics and perception. The Equalists are the United Republic's mess, and having to call in foreign countries to bail them out of that mess would be deeply politically embarrassing. It would at the very least destroy the council's reputation, painting members like Tarrlok as failures. It would also run the risk of boosting the standing of the Equalists among the Republic's citizenry. Internal domestic disputes are one thing, but foreign troops would sharpen the battle lines: "The Equalists might be scum, but they're OUR scum."
  • One has to remember that while the Equalists were being taken seriously they were not seen as something that couldn't be contained in the city, it was only in the last two episodes that they realized just how big of a threat the Equalists truly are.
  • It is mentioned in the Welcome to Republic City interactive game that the Kyoshi Warriors are still around.
  • Yes. In "Turning the Tides," Tenzin calls the United Forces fleet to help them.

The ruling council of Republic City... Really?

• A city of the size and importance of Republic City only as a five-member ruling council? Mayberry had more councilors than that! Not to mention there doesn't seem to be any non-bender on the council. That's a serious oversight in the best of times. And this is beside the fact that the members other than Tarrlok and Tenzin don't seem to have a collective spine between the three of them.
  • I think that's kind of the point. The republic of nations was set up as the representation of an ideal, rather than as an actual, practical government. It symbolizes the nations coming together, so all the nations should get a representative. All nations should be treated equally, so they got an equal amount of representation (and Katara and Sokka probably insisted that they shouldn't be lumped in with the northern water tribe). I doubt anyone in the gaang actually considered any long-term consequences when they were organising the city. It's indeed a stupid way to organise a country, but it is one I can see the gaang, especially aang making.
  • The size of the ruling Council is not unrealistic. The Swiss equivalent, the Swiss Federal Council is not much larger.
  • Um...OP, that's the point. The Equalists aren't completely wrong. Everyone on the council is a bender, they're not elected officals, not to mention, since they're each from a different nation presumably most of them lived in that nation until chosen as a council member (the exception being Tenzin). They're bringing in values and opinions that may not work in a place Republic City. It's like making the US Senate up of foreign politicians. Someone from culturally homogenous countries would be sorely out of place in a country as large and diverse as the US.
  • Remember that Republic City is just that, a city, and it has inhereted its politics from three monarchies and the loose confederation of tribes in the South. Five people sharing ultimate descision making power is probably quite large enormous by their standards.
  • In the flashbacks, City Hall is full of people, with Aang sitting at one of the lower tables, occupying no special place. In the current time, five people sit in the middle of the giant, conspicuously empty hall, with no one around, not even a secretary to record minutes. Something seems to have happened that drastically altered the structure of government after the city's founding.
  • Actually, it's more likely that the flashbacks are part of a trial. Specifically, Yakone's trial. The big room with the lines of benches that Korra threw Tarlok into before he started bloodbending? Yeah, it's that room.
  • Did we ever actually get confirmation that everyone on the council is a bender?
  • Tarrlok's speech in The Voice in the Night wouldn't be as effective if his audience had contained non-benders.
  • And it's hard to imagine non-benders voting for the non-bender curfew law.
  • It seems likely that the current Council only has benders on it but flashbacks indicate that it isn't a requirement, otherwise Sokka could never have been a member.
  • Added to that, look two seats to the right of Sokka—there's someone wearing Air Nomad robes, who also couldn't be a bender.
  • Being the brother-in-law and chosen proxy (If he'd wanted to, Aang could've been on the Council) of a borderline deity (The Avatar) probably helped in that regard, and it's certainly possible that things have become more pro-bender and anti-nonbender since Aang's death.
  • What's so wrong with there being only 5 councilors? Republic city isn't all that big (Well, compared to most other cities it is very large, but not when compared with nations, which are ruled by 1 person (Earth King, Fire Lord, Water... umm.... King). Omashu, which is of fairly comparable size, was ruled by Bumi all by himself. That said, I do agree that they should likely include a non-bender or two (to make the number odd to prevent deadlock) to the council. If Amon wasn't... well, Amon and the equalists had had a proper leader, that would have been a more likely course of action for them.
  • What's so wrong with there being only five councilors is that The United Republic isn't just Republic City. The council is supposed to be passing laws for an entire nation, not just one city, and five people isn't enough for that sort of task.
  • The government was set up by a king who had been lied to for years, a teenager who had just become king of another country, two children of a Water Tribe chief, a wealthy Earth Kingdom girl, and a teenage Avatar, and was meant to rule a small collection of inter-ethnic former colonies. The UNR isn't supposed to be something like the UN, more like a smaller version of the US. So it makes sense for them to decide on five leaders for the new country, representing each ethnic group (a small-scale version of the US Senate: each of the 13 former colonies got 2 senators). As far as the UNR goes, its geography likely consists of a large capital city and various small settlements elsewhere; that appears to be the case for the Northern Water Tribe now. So it would make sense for a group like that to make the UNR's government the way it is. Of course they wouldn't care if benders were on the council or not; several members of the UNR founding group plus those closest to them were non-benders. What was more important was that every nation got a say. As for foreigners being voted onto the council by faraway tribes... unlikely, actually. Sokka was probably the only foreigner on the original council, and he had probably lived in Republic City for a while by that point (having founded it and all). Tarrlok was probably the only foreigner in LoK, having been born in the NWT and coming to Republic City as an adult. Tenzin had probably been born and raised in Republic City, and his siblings and mother all left later while he stayed and later joined the Council to represent the tiny new Air group.
  • Remember that the U.S. didn't get it right on the first try either— we mucked about with the ultimately unworkable Articles of Confederation for quite a while before we settled on the Constitution, which turned out to be more stable (if still far from perfect). The Council probably seemed like a good idea at the time, and by the time of Korra it had institutional inertia behind it, which is why it took a violent uprising for it to be changed.

Why is there only one Earthbending councilor?

