Theocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- For the metal band, refer to Theocracy (band).
- For the computer strategy game, refer to Theocracy (computer game).
An objective explanation of what a theocracy is, or in what sense that term is used, has to deal with two very different approaches. For believers in a religion whose institutions have been more or less equated with the state's institutions in a theocracy, a theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (for example, in monotheisms, the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g., as incarnation in a human being) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g., church, temple), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s). [1]
Most modern descriptive dictionaries explain that the word is used in most carefully edited texts in English to mean either government by immediate divine guidance (close to the usage described above) or, more commonly, as government by or subject to religious institutions and priests (or a state ruled in this way). In other words, for people who do not believe in a theocracy's religion or feel that its religious institutions do not represent the religion well, a theocracy is a form of Gleichschaltung that purports to fulfill a divine intention but instead simply fulfills the goals of the ruling priests.
Contents |
[edit] Word history
The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία (theokratia), meaning "the rule of God" (Josephus). This in turn derives from the Greek words θεος (theos, from an Indo-European root occurring in religious concepts), meaning “god”, and κρατειν (kratein), meaning “to rule”. Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was “rule by god(s)” or human incarnation(s) of god(s). However, theocracy never had that literal meaning in English. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.
It is a common misconception that ancient Israel and Judah were "theocracies." This is not true. The Creator did not govern nor was He considered to rule the affairs of state. Ancient Israel and Judah were Constitutional Monarchies with what we call, separated and balanced 'powers,' areas of distinct authority: the king and his prophet (to correct his misinterpration or transgression of Torah; the High Priest and priests generally, responsible for the daily sacrifices that kept the people connected to G-d and the sacred (and, on the economic-political-social level, to each other and to the state's capital); the Sanhedrin with its Nasi (president) and Av beit din (VP) who judged all disputes beyond the competence of the Levites (there were four levitical cities in each tribal territory; the people at large each with an inalienable land holding (see Leviticus 25) from whose produce they gave charity (mandatory and extra as they chose); military service; dwelling; home base for festivals / holy days. The Constitution was the Five Books of Moshe (Chumash).
[edit] Introduction
In the most common usage of the term theocracy, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine Emperor as patron of the head of the official Church); governmental policies are either identical with, or strongly influenced by, the principles of a religion, and typically, the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion. These characteristics apply also to a Caesaropapist regime. The Byzantine empire however was not theocratic as the Patriarch answered to the Emperor, not vice versa; similarly in Tudor England the crown forced the church to break away from Rome so the royal (and, especially later, parliamentary) power could assume full control of the now Anglican hierarchy -a nationalistic name- and confiscate most church property and income. A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms', but with the religious hierarchy dominating the state administrative hierarchy.
Theocracy should be distinguished from other, secular forms of government which also have a state religion, and from some monarchies, in which the head of state legitimates the authority of the crown as being held By the Grace of God and tends to assume a sacral aura. Where there is a state or established religion, there is a long-term contract between the religious and political hierarchies. A monarchy which claims religious legitimation may also dominate the religious sphere (Caesaropapism), or it may be so dependent on the religious hierarchy for legitimation that the state has no autonomy from religion (theocracy). Typically, religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.
[edit] Ecclesiocracy and Hierocracy
The more specific term ecclesiocracy denotes rule by a church or analgous religious leadership, whereas "theocracy" in its strictest sense, when analyzed into its component morphemes, literally means rule by God or gods but is commonly used as the generic term. (The component morphemes of the word "ecclesiocracy" are "ecclesia" 'congregation', church and "kratein" 'to rule')
Theocracy and ecclesiocracy should be distinguished from governments that are influenced by religious concepts, or in which religious believers have positions of power gained by political means. An ecclesiocracy or theocracy is rule by the hierarchy of a specific church or sect, not simply a government influenced by religious concepts.
Hierocracy is a term coined by Max Weber for the institutional forms of authority within a religious community. Despite its appearance it does not in fact refer to a form of (secular) government. A related term is ecclesiastical government.
Perhaps a clearer way to distinguish between a theocracy and an ecclesiocracy is this: A pure theocracy would be a situation where the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with God, such as a Prophet like the Israelites when they were ruled by Moses or the early Muslims who were ruled by Mohammed - and therefore a situation where the law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. A good example would be the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocrasy, since the pope did not claim he is a prophet who receives revelation from God, but merely the (in rare cases infallible) interpreter of already-received revelation.
[edit] History of the concept
The concept of theocracy was first coined by Josephus Flavius in the 1st century. He defined theocracy as the characteristic government for Jews. Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the enlightenment era, when the term started to collect more universalistic and undeniably negative connotations, especially in Hegel's hands. After that, the word "theocracy" has been mostly used to label certain politically unpopular societies as somehow less rational or developed. The concept is used in sociology and other social sciences, but the term is often used in an overly broad manner, especially in popular rhetoric.
