| Part of the Politics series |
| Democracy |
|---|
|
|
|
|
 Politics portal |
| Part of the Politics series |
| Basic forms of government |
|---|
| List of forms of government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics portal |
Types of democracy refers to pluralism of governing structures such as governments (local through to global) and other constructs like workplaces, families, community associations, and so forth. Types of democracy can cluster around values. For example, some like direct democracy, electronic democracy, participatory democracy, real democracy, and deliberative democracy, strive to allow people to participate equally and directly in protest, discussion, decision-making, or other acts of politics. Different types of democracy - like representative democracy - strive for indirect participation as this procedural approach to collective self-governance is still widely considered the only means for the more or less stable democratic functioning of mass societies.[1] Types of democracy can be found across time, space, and language.[2] In the English language the noun "democracy" has been modified by 2,234 adjectives.[3] These adjectival pairings, like atomic democracy or Zulu democracy, act as signal words that point not only to specific meanings of democracy but to groups, or families, of meaning as well.
Direct democracy
A direct democracy, or pure democracy, is a type of democracy where the people govern directly. It requires wide participation of citizens in politics.[4] Athenian democracy, or classical democracy, refers to a direct democracy developed in ancient times in the Greek city-state of Athens. A popular democracy is a type of direct democracy based on referendums and other devices of empowerment and concretization of popular will.
An industrial democracy is an arrangement which involves workers making decisions, sharing responsibility and authority in the workplace (see also workplace).
Representative democracies
A representative democracy is an indirect democracy where sovereignty is held by the people's representatives.
- A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty and property by rule of law.
- An illiberal democracy has weak or no limits on the power of the elected representatives to rule as they please.
Types of representative democracy include:
- Electoral democracy – type of representative democracy based on election, on electoral vote, as modern occidental or liberal democracies. Also, electoral democracy can guaranteed to protect personal freedoms.[5]
- Dominant-party system – democratic party system where only one political party can realistically become the government, by itself or in a coalition government.
- Parliamentary democracy
– democratic system of government where the executive branch of a
parliamentary government is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime
minister who is considered the head of government.
- Westminster democracy – parliamentary system of government modeled after that of the United Kingdom system.
- Presidential democracy
– democratic system of government where a head of government is also
head of state and leads an executive branch that is separate from the
legislative branch.
- Jacksonian democracy – a variant of presidential democracy popularized by U.S. President Andrew Jackson which promoted the strength of the executive branch and the Presidency at the expense of Congressional power.
A demarchy has people randomly selected from the citizenry through sortition to either act as general governmental representatives or to make decisions in specific areas of governance (defense, environment, etc.).
A non-partisan democracy is system of representative government or organization such that universal and periodic elections (by secret ballot) take place without reference to political parties.
An organic or authoritarian democracy is a democracy where the ruler holds a considerable amount of power, but their rule benefits the people. The term was first used by supporters of Bonapartism.[6]
Types based on location
A cellular democracy, developed by Georgist libertarian economist Fred E. Foldvary, uses a multi-level bottom-up structure based on either small neighborhood governmental districts or contractual communities.[7]
A workplace democracy refers to the application of democracy to the workplace[8] (see also industrial democracy).
Types based on level of freedom
A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty and property by rule of law. In contrast, a defensive democracy limits some rights and freedoms in order to protect the institutions of the democracy.
Types based on ethnic influence
Religious democracies
A religious democracy is a form of government where the values of a particular religion have an effect on the laws and rules, often when most of the population is a member of the religion, such as:
Other types of democracy
Types of democracy include:
- Autocratic Democracy: where the party elected ruler will control unilaterally the state.
- Anticipatory democracy – relies on some degree of disciplined and usually market-informed anticipation of the future, to guide major decisions.
- Associationalism, or Associative Democracy – emphasis on freedom via voluntary and democratically self-governing associations.
- Adversialism, or Adversial Democracy – with an emphasis on freedom based on adversial relationships between individuals and groups as best expressed in democratic judicial systems.
- Bourgeois democracy – some Marxists, communists, socialists and anarchists refer to liberal democracy as bourgeois democracy, alleging that ultimately politicians fight only for the rights of the bourgeoisie.
