The Walking Dead: Maggie’s bold decision blurs the lines

The Intersection of History and Politics and the Problem of Optics

This is where the intersection of history and political science come into play. Now that Maggie is an established leader there is a level of expectation that she will act for the greatest good. Decisions will be made fairly to benefit the community. But without a charter, without established laws and without a trial of his peers it could be said that Maggie killed Gregory because she wanted to.

The Governor was a benevolent leader until you crossed him, at which point he killed you. Negan claims to value people (especially the workers at the Sanctuary) but if you do him wrong, you’re dead.

Maggie has a long (and largely private) history with Gregory that justify why she killed him, but the optics make it look like she made the decision because he crossed her.

All of a sudden the line between benevolent leader and benevolent dictator becomes blurred.

This moment in The Walking Dead history closely resembles the colonial period of the United States, well before the United States were actually united together as one nation. Each of the original thirteen colonies had charters and local governments. Eventually the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution would unify the colonies into one nation with one federal government and the states maintaining local control.

Michonne is working towards drafting a charter to unify the communities (colonies) to give them a law of the land (Constitution) with the possible oversight of one governing body (federal government) in addition to community leaders (state government). This would create a system of governance by which everyone will live moving forward. Break the rules and face the consequences.