I mean, the command structure of Star Fleet mirrors the military, but as far I know the the mirror universe is the 'militarized' society.
This. For someone with a longing for a culture that values duty, and with it, a sense of place and responsibility, a community with hierarchy, et cetera, Star Trek delivers. Today, those elements largely live within conservative America.
iirc He wanted to promote egalitarian values whilst portraying the efficiencies and comradery of a uniform service.
The normal one, well, everything is shown to be run by a military organization, Starfleet, ranging from exploration to first contact and diplomacy. Federation ambassadors are portrayed as spoiled, clueless clows. All while attributing Starfleet a clear moral superiority.
And even shows like DS9, the Maquis angle hints at some moral dilema regarding the occupied colonies, show that obedience, following orders and some higher moral principle trump whatever pro-Maquis Starfleet personl might think. Because after all, if the heros ignore protocol or orders they never stabd against Starfleet. Overall, it is pretty militaristic in nature.
Star Trek primarily depicts the Federations (of planets) Military on the frontier of their space.
The society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade.
"Starfleet's function was to explore unknown territory on the behalf of the Federation government, to defend the Federation and its allies from threats, to further Federation policies and interests throughout interstellar space, and, when applicable, to initiate first contact with newly-discovered worlds and to engage in diplomatic negotiations on the behalf of the Federation. "
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_Starfleet
"Unlike its traditional rivals who derive power from a single dominant species subjugating other races within the boundaries of their empire, the Federation's various Member States join willingly and are equals in the Federation's democratic society."
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Pla...
contrast that with:
"Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values. It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta).... Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism
"A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy
"A military junta is a government led by a committee of military leaders. The term junta means "meeting" or "committee" and originated in the national and local junta organized by the Spanish resistance to Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808."
Militaristic != imperial. If your society's smart and ambitious aspire to join your military, you're a militaristic culture.
If we can't even agree on the simple understanding and general meaning of a word or term it's kind of hard to have a useful discussion.
On what basis? Your own definition highlights glorification. That, to me, is the essence of a militaristic (versus martial) culture.
> Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history
> predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta)
What parts of that can you not understand are clearly in contrast to the society of the Federation?
Starfleet is portrayed as the defining element of the Federation. And throughout history, the military handling all aspects of civil admin was a very rare exception. Even just the majority is extemely rare. Once the military controls it, well, we are beyond a militaristic society and squarely in military dictatorship territory.
It is true that Starfleet, as the exploration and defense arm of the Federation, assumes a significant role in upholding these interests. Through its diplomatic efforts and scientific missions, Starfleet acts as an ambassador of the Federation, promoting peaceful relations and extending our shared values to uncharted territories. The use of soft power by Starfleet helps facilitate dialogue and cooperation, providing a platform for resolving conflicts and building alliances.
However, it is important to maintain a delicate balance between military and civilian authority. History has shown us that when the military assumes control over all aspects of civil administration, it is a rare exception and not the norm. Such a scenario tends to blur the lines between defense and governance, potentially leading to an imbalanced and potentially authoritarian society.
While Starfleet plays a crucial role in protecting the Federation and expanding its influence, it must coexist harmoniously with civilian institutions, where governance, legislation, and civilian oversight are essential. The principles of democracy, respect for individual rights, and the rule of law should guide our decision-making processes, ensuring that our society remains true to the values we hold dear.
By striking a balance between Starfleet's military capabilities and civilian administration, we preserve the essence of the Federation—a diverse, democratic alliance built on principles of exploration, cooperation, and respect. Through the concerted efforts of both civilian and military entities, we can ensure that the Federation continues to flourish without veering into the territory of a militaristic dictatorship.
Not OP, but Star Trek posits a post-scarcity economy and progressive values. (It also presents a militarized society.)