- Consensus democracy – rule based on consensus rather than traditional majority rule.
- Constitutional democracy – governed by a constitution.
- Deliberative democracy – in which authentic deliberation, not only voting, is central to legitimate decision making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule.
- Democratic centralism – an organizational method where members of a political party discuss and debate matters of policy and direction and after the decision is made by majority vote, all members are expected to follow that decision in public.
- Democratic dictatorship (also known as democratur)
- Democratic republic – republic which has democracy through elected representatives
- Democratic socialism – form of socialism ideologically opposed to the Marxist–Leninist styles that have become synonymous with socialism; democratic socialists place an emphasis on decentralized governance in political democracy with social ownership of the means of production and social and economic institutions with workers' self-management.
- Economic democracy – theory of democracy involving people having access to subsistence, or equity in living standards.
- Grassroots democracy – emphasizes trust in small decentralized units at the municipal government level, possibly using urban secession to establish the formal legal authority to make decisions made at this local level binding.
- Guided democracy – a form of democratic government with increased autocracy where citizens exercise their political rights without meaningfully affecting the government's policies, motives, and goals.
- Inclusive democracy – a left-libertarian formulation of democracy that includes democracy in the social, political, economic, and ecological spheres; primarily due to Greek philosopher Takis Fotopoulos.
- Interactive democracy – a proposed form of democracy utilising information technology to allow citizens to propose new policies, "second" proposals and vote on the resulting laws (that are refined by Parliament) in a referendum.
- Jeffersonian democracy – named after American statesman Thomas Jefferson, who believed in equality of political opportunity and opposed to privilege, aristocracy and corruption.
- Liquid democracy – a form of democratic control whereby voting power is vested in individual citizens who may self-select provisional delegates, rather than elected representatives.
- Market democracy – another name for democratic capitalism, an economic ideology based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy based predominantly on economic incentives through free markets, a democratic polity and a liberal moral-cultural system which encourages pluralism.
- Multiparty democracy – an electoral democracy where the people have free and fair elections and can choose between multiple political parties, unlike dictatorships that have usually one party that dominates the other parties or it is the only legally allowed party to rule.
- New Democracy – Maoist concept based on Mao Zedong's "Bloc of Four Classes" theory in post-revolutionary China.
- Participatory democracy – involves more lay citizen participation in decision making and offers greater political representation than traditional representative democracy, e.g., wider control of proxies given to representatives by those who get directly involved and actually participate.
- People's democracy – multi-class rule in which the proletariat dominates.
- Radical democracy – type of democracy that focuses on the importance of nurturing and tolerating difference and dissent in decision-making processes.
- Revolutionary democracy – ideology of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front
- Semi-direct democracy – representative democracy with instruments, elements, and/or features of direct democracy.
- Sociocracy – a democratic system of governance based on consent decision making, circle organization, subsidiarity, and double-linked representation.
See also
- Global Foundation for Democracy and Development (GFDD)
- Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo (FUNGLODE)
- Communalism
- Corsican Constitution
- Democracy Index
- Democracy promotion
- Democracy Ranking
- Democratic capitalism
- Direct Action and Democracy Today
- Education Index
- The End of History and the Last Man
- Four boxes of liberty
- Holacracy
- International Centre for Democratic Transition
- Islam and democracy
- Isonomia
- Jewish and Democratic State
- Kleroterion
- List of wars between democracies
- Motion (democracy)
- National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
- United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship
- Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy
- Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
- Penn, Schoen & Berland
- Polity data series
- Post-democracy
- Potsdam Declaration
- Public sphere
- Ratification
- Synoecism
- Trustee model of representation
- Vox populi
- Why Democracy?