• Much like the Headscracther above, I also question why the council is set up the way it is. But for me I have to wonder why the earthbenders only have one representative? It is understandable why fire and air only have one. (Both have small populations.) And it is also understandable why the water tribes have two representatives. They are two nations and thus they need representatives from each nation. But the Earth Kingdom is a massive country with many different regions and probably the largest population out of all the nations. Plus, they even have a population of water benders (the swamp folks) and firebenders (those who came during the war and never left). You'd think they'd at least have two representatives like the water tribes?
  • The Earth Kingdom is evidently still a kingdom, with a single ruler, so the representative is a representative of the Earth King.
  • The Earth Kingdom probably doesn't recognize any Earth Kingdom territory that wasn't reorganized into the United Republic of nations as a separate entity, and any would-be independent Earth nations probably don't have the strength or influence to get a seat on the Council, as they probably would be hedged out by the Earth Kingdom. The Southern Water Tribe meanwhile probably gained a huge amount of influence due to two of their members being major players in ending the war, allowing them to be independently represented.
  • Unlike the isolationist Northern Water Tribe, the South helped the Earth Kingdom during the war by providing it with a small but effective naval force. Perhaps the Earth Kingdom went quid pro quo post-war, repaying the debt by lobbying for the South to get a seat.
  • Also the Fire Nation members who came and never left were formed into the United Republic of Nations, which Republic City was the capital of.
  • The US Senate has two representatives for each state - the same number for Wyoming (568K people) and California (38M people, over 66 times as many) - and they have several exclusive powers the House does not. At the time the US Constitution was drafted, none of the less populated states would settle for a pure proportional representation scheme, due to fear of being marginalized by more populated areas with very different political interests. I think the analogy is appropriate here.
  • The US also created the House of Representatives because the Senate system alone was completely unacceptable, although including that would make their politics much more complex without adding anything to the show.

The "Balance Patch" that is the Law in Republic City

• The Avatar is a focal point of balance towards goodness and the right choices in the world at large, which includes the city. Because of this, and the major role she plays in restoring balance and order to the world as they are fated to do, they are given a great deal of leeway. This is no longer the case, and that severely gimps Korra's overall effectiveness for very pedantic reasons. Benders should have the right to defend themselves, as should non-benders. So I'm not entirely seeing the law as helpful or beneficial to the long-run to the city, much less to her job. They would only serve to get in her way.
  • That worked back in the old days. In an industrialized nation, Korra's antics are nearly as harmful as helpful, and she is not omniscient. The police are there to cover what she can't, which is basically everything except the occasional random incident.
  • Of course, but if they are putting their foot down and preventing the Avatar from doing what the Avatar does, they're as much a threat to the balance as they could be a help. I'm not speaking about stopping mafia here-which Korra, as the Avatar and a lot of precedent behind her from Kiyoshi and Aang, should be allowed to do-this can get much worse; what if they decide that restoring balance would cause too much instability within the city?
  • If Korra's keeping with the law, which should be entirely reasonable, then they have no reason to object. Tenzin could also extend some political protection if he needs to.
  • Um, where's it ever said that the law prohibits bending in any way? Or that benders can't defend themselves? The problem with Korra's actions in the first episode is more that she wrecked up the street, and that she was acting as a vigilante, not just that she was acting as a bender or the Avatar.
  • Precisely. Tenzin and the White Lotus may be sitting on museum pieces, but if Korra were allowed to inflict property damage at her own vigilante discretion, she'd deplete their operating budget in a matter of weeks...heck, the lack of Hero Insurance could be mined for a subplot.
  • It's all part of the deconstruction that is going on. As of now, there is no need for Avatar-involvement. Having Korra wreck the place is not necessary. It's an era of peace. I am sure that as the plot progresses, there will be a need for Korra to act as the Avatar to the world. But as of now, there isn't.
  • This is hilarious. Its exactly the sort of political insanity that probably exists in the setting. The crime wasn't "bending" (though benders might well think of it that way) it was "blowing up other people's stuff and attacking the police". You shouldn't get away with destroying buildings just because you happened to do it with superpowers. I imagine that's exactly the mentality that has Equalist sympathizers scared.
  • I wouldn't be surprised to see merchants whose property she destroyed at an Equalist rally in the future, given that the reason anyone pays protection money is out of fear for their lives and livelihoods. Ironically, Korra may have done by accident what the Triple Threat Triads threaten to do when they go unpaid, and as a result some struggling business owners might just find themselves looking for a nice bush to sleep under.
  • The perfect opportunity for the return of the Cabbage Seller!
  • Actually, Tenzin said that he would pay for the damages.