[edit] Current states with theocratic aspects
[edit] Iran
Most observers would consider Iran a theocracy, since the elected president and legislature are constitutionally subject to the supervision of two offices reserved for Shiah clerics: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Rahbar) and the Guardian Council, which even decide who may run for office.
Iran is also considered a "semi-democracy", like China or Russia. [1] However, Iranian authorities themselves consider Iran a theo-democracy or religious democracy.
The Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of state and government, whereas the President is granted as the prime executor of policy. However, in the recent years Mohammad Khatami has called Iranian political system as an alternative democratic model so called religious democracy.
[edit] Israel
Israel can be regarded as somewhat theocratic given the intertwining of rabbinical law and civil law, as well as the fact that there are state employed rabbis with religious/civil duties. Israel's Law of Return grants preferential treatment to Jews with the aim of facilitating their return to what the State of Israel views as their ancestral homeland. It is important to remember, however, that a member of any religion can be a citizen of Israel with full and equal rights under the law, just as in Iran.
[edit] England
England has a theocratic aspect because the monarch is "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England and "defender of the faith." This has been the case since the Protestant Reformation in England, under Henry VIII. It should be noted however, that the monarch has virtually no real power and their positions as head of state and of the church are purely ceremonial. This does not apply to Scotland, whose Church of Scotland does not have the same relation to the state. Queen Elizabeth II, however, is a member of the Church of Scotland and appoints a representative to the General Assembly of the church if she cannot attend personally.
[edit] Andorra
Andorra's government is in some aspect nominally theocratic in that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Urgell is one of its co-princes, although the role is virtually entirely ceremonial.
[edit] Norway
While Norway's population is relatively non-religious in their day-to-day lives, the Norwegian state retains a few vestigial religious overtones. As in many constitutional monarchies, the Head of State is also the leader of the state church. The 12th article of the Constitution of Norway requires more than half of the members of the Norwegian Council of State to be members of the state church. The second article guarantees freedom of religion, while also stating that Evangelical Lutheranism is the official state religion.[2]
On July 9, 2006 a prominent member of HEF, Jens Brun-Pedersen, called for the Prime Minister to advocate the separation of church and state. He argues that the 12th article of the constitution is discriminatory, and that Norway can't criticise countries advocating sharia law when the constitution favours Lutheran members of society.[3]
During the periods of 1997-2000 and 2001-2005 the centre-right coalition government's Prime Minister was a priest, Kjell Magne Bondevik. In these periods, the biotechnology laws in Norway were reformed into some of the strictest in the world.
[edit] Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is run according to a version of shari'a (traditional Islamic legislation) with the Quran declared to be the constitution and is therefore sometimes classified as theocratic, but it is officially and in political fact a hereditary monarchy, with the King wielding near-absolute power and the organs of official religion subservient to them, which is rather caesaropapism: a state structure in which the government ('Caesar') is also in control of the main religious institutions.
[edit] The Vatican
The Vatican City State is theocratic in a very limited sense, since it has temporal rule over a small territory, but that is not its primary function. As per the Lateran Treaties, secular laws and practices in the Vatican follows those of Italy. The Italian Government also is charged with security for the Vatican City State, including keeping outside invaders at bay and prosecution of criminals.
The Papal States -- the predecessor to the Vatican City State -- functioned more theocratically, with penalties that included excommunication.
[edit] Athos (The Holy Mountain) Greece
Mount Athos is the only autonomous administrative department in Greece, which is a country run according to Roman Law and is otherwise entirely a unitary state. Mount Athos is theocratic, is ruled entirely by the Monks under their own council based in the capital Karyes, and it controls who can visit. Only Orthodox Christian males are allowed to stay permanently on Athos, which consists of 20 Monastic establishments. Its spiritual leadership is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople based in Istanbul. There is a religious police guard that has the authority to impose order, e.g. bans the playing of musical instruments by visitors. The Greek police also have authority with the monks' permission to enforce the civil law of Greece and decisions of the Patriarchate in accordance with the Canon, e.g. the decision to evict the monks of the renegade Esphigmenou monastery. Athos has upheld derogations from the EU allowing them to continue the prohibition of the entry of females (including female mammals) on the mountain. This isn't because they are male monks, but because the mountain is dedicated to the Virgin Mary, and this is an important historical fact of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[edit] Religious communities
Theocracy, as a form of ruling the state, should be distinguished from the internal order of a religious community. The Knights Hospitaller is a religious order with an internal rule, but this does not make it a theocracy. Many states incorporate elements of religious law in their civil laws, but if these laws are administered by civil courts according to the logic of the state, this does not constitute a theocratic element in their constitutions.
[edit] Historical theocracies
The largest and best known theocracies in history were the Umayyad and early Abassid Caliphate, and the Papal States. And as with any other state or empire, pragmatism was part of the politics of these de jure theocracies.
In the past, several nations of varying faiths have been deemed theocracies. Although this appraisal was occasionally inaccurate or simplistic, it does work at least in some cases.