- Workplace democracy
- World Bank's Inspection Panel
- World Forum for Democratization in Asia
- World Youth Movement for Democracy
- Constitutional economics
- Cosmopolitan democracy
- Community of Democracies
- Democracy Index
- Democracy promotion
- Democratic Peace Theory
- Democratization
- Direct Action and Democracy Today
- Empowered democracy
- Foucault/Habermas debate
- Freedom deficit
- Liberal democracy
- List of direct democracy parties
- Majority rule
- Media democracy
- Netocracy
- Poll
- Panarchy
- Polyarchy
- Sociocracy
- Sortition
- Subversion
- Rule According to Higher Law
- Voting
Further types
Bibliography
- Living Database of Democracy with Adjectives Gagnon, Jean-Paul. 2020. "Democracy with Adjectives Database, at 3539 entries". Latest entry April 8. Provided by the Foundation for the Philosophy of Democracy and the University of Canberra. Hosted by Cloudstor / Aarnet / Instaclustr.
- Appendix A: Types of Democracies M. Haas, Why Democracies Flounder and Fail, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74070-6, June 2018
References
- Rayasam, Renuka (24 April 2008). "Why Workplace Democracy Can Be Good Business". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved 16 August 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy
Breeding back is a form of artificial selection by the deliberate selective breeding of domestic (but not exclusively) animals, in an attempt to achieve an animal breed with a phenotype that resembles a wild type ancestor, usually one that has gone extinct. Breeding back is not to be confused with dedomestication.
It must be kept in mind that a breeding-back breed may be very similar to the extinct wild type in phenotype, ecological niche, and to some extent genetics, but the gene pool of that wild type was different prior to its extinction. Even the superficial authenticity of a bred-back animal depends on the particular stock used to breed the new lineage. As a result of this, some breeds, like Heck cattle, are at best a vague look-alike of the extinct wild type aurochs, according to the literature.[1]
Background
The aim of breeding back programs is to restore the wild traits which may have been unintentionally preserved in the lineages of domesticated animals. Commonly, not only the new animal's phenotype, but also its ecological capacity, are considered in back-breeding projects, as hardy, "bred back" animals may be used in certain conservation projects. In nature, usually only individuals well suited to their natural circumstances will survive and reproduce, whereas humans select animals with additional attractive, docile or productive characteristics, protecting them from the dangers once found in their ancestral environment (predation, drought, disease, extremes of weather, lack of mating opportunities, etc.). In such cases, selection criteria in nature differ from those found in domesticated conditions. Because of this, domesticated animals often differ significantly in phenotype, behaviour and genetics from their wild forerunners. It is the hope of breeding-back programs to re-express, within a new breeding lineage, the wild, ancient traits that may have "lain buried" in the DNA of domestic animals.
In many cases, the extinct wild type ancestors of a given species are known only through skeletons and, in some cases, historical descriptions, making their phenotype poorly understood. Given that situation, there is currently no certainty of achieving success with a back-breeding attempt, and any results must be reviewed with great caution. In order to test genetic closeness, DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear) of the breeding animals must be compared against that of the extinct animal.
Successful breeding back might be possible: humans have selected animals only for superficial traits, and as a rule did not intentionally change less-observable traits, such as metabolic biochemistry.[1] Further, since many domestic species show behaviours derived from their wild ancestors (such as the herding instinct of cattle or the social instincts of dogs), and are fit to survive outside the sphere of human interference (as evidenced by the many feral populations of various domestic animals), it can be presumed that "bred back" animals might be able to function like their wild ancestors.[1] For example, food preferences are assumed to be largely the same in domesticated animals as in their wild type ancestors.
Natural selection might serve as an additional tool in creating "authentic" robustness, "authentic" behaviour, and perhaps, the original phenotype as well. In some cases, a sufficient predator population would be necessary to enable such a selection process; in today's Europe, where many breeding-back attempts take place, this predator population is largely absent.