The United Republic of Nations isn't very republican

• I'm using "republican" in the way that it's used in the US Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." For the sake of clarity, I'll add Federalist no. 10, where Madison outlines the idea of a republic as I am used to using it. As far as I can tell, the government is chosen by the original four nations, not the people of the city. It's as if Wales was jointly governed by a representative of Ireland, Scotland and England. Such a government couldn't be called republican in any sense of the word, let alone the one I was thinking of. Now, it is true that no other government has been shown, meaning it is possible that the council is only in charge of Republic City. This led me to believe that it was the only game in town, and that the council is in charge of the entire nation.
  • The US doesn't have a monopoly on the term. Seeing as how we've only seen the one city, one can hardly say the identified form of government cannot be considered a republic.
  • I think your assumption of republic being "What the US defined it as is" is a bit of an oversimplification of a form of government that has had dozens of variants amongst them oligarchies very similar to the one in show. It should also be remembered that this government was designed for a different world than the one its in right now, back when the city was founded it made complete sense to have the city intended to be a melting pot be governed by representatives of each major group in the world, unfortunately this is now pretty obsolete as Republic City has developed its own unique culture.
  • I'm wondering what Republics you're thinking of that have oligarchies similar to the one on the show? The closest things I can think of would be Florence and Venice in the Renaissance. However, given that the Florentine republic included about a thousand citizens in its census for who counted as a citizen who could participate in government (circa 1500) and the Venetian aristocracy was abnormally large (which resulted in frequent problems of aristocratic poverty) and could could be bought into, I'm not sure they should count either since there is a big difference between around a thousand people sitting in a senate and five people ruling in a council. Remember, Venice's Council of Ten answered to a much larger senate and the Doge and Florence's Eight Saints were a war time necessity (and they were tax assessors).
  • I was referring to several examples, Triumvurate Rome, The French Consulate, A lot of Greek city states, and the Zealots of Thessaloniki to name a few) where all cases where it was a very limited number of rulers with essentially unchecked authority.
  • The example of the Triumvurate and the French Consulate seem to imply you believe that the Council is subverting the truly republican elements of the city, since the Triumvurate was not a legal ruling body, but a gang of three who used their power to manipulate the senate and the Consulate was one of the later constitutional models attempted under the First Republic that directly lead to Napoleon's rule as emperor. But, if you're trying to say that the Council is merely a sort of executive but that there is still a larger body that votes on policy (like the Roman senate that the Triumvurate was a part of, the senate that was under the Consulate, the boule of cities like Athens and that the Zealots of Thessaloniki establishe), I would agree that that would make sense, but we get no depiction of such a body or even a reference to it.
  • I don't think we know enough about it. Or could you clarify what doesn't seem republican to you? It doesn't seem to be a monarchy, so I guess republic in the meaning of "res publica" isn't so far off.
  • Republic as a term is far older than the United States, and even today it has numerous definitions around the world. At core it simply means a nation ruled by an elected council. The election does not have to be democratic as we understand it, nor does the position of electee have to be open for everyone. Pre-Imperial Rome was a non-democratic Republic, for example. The United Republic does seem to be a democracy however, though how it functions is unknown. It seems that the representatives have to include members from the four Nations, and that Benders are overpresented compared to non-Benders. Tenzin is an influential member in spite of the near-extinction of the Air Nomads, for example.
  • Tenzin's father was one of the founders of Republic City. He's probably doing it as a legacy thing, not to represent the almost non-existent Air Nomads.
  • Except that the Council, or at least its leaders apart from Tenzin consist of representatives of Fire Nation, Earth Kingdom, and Southern and Northern Water Tribes. It seems fairly clear that the city is lead by the representatives of the four Bending cultures, even the near-extinct Air Nomads.
  • I think the source of the confusion here is that we're assuming Republic City is an independent state, which may not be the case. It's possible Republic City is a kind of "neutral ground" that all four nations have limited control over. If this is the case, the representatives that control Republic city may very well be elected...by the total populations of the nations they hail from. So it's less like Wales being governed by representatives from Ireland, Scotland, and England and more like if everyone in the United States was able to vote for the mayor and city council of New York City.
  • So Republic City is basically Washington, D.C.. Limited home rule and all that.
  • It's more like the Shanghai-that-Was.
  • Republic in its most basic sense means "state without monarchy." The council is made up entirely (I understand) by representatives of monarchies. So I honestly believe that the creators did not know what the word republic means. It is a common mistakes, I remember a couple of occasions where Jorge Luis Borges made ​​the same mistake.
  • I'm sure they know exactly what it means. It means a state not ruled by a monarchy. It doesn't mean a state without any influence from any monarchies whatsoever. Republic City is ruled, as you said, by a council—not by a monarchy. That the councilmen represent monarchies doesn't matter.
  • Also, the council isn't made up entirely of representatives of monarchies. The Air Nomads most certainly aren't a monarchy, they don't even have a state of their own, and nothing indicates Tenzin is considered to be their "king". The reason he seems to be the highest authority figure among them could simply be because he's the oldest, most experienced Airbender alive. Historically the Airbenders appear to have been ruled by councils of elders, one in each Air Temple, but we don't know what their current system is. As for the Southern Water Tribe, while they have a chief, there's no canon evidence that he's their sole leader, or that the position of the chief is inhereditary; for all we know he could be chosen by a tribe meeting, or by some other democratic process.
  • If Tenzin gets to be one of the most powerful people in the world just because he's the best Airbender that would be a real problem. Nepotism is honestly more likely.
  • Being a council person in one city makes you "one of the most powerful people in the world"? Just because the series takes place there doesn't mean it's the most important place in the world.
  • But being the world's only Master Airbender probably would make you "one of the most powerful people in the world" by default.
  • Since when does "Republic" mean a "state without monarchy"? By that definition, fascist, democratic, anarchist, and theocratic governments would be republican. A better defintion of a "republic" would be a state with a mixed constitution, incorporating elements of democracy, aristocracy, and (elected) monarchy. By this definition, we could include Rome, Florence, Venice, and the US. France might be harder to fit, since it seemed to include only democracy and (elected) monarchy, as far as I'm aware. And, of course, this does not work as well for the 20th century when it seemed to become the fashion to style everything a "republic" regardless of its actual form. Also, keep in mind that I'm using the term monarch losely to refer to a small executive branch (like the consuls, Doge, Signoria, or president), the way Roman and Renaissance political theorists did.
  • You define the entire Western world as being ruled by monarchs? (because pretty much every nation has a president or prime minister)
  • "Since when does 'Republic' mean 'a state without monarchy'?" Basically since the term was coined in the classical world. Although modern developments have complicated the matter, that's still the most basic way to define the term, and essential to every other definition that incorporates other aspects. "By that definition, fascist, democratic, anarchist and theocratic governments would be republican." Yes. You treat these terms as opposed to either monarchy or republic while they aren't (except anarchism which is opposed to both). Iran can be described as a theocratic republic, Saudi-Arabia as a theocratic monarchy. The UK is a democratic monarchy, the US a democratic republic and so on. "A better definition ..." What follows is a pretty meaningless definition that has no descriptive purpose and no historical background. In general, people seem to be misled by the meaning of the word "Republican" in a US-American context, where it has a wider meaning, including rule of law, balance of power, democracy, equality before the law etc. and also carries a lot of historical and political baggage (there is a major party that derives its name from this word after all). This meaning comes from American history, not academic categorization of governments. And no, an elected head of the executive is not a monarch.
  • As to the idea of an elected head being a monarch, this is exactly how Polybius uses the term. Polybius defines Rome as a state with a mixed constitution, one that has elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. He equates the monarchical elements with the consuls, an elected office with one year in office. I am doing the same (note: a prime minister is not a head of state but a head of government, and thus would not represent a monarchic element). The definition of a republic as a state with a mixed constitution also comes from Polybius's understanding - he holds up Rome's Republic as an example of government to be contrasted with the democracy of Athens and various principates. I would argue that in most of the greatest historical examples, a balance of powers is an essential aspect of a republic, as it was in antique Rome and renaissance Florence and Venice. Aristotle would seem to agree given that he considers a mixed constitution as an alternative form of government to monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy, and democracy. Now, Machiavelli does seem to include all non-principate states in the category of "Republic", but given his historical environment, where the only non-monarchic states had mixed constitutions, states like Florence, Venice, and Bologna, I would hesitate to agree with his assessment, given that his analysis of Rome and the classical world was often heavily colored by his experience of politics in his own time. You say that classically this is how a republic was defined, but I'm not sure which classical authors you are refering to. As I said above, Polybius and Aristotle did not make such a division. Plato divided his types of government much more broadly, defining five types of states based on the values of the ruler/ruling class (kallipolis, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny). To Thucydides, your division would not make sense, since part of his history is devoted to comparing the sort of governments Sparta and Athens had and to equate them as of the same sort would be counter to his efforts. Since the term, however, comes from Latin, we could look at Latin authors, but they tended to defer to Polybius and Aristotle on this matter. And if we are going to defer to the term "res publica", then even the Roman Empire would be a republic, since for the first century or so of its existence it was still called a "res publica". So, I do not see where your definition comes from, aside from perhaps Machiavelli or the French Revolution, neither of whom/which are classical sources and both of whom/which existed in periods where a more nuanced view was unnecessary. And as to theocracy - you said you can have theocratic republics and theocratic monarchies, but what would the bishopric of Rome be? A republic, given the prominence of the college of cardinals? A monarchy, given that it has a single head? Also, you seem to be lax on what a monarchy is - is it simply a state with a king? would a tyranny without a king be a republic? It would seem unfair to call Cuba a republic just because its head of state does not call himself king. It would seem unfair to call Sparta a monarchy just because its heads of state were kings.
  • At the very least we can say that Republic City does not seem very republican. A ruling body of five people who represent only a "bending aristocracy" (my term) is much more oligarchic than it is republican. And since this small ruling body seems to make policy decisions without consulting anyone outside of themselves (there's no mention of having a vote in the senate on what to do about the rebel problem or what to do about terrorist threats), I feel it's safe to say that just these five are governing Republic City. So... yeah. Sounds like an oligarchy - more like the Thirty Tyrants than the Council of Ten.
  • That does fit within some definitions of Republic since those five are "the body of citizens entitled to vote", if they were elected to those positions in some way it fits most definitions. What Republic City is clearly not is a democracy, the general population has little to no say in the general affairs of government.
  • But size does matter in this. If you were simply going to say that a republic has a "body of citizens entitled to vote" a tyranny would be a republic where that body numbered one. The voting base needs to be broader than five, even if it does not have to include a majority of people. If you were to ask me to define how broad it needs to be, I would probably say at least 1% of the population. Though, there are other aspects of republic aside from having a voting base, namely the separation of powers - they tend to have at least an executive or executive body and a legislative body, but can also include bodies that propose legislation (like Rome's Senate) or various bodies that oversee economic or military concerns.
  • Represents a "bending aristocracy"? The councilmembers represent the different NATIONS, not the types of benders. We know that Tarrlok and Tenzin are benders, but it's never been shown about the others. True, Amon had them kidnapped, but that could be just as much to disrupt the current government as to target them as benders.
  • The way Tarrlok addresses them when he introduces his non-bender curfew certainly implies they are benders. And it seems unlikely they would have voted for the curfew if they were non-benders themselves.
  • People have used the word "republic" to mean a lot of different things over the course of history. It is a usefully vague term, almost to the point of being meaningless, in a fictional setting.
  • Times like this a dictionary really comes in handy:
    a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
  • And also
    A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; spec. a state without a monarchy.
  • This is the first experiment with republican government in the Avatar world...it may take a while for it to become the kind of republic that American, French, or German people are used to.
  • They have a president in season 2. Seems like the politics have been shaken up.
  • For the record, some people consider the United States to be an oligarchy and not a republic.

