Theocracy


 * For the computer strategy game, refer to Theocracy (game).

The term theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. Properly speaking, it refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere. The word theocracy originates from the Greek words θεος (theos), &ldquo;god&rdquo; and κρατειν (kratein), &ldquo;to rule&rdquo;. The term means &ldquo;rule by god&rdquo;.

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 head of the 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. However these characteristics also apply to a caesaropapist regime, and the Byzantine empire was caesaropapist not theocratic, since the patriarch answered to the emperor, not vice versa. 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 forms of government which have a state religion, and from some monarchies, in which the head of state claims that his or her authority comes from God. 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.

Ecclesiocracy & Hierocracy
A more literal term for the exact meaning of "theocracy" is "ecclesiocracy," which denotes rule by a religious leader or body, whereas theocracy would literally mean rule by God.

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 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, 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, occupy a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocrasy, since the pope does not claim he is a prophet who receives revelation from God, but merely the infallible interpreter of already-received revelation.

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.

Current states with theocratic aspects
Many observers would consider Iran a theocracy, since the elected president and legislature are subject to the supervision of clerics. Not every "Islamic Republic" is necessarily a theocracy, since in some the effective power is in the hands of a military-backed regime, functioning under an Islamic cloak. Saudi Arabia is run according to a version of shari'a (traditional Islamic legislation) with the Koran declared to be the constitution and is sometimes incorrectly classified as theocratic, but it is officially and in fact a monarchy, with the monarch wielding near-absolute power and the organs of official religion subservient to them. This is known as caesaropapism: a state structure in which the government (Caesar) is also in control of the main organs of religion. 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. Theocracy, as a form of ruling the state, should be distinguished from the internal order of a religious community. The monastery at Mount Athos is a non-sovereign entity that governs its members under Canon law (traditional Christian legislation) according to the Greek constitution, but it would not normally be called a theocracy since no state is governed. The Knights Hospitaller is another 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.

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 in least in some cases. An example often given is Pharaohnic Egypt when the king was a divine or semi-divine figure who ruled largely through priests. Properly speaking this was a caesaropapist order, not a theocratic one, since it was the worldly rulers who were in charge of religion, rather than vice versa. The period when Dalai Lamas ruled Tibet, especially before certain twentieth century reforms, has also been deemed a theocracy at times; although the nature of Tibetan Buddhism makes the use of the term somewhat complicated.

In Christianity, Geneva during the period of John Calvin's greatest influence is often classed as theocratic, as are some of the prince-bishop regimes in Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but this classification is debatable. The Papal States were also a theocracy and ancestor of the current Vatican. Florence under the rule of Girolamo Savonarola is also at times considered a theocracy.

In Islam the period when Medina was ruled by the Prophet Muhammed is also, occasionally, classed as a theocracy. Other plausible examples of Islamic theocracy might be Mahdist Sudan and the Taliban state in Afghanistan (1996-2001).

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. Tenskwatawa's "Prophets Town" was also a religious city state of a kind, although was possibly more of an intentional community rather than a theocracy.

True theocracies have been relatively uncommon in modern history, although not unheard of. For example, the Taliban regime's rule of Afghanistan during the late 1990s would qualify under most definitions of the term.

Parties and movements with theocratic aspects
A number of parties and movements have been accused of having theocratic aspects. For a list of such parties and movements see the articles on Islamic party and Constitutional theocracy. In many countries accusations of theocracy are considered slurs or political attacks.

For discussions of the United States Republican Party having theocratic elements see Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, and Neofascism and religion. For discussions of the United States Democratic Party having theocratic elements see Evangelical left, Evangelicals for Social Action, and CrossLeft. For other parties of a religious outlook that might therefore be deemed theocratic see Category:Christian Democratic parties.