Use
Bred-back breeds are desirable in conservation biology, as they may fill an ecological gap left open by the extinction of a wild type due to human activities. As long as food preference, behaviour, robustness, defence against predators, hunting or foraging instincts and phenotype are the same as in the wild type, the bred-back phenotype will function similarly in the ecosystem. Releasing such animals into the wild would re-fill the previously empty niche, and allow a natural dynamic among the various species of the ecosystem to re-establish. However, not all breeding-back attempts will result in an animal that is closer to the wild type than are primitive domestic breeds. For example, Heck cattle bear less resemblance to the aurochs than do many Iberian fighting cattle.[1]
Examples
Aurochs
Ideas for creating an aurochs-like animal from domestic cattle have been around since 1835. In the 1920s, Heinz and Lutz Heck tried to breed an aurochs look-alike, using central European dairy breeds and southern European cattle. The result, Heck cattle, are hardy, but differ from the aurochs in many respects, although a resemblance in colour and, less reliably, horns has been achieved.[1] From 1996 onwards, Heck cattle have been crossed with "primitive" Iberian breeds like Sayaguesa Cattle and fighting cattle, as well as the very large Italian breed Chianina, in a number of German reserves, in order to enhance the resemblance to the aurochs. The results are called Taurus cattle, being larger and longer-legged than Heck cattle and having more aurochs-like horns. Another of the projects to achieve a type of cattle that resembles the aurochs is the TaurOs Project, using primitive, hardy southern European breeds, along with Scottish Highland cattle.
European wild horse
The Polish Konik horse is often erroneously considered the result of a breeding-back experiment to "recreate" the phenotype of the Tarpan. The Konik is actually a hardy landrace breed originating in Poland, which was called Panje horse before agriculturist Tadeusz Vetulani coined the name "Konik" in the 1920s. Vetulani started an experiment to reconstruct the Tarpan using Koniks; ultimately, his stock made only a minor contribution to the present-day Konik population.[2]
During the Second World War, the Heck brothers crossed Koniks with Przewalski's horses and ponies, such as the Icelandic horse and the Gotland pony; the result is now called the Heck Horse. During recent decades, Heck horses have been continually crossed with Koniks, making the two phenotypes at present nearly indistinguishable, excepting that the Heck horse tends to have a lighter build.[3]
Pigs
Boar–pig hybrids, which are hybrids of wild boars and domestic pigs and exist as an invasive species throughout Eurasia, the Americas, Australia, and in other places where European settlers imported wild boars to use as game animals, are also used for selective breeding to re-create the type of pigs represented in prehistoric artworks dating from the Iron Age and earlier in ancient Europe. A project to create them, under the name of the Iron Age pig, started in the early 1980s by crossing a male wild boar with a Tamworth sow to produce an animal resembling what Iron Age pigs are believed to have looked like.[4] Iron Age pigs are generally only raised in Europe for the specialty meat market, and in keeping with their heritage are generally more aggressive and harder to handle than purebred domesticated pigs.[4]
Quagga
The Quagga Project is an attempt, based in South Africa, to breed animals which strongly resemble the now-extinct quagga, a subspecies of the plains zebra which died out in 1883. Accordingly, the project is limited to selecting for the physical appearance of the original, as recorded by twenty-three mounted specimens, many contemporary illustrations, and a number of written accounts of the animals.[5]
The two most noticeable characteristics of the quagga, fewer stripes and a darker pelage, are frequently observed to varying degrees in wild plains zebra populations. Animals with these two traits have been sought out for the Quagga Project breeding programme.[5] In its fourth breeding iteration, the Quagga Project has resulted in foals displaying faint to absent striping on the hind legs and body, although the brown background color of the extinct quagga has yet to emerge. The project refers to their animals as "Rau quaggas", after the project founder Reinhold Rau.[6]
The project has been criticized for its focus on the morphological characteristics of the quagga, as the extinct animal may have possessed unrecorded behavioral or non-visible traits that would be impossible to reliably breed back from plains zebras.[5]
Wolf
Although the wolf, the wild ancestor of domestic dogs, is not extinct, its phenotype is the target of several developmental breeds including the Northern Inuit Dog and the Tamaskan Dog. They are all crossbreeds of German Shepherds, Alaskan Malamutes and huskies, selected for phenotypic wolf characteristics. These new breeds may be viewed as breeding-back attempts as well.[7]
Although extinct, Japanese wolf DNA survives in the modern domestic Shikoku Inu. It is thought that crossing this breed with some subspecies of Asian wolves would result in an authentic analogue to fill the ecological niche left empty in the absence of this apex predator.[citation needed]
The Dire Wolf Project, started in 1988, aims to bring back the look of the extinct prehistoric dire wolf by breeding different domestic dog breeds that resemble it.[8]
See also
References
- "The Dire Wolf Project". www.direwolfproject.com. Archived from the original on 6 May 2020. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
Further reading
- Koene, P., & Gremmen, B. (2001). Genetics of dedomestication in large herbivores. In 35th ISAE Conference, Davis, California, 2001 (pp. 68–68).