The Northern and Southern Tribes have the same leader?

• Am I crazy, or does this seem wrong? In ATLA, Hakoda was Chief of the Southern Water Tribe, and Arnook was chief of the North. Now Unalaq is chief of both? How did they get the Southern Tribe to agree to being ruled by some chief in the North that they'd likely never meet?
  • The North was instrumental in rebuilding the Southern Water Tribe in the aftermath of the 100-Year War, so they're probably more than a little grateful for that. Besides, the idea that territories separated by vast distances ruled by the same leader is hardly unknown in our world, seeing as how the Americas had a large number of European colonies despite the Atlantic Ocean being between them.
  • Also, he apparently comes down every year or so, so it's not like they actually haven't met him. And considering his disapproval over their practices, he clearly doesn't have anything like absolute control over them.
  • Yeah, but he keeps claiming to be the Southern Water Tribe's chief in front of Korra and she doesn't object in any way. You'd think if he declared himself ruler without actually being one, she would have at least questioned it.
  • One possibility is that there was never any formal split between the Water Tribes: prior to the Hundred Years' War, they were one nation ruled from the North, but the exigencies of war (Fire Nation attack ships everywhere) meant that this was no longer feasible, so the South drifted along in its own way for a century. After the War ended, the North once again assumed formal control, but continued to let the South do its own thing in practice for the most part. Unalaq, then, would be exercising control de facto that his predecesors always officially had de jure.
  • In Civil Wars Varric says that Unalaq ousted the southern chiefs and took over their palace. The south definitely had prior leadership, and it wasn't him.
  • But at the same time, Korra didn't seem upset to see Unalaq sitting in the throne, and didn't argue when he insisted that he was the chief of both tribes. Maybe the South had a subordinate chieftain, with the understanding that Unalaq is the one ultimately in charge.
  • Doesn't seem likely. So far, Korra, who wants to avoid a war, is the only person that's gone along with Unalaq's move, with every southern tribesman wondering what the hell Unalaq is playing at. He certainly doesn't seem to have authority over the military of the south, given that he had to bring in his own warships and soldiers instead of using the southern warriors.
  • It looks like the Southern Water Tribe is a more egalitarian culture with multiple lesser chiefs who rule over smaller groups and come together to decide on bigger matters together; presumably the palace is where they used to do that. Presumably Unalaq is basing his power on the principle that he's a higher ranking sovereign than any of the rubes at the South Pole, and they may have even agreed on principle before he started to assert genuine authority with a threat of force.
  • Remember that Hadoka's descendants have been heavily involved in the URN, presumably to the exclusion of Southern Water Tribe politics. Sokka and Tenzin were Councilmen for the URN, and Bumi has been, until just recently, a Commander in the United Forces. Now, we haven't heard anything about Sokka's kids, but that only increases the implication that they live in the URN. Presumably, the Southern Water Tribe isn't inclined to recognize having a female chief, either.
  • Now, I could easily be wrong about this, having forgotten an important detail of some conversation from A:TLA, but I don't think Hakoda ever actually was chief of the southern tribe. He was the leader of their warriors, yes, and a highly respected member of the village, but do they ever actually call him "Chief"? It seems likely to me that the Northern Water Tribe was always technically in charge of the southerners, but after the south was devastated by the Fire Nation during the war, they lost contact with each other and the southern tribe had to pretty much continue without any official chief.