An example often given from Antiquity is Pharaonic Egypt when the king was a divine or semi-divine figure who ruled largely through priests. Properly speaking this was originally a caesaropapist order, rather than a theocratic one, since the worldly rulers took charge of religion, rather than vice versa, but once the Pharaoh (since Ramses the Great) was recognized as a living (incarnated) god both definitions concurred.
In Christianity, Geneva during the period of John Calvin's greatest influence is often classed as a Protestant theocracy. The same can be said of some sovereign prince of the church (mostly prince-bishop) regimes in Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but this classification is debatable as they simply unite in one office a clerical role and that of head of state and government of a feudal state (often with one or more such title(s), merged into the prelature, e.g. the bishops who had ducal or comital pairs de France) which functions in temporal matters almost identically to its hereditary counterparts.
Montenegro offers a singular example of monarchs willingly turning their power to ecclesiastic authority, as the last of the House of Crnojević (styled Grand Voivode, not sovereign princes) did, in order to preserve national unity before the Ottoman onslaught as a separate millet under an autochthonous Ethnarch. When Montenegro re-established secular dynastic succession by the proclamation of princedom in 1851, it did so in favor of the last Prince-bishop, who changed his style from Vladika i upravitelj Crne Gore i Brde "Vladika [bishop] and Ruler of Montenegro and Brda" to Po Bozjoj milosti knjaz i gospodar Crne Gore i Brde "By the grace of God Prince and Sovereign of Montenegro and Brda", thus rendering his de facto dynasty (the Petrović-Njegoš family since 1696) a hereditary one.
The Papal States in Italy (and its Avignon version) were also a theocracy and ancestor of the current Vatican City State. Florence under the short rule of Girolamo Savonarola is also at times considered a theocracy.
In Islam, the period when Medina was ruled by the Prophet Muhammad is, occasionally, classed as a theocracy. By 630, Muhammad established a theocracy in Mecca. Other plausible examples of Islamic theocracy might be Mahdist Sudan and the Taliban state in Afghanistan (1996-2001). Most irregular was the non-permanent rule of the Akhoonds (imams) in the later princely state of Swat, a valley in (first British India's, later Pakistan's) North-West Frontier Province. Theocratic movements arose in the Arab world in the 1970s. Reaction against Western domination was expressed by nationalism which led to Theocratic fundamentalism.
The period when Dalai Lamas ruled Tibet, especially before certain twentieth century reforms, has also been deemed a Lamaist (Buddhist) theocracy till his government was forced into exile by the People's Republic of China which annexed the country. However the nature of Tibetan Buddhism makes the use of the term technically incorrect, since in Buddhism not divinities but 'saints' are reincarnated as bodhisattvas, rendered as 'living Buddhas', and often assume clerical, occasionally even political offices. Outer Mongolia also had a theocratic Lama (before the Soviets installed a satellite communist state), but there since the start in 1639, when the son of the Mongol Khan of Urga was named a Living Buddha (Bogdo gegeen), the dynasty espoused theocracy and secular aristocracy.
At other times in history a theocratic or semi-theocratic state is set up as a form of social protest or because of utopian idealism. The largest effort toward that end might be the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of nineteenth century China. Shawnee leader Tenskwatawa's "Prophets Town" was also a Native American religious city state of a kind, although it was possibly more of an intentional community rather than a theocracy.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony operated as a theocracy dominated by the Puritans throughout much of the 17th century.
Another ecclesiocracy was the administration of the short-lived State of Deseret, an independent entity briefly organized in the American West by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Japan was a nominal theocracy until it was defeated in World War II when emperor Hirohito was forced to deny in the Ningen-sengen (人間宣言?) the traditional claim that the Emperor of Japan was divine, and a descendant of the Sun Goddess. During this period, although the Emperor had some influence, Japan was a constitutional democracy ultimately dominated by the military.
[edit] Parties and movements with theocratic aspects
A number of parties and movements have been accused of having theocratic aspects. See the article on the Islamic party. In many countries accusations of theocracy are considered slurs or political attacks. Conservative organizations like Christian right and Unification Church are sometimes considered to promote theocratic movement.
[edit] See also
- Authoritarianism
- Dominionism
- Establishment of religion
- Islamic republic
- Joseph Kony
- Khalistan
- List of forms of government
- Religious left
- Christian left
- Secularism
- Separation of church and state
- State religion
- Statolatry
- Theonomy
- Christian right
- Religious right
- Unification Church
[edit] References
- ^ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14568a.htm
- ^ The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway
- ^ Visionary or missionary? - Jens Brun-Pedersen, Dagbladet July 9, 2006
[edit] Sources and external links
- EtymologyOnLine
- Is Judaism a Theocracy? chabad.org
- Theocracy Watch - Details the rise of the religious right and dominionism within the Republican Party
- First Things, August/September 2006, p. 23-30 - Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy
- Caliphate: The Future of Islamic Theocracy
- WorldStatesmen- see ach nation; here Mongolia
Forms and Styles of Leadership: see also Form of government
|
|
| Religion in government |
|---|
|
This article is part of |
| Politics Portal · |