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeding_back
A feral (from Latin fera 'a wild beast') animal or plant is one that lives in the wild but is descended from domesticated individuals. As with an introduced species, the introduction of feral animals or plants to non-native regions may disrupt ecosystems and has, in some cases, contributed to extinction of indigenous species. The removal of feral species is a major focus of island restoration.
Animals
A feral animal is one that has escaped from a domestic or captive status and is living more or less as a wild animal, or one that is descended from such animals.[1] Other definitions[2] include animals that have changed from being domesticated to being wild, natural, or untamed. Some common examples of animals with feral populations are horses, dogs, goats, cats, rabbits, camels, and pigs. Zoologists generally exclude from the feral category animals that were genuinely wild before they escaped from captivity: neither lions escaped from a zoo nor the white-tailed eagles re-introduced to the UK are regarded as feral.[3]
Plants
.jpg)
Domesticated plants that revert to wild are referred to as escaped, introduced, naturalized, or sometimes as feral crops. Individual plants are known as volunteers. Large numbers of escaped plants may become a noxious weed. The adaptive and ecological variables seen in plants that go wild closely resemble those of animals. Feral populations of crop plants, along with hybridization between crop plants and their wild relatives, brings a risk that genetically engineered characteristics such as pesticide resistance could be transferred to weed plants.[4] The unintended presence of genetically modified crop plants or of the modified traits in other plants as a result of cross-breeding is known as "adventitious presence (AP)".[5][6]
Variables
Certain familiar animals go feral easily and successfully, while others are much less inclined to wander and usually fail promptly outside domestication. Some species will detach readily from humans and pursue their own devices, but do not stray far or spread readily. Others depart and are gone, seeking out new territory or range to exploit and displaying active invasiveness. Whether they leave readily and venture far, the ultimate criterion for success is longevity. Persistence depends on their ability to establish themselves and reproduce reliably in the new environment. Neither the duration nor the intensity with which a species has been domesticated offers a useful correlation with its feral potential.[citation needed]
Species of feral animals
The cat returns readily to a feral state if it has not been socialized when young. Feral cats, especially if left to proliferate, are frequently considered to be pests in both rural and urban areas, and may be blamed for devastating the bird, reptile, and mammal populations. A local population of feral cats living in an urban area and using a common food source is sometimes called a feral cat colony. As feral cats multiply quickly, it is difficult to control their populations. Animal shelters attempt to adopt out feral cats, especially kittens, but often are overwhelmed with sheer numbers and euthanasia is used. In rural areas, excessive numbers of feral cats are often shot.[citation needed] The "trap-neuter-return" method has been used in many locations as an alternative means of managing the feral cat population.[citation needed]
.jpg)
The goat is one of the oldest domesticated creatures, yet readily returns to a feral state. Sheep are close contemporaries and cohorts of goats in the history of domestication, but the domestic sheep is vulnerable to predation and injury, and thus rarely seen in a feral state. However, in places where there are few predators, they may thrive, for example in the case of the Soay sheep. Both goats and sheep were sometimes intentionally released and allowed to go feral on island waypoints frequented by mariners, to serve as a ready food source.
The dromedary camel, which has been domesticated for over 3,000 years, will also readily go feral. A substantial population of feral dromedaries, descended from pack animals that escaped in the 19th and early 20th centuries, thrives in the Australian interior today.
Water buffalo run rampant in Western and Northern Australia. The Australian government encourages the hunting of feral water buffalo because of their large numbers.