How liable is Unalaq for what happened with Tarrlok?

• I realize Tarrlok has his own section, but I feel this question has more to do with the Avatar government in general. Tarrlok was a representative of the Northern Water Tribe, and it doesn't look like the Republic had any say in who ruled it until Book Two. That means Tarrlok was likely appointed by Unalaq and/or some NWT official that worked for him. Once it became publicly known that Tarrlok was a crazy bloodbender, wouldn't Unalaq and his administration take some political heat for such a massive security failure? (I'm going to assume that none of them had any idea of what Tarrlok was capable of, just because the alternative is stupid.)
  • He wouldn't be, certainly not to any significant degree. Tarrlok's past was well-hidden, and the Avatar world doesn't exactly have the resources to check a person's entire history. Tarrlok no doubt spent decades working his way up the ladder. By the time he got to the point where Unalaq had authority over him, Tarrlok's record was probably impeccable. Once he was outed as a villain, and more importantly related to Republic city's greatest criminal, the Northern Water Tribe could easily write it off as one-in-a-million.
  • We don't even know how the council members were chosen. For all we know, they are elected by the citizens of the Republic, with the citizens divided up and voting based on their national origins. In that case, Unalaq wouldn't be blamed for what people not under his jurisdiction did.
  • We also have to remember that part of Tarrlok's past wasn't hidden by Tarrlok himself, but Yakone, who was a) a non-bender at that point and b) had plastic surgery. Nobody in the NWT, not even Unalaq, would have none who Yakone really was (if Yakone was ever in a position where he would meet Unalaq or someone in the NWT government), unless Yakone told the truth. His wife didn't even know. If anyone in the NWT knew about Yakone's past in Republic City, they would never guess the man they know as "Tarrlok's dad" was you know, Yakone.

You're free to go, Ma'am. But everyone else is being sentenced to death.

• So Korra's parents are being tried for (mostly) bogus charges of conspiracy. The court is pretty much against them anyways, and we learn later that it's been rigged from the start, so its no surprise when everyone is found guilty. Everyone except Korra's Mom, who, for some reason, is deemed innocent and allowed to go free, before everyone else is sentenced to death. Why was she allowed to go free? Is the Water Tribe still that sexist, that they'll just go "Eh, you have a vagina, you obviously have no agency and did nothing to be here, so, you can leave." I understand that the trial was fixed, and maybe Unalaq wanted her free so keep Korra on his side, but what legal justification was there for letting her leave? Why didn't everyone in the courtroom call bullshit?
  • First off, yes, Unalaq wanted her proclaimed innocent to make the trial seem more fair. And while we don't know much about Senna yet, it appears that her husband is more politically active than her, so if he really had been guilty, it wouldn't have been too surprising if she had nothing to do with it. Second, Korra's father was the only one of the defendants who hadn't been involved in the kidnapping. So other than the ridiculously strict verdict, the only problem with the trial was that one innocent man was convicted with a bunch of guilty ones. That's how Unalaq planned to get away with it; hiding the Kangaroo Court under a few apparently reasonable verdicts.
  • The judge tells Korra that he acquitted her mother specifically so that Unalaq had a chance of keeping her on his side, not just to make the proceedings seem more fair. Also, her mother didn't have as much of a connection to Unalaq as her husband (who could easily be portrayed as jealous of his brother's success) and the other rebels (who actually kidnapped him).

"Rookie beat cops" don't investigate crimes?

• Does anyone else have a problem with a fact that "beat cops" in Republic City don't investigate crimes? You could argue that the two senior cops constantly thwarting Mako's efforts are just Jerkasses, but why does Lin share this attitude as well? She yells at Mako for trying to investigate since he's just a "rookie beat cop," and not a detective, but it doesn't seem like there are any detectives working on the case at all! Maybe it's Deliberate Values Dissonance, but where I live in modern-day America cops are actually trained to perform investigations, gather evidence, etc. even if they are just "beat cops." All I can see is that Mako is the only person investigating this, he's been DI Scouraged from doing so and nobody's bothered to listen to him or look at the evidence! Is it any wonder Republic City has such a horrible time keeping the Triads in check and that the Equalists had so much power over the city within a few months?
  • The structure of the police force seems to be that beat cops just walk the streets, do pursuits, attend to crimes in progress, and provide back-up, while the higher ranked cops like Detectives do the, well, detective work. And it's possible, likely even, that Mako has just plainly not been assigned to the case. Lin probably doesn't want him on this case in particular because his relationship to the Avatar is going to skew his thinking. So he's ignoring the duties Lin does have him on to investigate a case he's not officially part of, and which he might have bias on.
  • That's a pretty good point. But now I'm wondering why Mako hasn't been listened to at all when his account isn't consistent with Korra's, he was AT THE SCENE, he saw a suspect and found a piece of evidence before anyone else could react. I can understand that the structure of the police force wouldn't really allow him to actually investigate, but I also get the feeling that if Mako was still just a civilian, he'd be considered a key witness and crucial to the investigation.
  • Office politics—remember that he first told Lin about the evidence...by interrupting her meeting with the President. Then he gave the evidence to the two detectives...who immediately stuffed both in a drawer like they didn't care. We see all of this—but Lin sees it through the filter of her two detectives, and of this upstart rookie barging into her office and screwing up an important meeting. Basically, the deck is stacked against Mako being listened to at all, let alone being able to give Lin all this detail.
  • As of 'The Sting', [[spoiler: Mako may not try this a third time. He all but tells Varrick he thinks he's responsible for both the bombings and the thefts from Future Industries, but that he needs to do more investigation. He may take his previous attempts with Lin and the other officers as a sign he needs to get enough evidence (none of it so far properly links Varrick to either event), and then find the right time to present it to save being brushed off yet again. Or he could drop his fair attempt at being the by-the-book cop and start breaking the rules.
  • One of the reasons is Mako himself. The way he acted the entire time trying to get Lin to listen was unprofessional and is a major turn off to the boss. He interrupted Lin's meeting with Raiko and when she was interviewing a witness. Mako was trying to muscle in on a case that wasn't assigned to him. Everything he seen at the bombing would have been filed under a police report and he had nothing more to add short of speculation. By the time Mako gets to doing his own investigation, his rookie status sticks out since he resorts to going behind Lin's back by breaking the rules and Varrick the criminal is in on the investigation from the start. Which means Mako's investigation was doomed to fail.

On Raiko and Korra

• Yeah sooo...the first time they met, Korra was clearly not thinking straight when she asked Raiko to intervene when Unalaq sailed on the South, and was all "Unalaq is evil! Raaaargh!" Then the next time they meet, Korra's like "Unalaq really is evil!" and Raiko just automatically believes her because...why exactly? What's up with that?
  • Because she has Tenzin and Bumi backing her up, and had a good reason as to why Unalaq was a threat to more than the South.
  • Also, Korra never lied to him. When she said Unalaq was trying to taking over the South by force for his own gains she was telling the truth. That on top of having authority (being the Avatar) and having two other respected figures backing her claim up (as the previous troper explained) makes it pretty easy to believe her. Plus, her explanation also explained the arrival of the Dark Spirits (which were affecting people outside of the South Pole too).
  • Raiko had no way of knowing why Unalaq invaded the South. Even if Korra didn't lie to him, he doesn't know that one way or the other. All he knows is that she was acting like a loon and accusing Unalaq of being pure evil (or something to that general effect). And then she went behind his back and tried to get Iroh to intervene after he told her to bugger off. Her position as Avatar doesn't really lend itself to her credibility. She's still human, and very obviously emotionally invested in Unalaq being seen as Adolf Unalaq. Chairman Unalaq. Unalaq bin Laden. Unalaq Disney. This also casts doubt over Unalaq being responsible for the Dark Spirits. Even with Bumi and Tenzin present, you'd think he'd at the very least say something about that remaining to be seen and dealing with it after the crisis, but no, he just instantly believes her for no real reason.
  • Raiko didn't refuse to help her civil war problem. She wanted quick military intervention and instead got diplomacy. The Water Tribe Civil War was all started over a family squabble and Korra picked sides. Meanwhile, the NWT wasn't doing anything at that time to warrant immediate military intervention like killing SWT people.
  • That's fascinating. It's also not relevant in any way.

Council Members for Northern and Southern Tribes

• So it seems like the political situation at the time of Korra, The Southern water tribe, for the most part, act like separate nation, but is, legally, under the rule of the Northern tribe and Unalaq, kind of like modern day Hong Kong and China. However, when it comes to representatives of the now defunct URN council, whether or not the South is legally separate from the North is a big deal. While its not entirely clear how council members get their positions (whether elected or appointed by king/chief/lord/elders) but its a safe assumption that the council members result from politics in the four traditional nations and not the URN. As such, how are the earth and fire nations alright with the Southern Water Tribe, which I remind you is not a sovereign state, having its own council member. Its essentially like the Water Tribe having two council members while every other nation only gets one. If the council members are appointed by the ruling body of their nation (Fire Lord, Earth King) then the northern Chief would appoint both councilors (even if one of them had to be from the South) which gives him an incredible amount of political power. Even if its a popular vote, the Northern Chief could easily affect the Southern Representative domestic policy. The fire and Earth Nation should be in uproar, there's no way that this is fair, even by the warped logic of URN politics.
  • I believe this is more of a concession to the Southern Water Tribe considering their contribution to ending the 100 year war and stopping the Fire Nation. Two Southerners (Katara and Sokka) travelled with the Avatar and directly contributed to not only his training but protection (Also lending their aid to the Black Sun invasion), likewise it seems only the Southern Tribe that went to the aid of the Earth Kingdom and directly worked with them. If anything, you should be questioning the North's seat considering they seemed to contribute very little to the actual war effort when compared to the South, Earth Kingdom and Air Nomads.
  • I don't think the representatives represent the nations they come from. Tarrlok wasn't a citizen of the Northern Water Tribe. He immigrated to Republic City. Tenzin and his family live in the city too, not at an air temple. I think the representatives represent ethnic groups, not nations. Which makes sense. Aang would probably want to make sure that no culture would try to dominate any others ever again, so made sure that each race had equal representation, like checks and balances. I think it's more telling of the events in season two that the Southern Water Tribesmen wanted their own representative, as it shows they already consider themselves a separate people group from the North. This is also hinted at in season two, as they have their own cultural center. The Southern Water Tribe is not given a seat on the council as a reward for Sokka, Katara, and Hakoda's bravery during the war. The Southern Water Tribesmen are given their own representative because they don't consider a single representative adequate for protecting their rights as a unique people group. And Unalaq only proved them right when he took over in season two.

United Republic of Nations President

• In season 1, the URN council is made up of politicians appointed by the Fire Nation, Water Tribes, the Air Nomads and Earth Kindom. So the URN is kind of like if the UN had its own territory and a military made up of enlistees from other nations (Iroh is a fire national). But by season 2, the URN dissolves the council, gives executive power (including supreme command of the United Forces) to a president elected by the people living in its territory. They made it independent state with its own military at least strong enough to fight off the Northern Water Tribe Navy. Why would the traditional nations give up control over this incredibly powerful nation? How could that have possibly been in their nations interest?
  • Because of the Equalists. Though Amon was outed, a movement that took over the entire city probably demanded some changes be made.
  • The URN is not the UN-analogue with its own territory — it's a sovereign state independent of the four nations, formed out of former Fire Nation colonies in western Earth Kingdom. And it was always independent, in both seasons, only its form of government changed in the interim.
  • Yes as stated before, even when Amon was defeated is obvious that many non-benders and probably even some benders thought; “well he does had a point”, and IIRC Korra’s herself after the defeating of Amon promises some changes and a more fair treatment of non-benders. Democracy is a logic consequence, because is the only way how non-benders (that are the majority) may have an advantage over benders.