Cattle have been domesticated since the neolithic era, but can survive on open range for months or years with little or no supervision.[7] Their ancestors, the aurochs, were aggressive, similar to the modern Cape buffalo. Modern cattle, especially those raised on open range, are generally more docile, but when threatened can display aggression. Cattle, particularly those raised for beef, are often allowed to roam quite freely and have established long term independence in Australia, New Zealand and several Pacific Islands along with small populations of semi-feral animals roaming the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Such cattle are variously called mavericks, scrubbers or cleanskins. Most free roaming cattle, however untamed, are generally too valuable not to be eventually rounded up and recovered in closely settled regions.
Horses and donkeys, domesticated about 5000 BC, are feral in open grasslands worldwide. In Australia, they are called Brumbies; in the American west, they are called mustangs. Other isolated feral populations exist, including the Chincoteague Pony and the Banker horse. They are often referred to as "wild horses", but this is a misnomer. There are truly "wild" horses that have never been domesticated, most notably Przewalski's horse.[8] While the horse was originally indigenous to North America, the wild ancestor died out at the end of the last ice age. In both Australia and the Americas, modern "wild" horses descended from domesticated horses brought by European explorers and settlers that escaped, spread, and thrived. Australia hosts a feral donkey population, as do the Virgin Islands and the American southwest.
The pig has established feral populations worldwide, including in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, New Guinea and the Pacific Islands. Pigs were introduced to the Melanesian and Polynesian regions by humans from several thousand to 500 years ago, and to the Americas within the past 500 years. In Australia, domesticated pigs escaped in the 18th century, and now cover 40 percent of Australia,[9] with a population estimated at 30 million. While pigs are thought to have been brought to New Zealand by the original Polynesian settlers, this population had become extinct by the time of European colonization, and all feral pigs in New Zealand today are descendants of European stock.[citation needed] Many European wild boar populations are also partially descended from escaped domestic pigs and are thus feral animals within the native range of the ancestral species.[citation needed]
Rock pigeons were formerly kept for their meat or more commonly as racing animals and have established feral populations in cities worldwide.
Colonies of honey bees often escape into the wild from managed apiaries when they swarm; their behavior, however, is no different from their behavior in captivity, unless they breed with other feral honey bees of a different genetic stock, which may lead them to become more docile or more aggressive (see Africanized bees).
Large colonies of feral parrots are present in various parts of the world, with rose-ringed parakeets, monk parakeets and red-masked parakeets (the latter of which became the subject of the documentary film, The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill) being particularly successful outside of their native habitats and adapting well to suburban environments.
Wild cocks are derived from domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) who have returned to the wild. Like the red junglefowl (the closest wild relative of domestic chickens), wild cocks will take flight and roost in tall trees and bushes in order to avoid predators at night. Wild cocks typically form social groups composed of, a dominant cockerel, several hens, and subordinate cocks. Sometimes the dominant cockerel is designated by a fight between cocks.[10]
Effects of feralization
Ecological impact
A feral population can have a significant impact on an ecosystem by predation on vulnerable plants or animals, or by competition with indigenous species. Feral plants and animals constitute a significant share of invasive species, and can be a threat to endangered species. However, they may also replace species lost from an ecosystem on initial human arrival to an area, or increase the biodiversity of a human-altered area by being able to survive in it in ways local species cannot. Feral zebu have been reintroduced in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in order to replace their ancestor, the aurochs.
Genetic pollution
Animals of domestic origin sometimes can produce fertile hybrids with native, wild animals which leads to genetic pollution (not a clear term itself) in the naturally evolved wild gene pools, many times threatening rare species with extinction. Cases include the mallard duck, wild boar, the rock dove or pigeon, the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) (ancestor of all chickens), carp, and more recently salmon.[11][full citation needed] Other examples of genetic swamping lie in the breeding history of dingoes. Dingoes are wild true dogs that will interbreed with dogs of other origins, thus leading to the proliferation of dingo hybrids and the possibility of the extinction of pure wild dingoes.[12] Researches in Scotland have remarked on a similar phenomenon of the genetic mixing of feral domestic cats and their wild counterparts.[13]
Economic harm
Feral animals compete with domestic livestock, and may degrade fences, water sources, and vegetation (by overgrazing or introducing seeds of invasive plants). Although hotly disputed, some cite as an example the competition between feral horses and cattle in the western United States. Another example is of goats competing with cattle in Australia, or goats that degrade trees and vegetation in environmentally-stressed regions of Africa. Accidental crossbreeding by feral animals may result in harm to breeding programs of pedigreed animals; their presence may also excite domestic animals and push them to escape. Feral populations can also pass on transmissible infections to domestic herds. Loss to farmers by aggressive feral dog population is common in India.
Economic benefits
Many feral animals can sometimes be captured at little cost and thus constitute a significant resource. Throughout most of Polynesia and Melanesia feral pigs constitute the primary sources of animal protein. Prior to the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, American mustangs were routinely captured and sold for horsemeat. In Australia feral goats, pigs and dromedaries are harvested for the export for their meat trade. At certain times, animals were sometimes deliberately left to go feral, typically on islands,[citation needed] in order to be later recovered for profit or food use for travelers (particularly sailors) at the end of a few years.
Scientific value
Populations of feral animals present good sources for studies of population dynamics, and especially of ecology and behavior (ethology) in a wide state of species known mainly in a domestic state. Such observations can provide useful information for the stock breeders or other owners of the domesticated conspecifics (i.e. animals of the same species).
Cultural or historic value
American mustangs have been protected since 1971 in part due to their romance and connection to the history of the American West. A similar situation is that of the Danube Delta horse from the Letea Forest in the Danube Delta. The Romanian government is considering the protection of the feral horses and transforming them into a tourist attraction, after it first approved the killing of the entire population. Due to the intervention of numerous organizations and widespread popular disapproval of the Romanians the horses have been saved, but still have an uncertain fate as their legal status is unclear and local people continue to claim the right to use the horses in their own interest.[14]
See also
References
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
- "Noah's Ark – Project Horses Romania". Archived from the original on February 20, 2012.
External links
The dictionary definition of feral at Wiktionary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral
De-extinction (also known as resurrection biology, or species revivalism) is the process of generating an organism that either resembles or is an extinct species.[1] There are several ways to carry out the process of de-extinction. Cloning is the most widely proposed method, although genome editing and selective breeding have also been considered. Similar techniques have been applied to certain endangered species, in hopes to boost their genetic diversity. The only method of the three that would provide an animal with the same genetic identity is cloning.[2] There are benefits and malefits to the process of de-extinction ranging from technological advancements to ethical issues.
Methods
Cloning
Cloning is a commonly suggested method for the potential restoration of an extinct species. It can be done by extracting the nucleus from a preserved cell from the extinct species and swapping it into an egg, without a nucleus, of that species' nearest living relative.[3] The egg can then be inserted into a host from the extinct species' nearest living relative. It is important to note that this method can only be used when a preserved cell is available, meaning it would be most feasible for recently extinct species.[4] Cloning has been used by scientists since the 1950s.[5] One of the most well known clones is Dolly the sheep. Dolly was born in the mid 1990s and lived normally until the abrupt midlife onset of health complications resembling premature aging, that led to her death.[5] Other known cloned animal species include domestic cats, dogs, pigs, and horses.[5]
Genome editing
Genome editing has been rapidly advancing with the help of the CRISPR/Cas systems, particularly CRISPR/Cas9. The CRISPR/Cas9 system was originally discovered as part of the bacterial immune system.[6] Viral DNA that was injected into the bacterium became incorporated into the bacterial chromosome at specific regions. These regions are called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, otherwise known as CRISPR. Since the viral DNA is within the chromosome, it gets transcribed into RNA. Once this occurs, the Cas9 binds to the RNA. Cas9 can recognize the foreign insert and cleaves it.[6] This discovery was very crucial because now the Cas protein can be viewed as a scissor in the genome editing process.
By using cells from a closely related species to the extinct species, genome editing can play a role in the de-extinction process. Germ cells may be edited directly, so that the egg and sperm produced by the extant parent species will produce offspring of the extinct species, or somatic cells may be edited and transferred via somatic cell nuclear transfer. The result is an animal which is not completely the extinct species, but rather a hybrid of the extinct species and the closely related, non-extinct species. Because it is possible to sequence and assemble the genome of extinct organisms from highly degraded tissues, this technique enables scientists to pursue de-extinction in a wider array of species, including those for which no well-preserved remains exist.[3] However, the more degraded and old the tissue from the extinct species is, the more fragmented the resulting DNA will be, making genome assembly more challenging.