Return of the Dai Li

• Admittedly, bringing back the Dai Li was scary and creates many parallels to real life examples of secret police. But one has to wonder why would Ba Sing Se ever take back the Dai Li? They committed high treason; they betrayed Ba Sing Se and the entire Earth Kingdom by turning on them and serving Azula. Their actions led to the takeover of the city and the near death of the Avatar. Why would ever take them back and acting as your Gestapo?
  • Knowing Houn-Ting, she probably had all records of the Dai Li's involvement in Azula's takeover covered up.
  • But why would she do this. They betrayed their nation and their king. What makes her think they wouldn't do the same to her? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black if she complains that her dad was foolish and then proceeds to put known traitors in a position of power.
  • Its pretty clear that Hou-Ting is exceedingly arrogant. She probably thinks she can control the Dai Li better than her father could.
  • While my personal Head Cannon at the moment is that Hou-Ting is/was a Ju-Li there are plenty of examples of these kinds of things happening. We don't know much of what happened between the present and the end of the War but clearly the Earth Kingdom is not controlling it's territory particularly well. The Dai Li may be the only thing allowing Hou-Ting to maintain the illusion of power that she does have. It's worth remembering her father didn't so much lead the country as he did sit in a Palace at the center of his city where the Dai Li actually head control in every way but official legal channels. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they are the only thing holding that government together and have been for a century or more.
  • Also, this is 70 years into the future. Everyone who betrayed the nation is long dead and has been replaced with people that (supposedly) more trustworthy.
  • Did the old Earth King even get rid of the Dai Li as whole? It seemed more likely that he just had the ringleaders replaced with people that were more loyal.
  • The members of the Dai Li committed treason. The Dai Li itself is just an organization. Presumably, all the members of the Dai Li during Kuei's reign were jailed and replaced, and are probably all dead by now. And successfully, too - the current Dai Li, unlike the Dai Li of Kuei's reign, is not corrupt — they are completely loyal to the monarch, as they are supposed to be. The problem now is that the monarch is an evil tyrant.
  • She calls Kuei foolish because Kuei was a pretty ineffectual leader that allowed himself to be manipulated. She, obviously, is better in that regard, because she actually has the force of personality to control the Dai Li instead of the other way around.

Prince Wu

• Really? Just... Really? To clarify: why on earth (or whatever they call the world of avatar) are they putting in ANOTHER monarch in the earth kingdom, especially one who's already been shown to be entirely inept and especially when the Earth Kingdom's in dire straits and has another, stronger, more popular leader already putting it back together. The kingdom needs strong leadership to take the kingdom back from both the remaining bandits and Kuivra. Prince Wu is not that leader and it's strange the various nations of the world would choose to continue the monarchy in the earth kingdom even though it's failed twice now (The Previous Earth king having let someone else run his city like a police state and then nearly caused another war, while his daughter was a dictator whose incompetence and cruelty lead to her death and the earth kingdom's current situation. ). Now Granted Desna and Eska would probably be in favor of it due to not wanting their own shared monarchy to end and Raiko's already been shown to be in favor of it, but it doesn't explain why Tenzin (Already shown to be both a great politician and now responsible for an entire nation), Tonraq (An experienced leader and former rebel. and The Fire Lord (Whose father helped rebuild the world after a war and who's had decades of experience.) would allow this to happen. Hopefully the next few episodes will explain this but until then it remains a baffling question mark.
  • Because he is, by the law of the Earth Kingdom, the rightful heir.
  • Not to mention he's still pretty young, so he could be easily guided by the other leaders on how to be a good ruler for his people. While he is goofy, he's certainly not cruel or malicious. (He got close with Mako and even wanted to treat him to a spa date.) Plus he knows what would happen if he mistreated his people.
  • Why should Desna, Eska, Tenzin, Tonraq and Zuketta have any right to say fuck all about the Earth Kingdom succession? They're not judge, jury and executioner of the Avatar Universe. They have their own nations to attend to and anything to do with 100% internal Earth Kingdom politics means their opinions amount to exactly dick. Zuketta is not Great-great-grandpappy Sozin to be dictating to other nations how they should act.
  • Because it's in their best interests to make sure they have a stable neighbor. Sure, Wu would not be a very good leader, but his ministers would largely uphold the status quo. Kuivira, on the other hand, is a wild card, which makes her both a threat to the status quo as well as the incumbent world leaders.
  • Clearly you're not very familiar with real-world politics because this happens all the time. They're helping install Wu because putting him in charge is to their benefit.
  • It's been revealed that Raiko has a plan in process for Prince Wu to be the king while Republic City's own people are his advisers making him nothing more than a puppet king.
  • And at the end Wu was a very well ruler, he decided to turn the Earth Kingdom in a constitutional federal monarchy.
  • No one complained about Zuko taking the throne after all the damage the previous three Fire Lords had caused. And Wu may've been a bit eccentric, but he does prove time and again that he has what it takes to be a competent leader as the series goes on. Apart from being a bit more pampered, he's not all that different from the Earth King from the original series, who probably did a fine job of ruling once Long Feng's corruption was ratted out.

Why didn't Suyin want to be Cincinatus?

• Not wanting t/lllllo be a tyrant makes sense, but what's wrong with restoring order and then stepping down?
  • Perhaps Suyin believed she didn't have the ability to unite the entire Earth Kingdom, or feared she'd be tempted by the power. Plus, Suyin is largely a hands off type of person, both in politics and in her family life. It wouldn't be surprising if she believed the other Earth Kingdom states were better off solving their own problems rather than relying on her.
  • It's also possible she didn't want it for the same reason Dumbledore turned down being Minister of Magic in Harry Potter despite being the most qualified candidate: Suyin is a former criminal who ran with gangs, and possibly did some other bad stuff after Toph kicked her out of Republic City before she redeemed herself. She possibly doesn't want to be tempted by that kind of power, let it reawaken old habits within her.
  • Suyin seemed to read between the lines that she would be expected to restore order through the use of force and as quickly as possible. Rather than not wanting to help at all, she seemed to think forcing peace would only create resentment that would lead to more war.
  • On yet another hand, being the leader of Zaofu it could be she didn't think she could be seen as a neutral force restoring order. Hence why she said she would be seen as a conqueror, basically the leader of one Earth Kingdom state exerting power over other states.
  • It's possible that Suyin only thinks her ideas work in small city states like Zaofu, where everyone lives there more or less voluntarily; trying to impose them on the rest of the Earth Kingdom from the top down just wouldn't work.

Why doesn't the Earth Queen do anything after her airbenders escape?

• In The Earth Queen, it's made clear that the Earth Queen has no sympathy for the United Republic of Nations, and that she still views it as a part of the Earth Kingdom. In the following episode, In Harm's Way, Team Avatar and Chief Beifong help the forcibly conscripted Earth Kingdom airbenders escape their training camp, even though Bumi points out that it was within the Queen's legal rights to conscript them. They escape in two airships, one of them being Beifong's own police airship, which has Republic City police department symbols in clear display, and this was witnessed by the Queen herself. To sum it up: the police chief of Republic City took part in an attack against an Earth Kingdom army facility, and helped to illegally transport Earth Kingdom conscripts out of the Ba Sing Se, using an official Republic City airship in doing so. You'd assume the Queen would use this incident as a pretext to start one hell of a diplomatic battle to claim back her airbenders, or maybe even go to war against the United Republic. At the very least she should demand that Republic City fires Chief Beifong for such a blatant violation of another country's sovereignty. But she doesn't do any of that – why?
  • It probably wouldn't have done her much good. The United Republic probably wouldn't view her kidnapping people favorably, even if she was legally right to do so, and is less likely to cooperate if she has no respect for them — put it this way, would South Korea extradite someone to North Korea?
  • That's not a good comparison, though: in the Avatar world the Earth Kingdom is much bigger and stronger than the United Republic, so the latter couldn't afford to defy the former, if the Queen really put her foot down. And President Raiko has already shown that he's willing to compromise in moral questions in order to avoid conflict; he did so with the Northern Water Tribe during the first half of season 2, and the NWT is hardly as powerful as the Earth Kingdom is. So it seems quite unlikely he would've defended an unauthorized and illegal attack committed by the chief of police (alongside the Avatar and her team, whom Raiko doesn't think highly of because of the whole "spirits invading Republic City" thing), if it enraged their powerful neighbour state.
  • The Earth Kingdom is more of a loose conglomeration of allied states than a singular entity under the Earth Queen's rule. The United Republic's army includes people and weapons from every other nature, including Earth. And whether or not Raiko's willing to risk it isn't the question so much as is the Earth Queen willing to risk it. Her people just came off of a 100 years of war that they lost, probably are not eager to start another one, and going to war over the right to kidnap your own citizens is not the kind of thing that's going to rally the people around you. Going to war would be extremely risky for the Earth Queen.
  • First of all, is there any evidence that the Earth Kingdom was a "a loose conglomeration of allied states" when the Queen was still alive? It becomes something like that when the Kingdom falls after the Queen's death, and Kuvira reunites it, but there's nothing to suggest the Queen didn't rule the whole Kingdom with a firm hand. Secondly, the 100 year war didn't "just" end, it ended 70 years ago. Most Earth Kingdom citizens wouldn't even have a living memory of it. Thirdly, the Queen's propaganda machine wouldn't need to reveal that the Earth Kingdom airbenders were kidnapped by her; all she would have to say is that Team Avatar and Chief Beifong were the ones who kidnapped a bunch of Earth Kingdom citizens. If they claim otherwise, the Queen could say they're simply lying to justify the kidnapping. Fourthly, even if the Queen isn't ready to go to war against the United Republic, that doesn't explain why she does nothing. Why doesn't she contact President Raiko and explain what Chief Beifong did? Even if the Chief felt she- was justified in her actions, using a Republic City airship for a violent attack against another nation is gross misuse of her authority, and Raiko should have no other alternative than to discharge her.
  • Most likely, Hou-Ting didn't want to reveal that she was assembling an air bender force as part of her army to the rest of the world, especially the United Republic, which she may have been planning to use those same airbenders on. Her initial plan might have probably been to find the Avatar, her accomplices, and the airbenders back before word got out to Republic City. A move likely motivated by the fact that she likely knew of the Avatar's seeming exile from the latter. Any more overt action against the United Republic was still likely being taken into consideration, especially since any action against the latter would have likely drawn in the Fire Nation as well (you don't send the heir to the throne to be a general in another nation's army unless you have very, very close ties to them). In fact, building an airbender corps was likely a move designed to help give them an edge in any conflict with a combined United Republic and Fire Nation force.
  • Also, Bumi said she had to the right to conscript her subjects, not forcibly take them away from their families and imprison them. If she'd had the airbenders sent to a military school or something for training and Korra broke in and took them from there, then she would've had a leg to stand on.

Neutrality

• When Korra tried to interfere with the Northern Water Tribe invading the South, everyone tells her to stay out of it and not take sides because the Avatar is supposed to be seen as neutral...Isn't the Avatar supposed to maintain balance in the world, something completely unrelated to neutrality? In the original series, it was said that Aang had to take out Ozai specifically because he was a neutral figure, as opposed to Iroh or just about anyone else. So why is Korra being told the opposite here?
  • Because her father and uncle are in charge of the Southern and Northern tribes. That's a serious conflict of interest.

Succession

• Why did Eska and Desna both become the leaders of the Northern Water Tribe after Unalaq's death? Shouldn't the title of chief go to whoever was the older of the two?
  • Because they decided to rule it together, apparently.

***

Earth Kingdom royalty

• Why are the members of the Earth Kingdom royalty we've seen so... incompetent compared to the leaders of the other nations? The Fire Nation and the Water Tribes are both ruled over by families of capable fighters and warriors and skilled benders - a far cry from Kuei and Hou Ting, who were ineffectual in battle and completely defenseless on their own. Even Wu, despite his moments of brilliance, shows himself to be more of a thinker than a fighter.
  • Because it's a different culture with different values in its leaders.
  • Every dynasty - from Ancient Rome to the Chinese has had its good (and not-so-good) rulers. The Earth Kingdom just happened to have bad luck.

---