Back breeding
Back breeding is a form of selective breeding. As opposed to breeding animals for a trait to advance the species in selective breeding, back breeding involves breeding animals for an ancestral characteristic that may not be seen throughout the species as frequently.[7] This method can recreate the traits of an extinct species, but the genome will differ from the original species.[4] Back breeding, however, is contingent on the ancestral trait of the species still being in the population in any frequency.[7] Back breeding is also a form of artificial selection by the deliberate selective breeding of domestic animals, in an attempt to achieve an animal breed with a phenotype that resembles a wild type ancestor, usually one that has gone extinct. Breeding back is not to be confused with dedomestication.
Iterative evolution
A natural process of de-extinction is iterative evolution. This occurs when a species becomes extinct, but then after some time a different species evolves into an almost identical creature. For example, the Aldabra rail was a flightless bird that lived on the island of Aldabra. It had evolved some time in the past from the flighted white-throated rail, but became extinct about 136,000 years ago due to an unknown event that caused sea levels to rise. About 100,000 years ago, sea levels dropped and the island reappeared, with no fauna. The white-throated rail recolonized the island, but soon evolved into a flightless species taxonomically identical to the extinct species.[8][9][10]
Advantages of de-extinction
The technologies being developed for de-extinction could lead to large advances in various fields:
- An advance in genetic technologies that are used to improve the cloning process for de-extinction could be used to prevent endangered species from becoming extinct.[11]
- By studying revived previously extinct animals, cures to diseases could be discovered.
- Revived species may support conservation initiatives by acting as "flagship species" to generate public enthusiasm and funds for conserving entire ecosystems.[12][13]
Prioritising de-extinction could lead to the improvement of current conservation strategies. Conservation measures would initially be necessary in order to reintroduce a species into the ecosystem, until the revived population can sustain itself in the wild.[14] Reintroduction of an extinct species could also help improve ecosystems that had been destroyed by human development. It may also be argued that reviving species driven to extinction by humans is an ethical obligation.[15]
Disadvantages of de-extinction
The reintroduction of extinct species could have a negative impact on extant species and their ecosystem. The extinct species' ecological niche may have been filled in its former habitat, making it an invasive species. This could lead to the extinction of other species due to competition for food or other competitive exclusion. It could also lead to the extinction of prey species if they have more predators in an environment that had few predators before the reintroduction of an extinct species.[15] If a species has been extinct for a long period of time the environment they are introduced to could be wildly different from the one that they can survive in. The changes in the environment due to human development could mean that the species may not survive if reintroduced into that ecosystem.[11] A species could also become extinct again after de-extinction if the reasons for its extinction are still a threat. The woolly mammoth might be hunted by poachers just like elephants for their ivory and could go extinct again if this were to happen. Or, if a species is reintroduced into an environment with disease it has no immunity to the reintroduced species could be wiped out by a disease that current species can survive.
De-extinction is a very expensive process. Bringing back one species can cost millions of dollars. The money for de-extinction would most likely come from current conservation efforts. These efforts could be weakened if funding is taken from conservation and put into de-extinction. This would mean that critically endangered species would start to go extinct faster because there are no longer resources that are needed to maintain their populations.[16] Also, since cloning techniques cannot perfectly replicate a species as it existed in the wild, the reintroduction of the species may not bring about positive environmental benefits. They may not have the same role in the food chain that they did before and therefore cannot restore damaged ecosystems.[17]
Current candidates for de-extinction
Woolly mammoth
 | This section needs additional citations for verification. (April 2019) |
The existence of preserved soft tissue remains and DNA from woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) has led to the idea that the species could be recreated by scientific means. Two methods have been proposed to achieve this. The first would be to use the cloning process, however even the most intact mammoth samples have had little usable DNA because of their conditions of preservation. There is not enough DNA intact to guide the production of an embryo.[18] The second method would involve artificially inseminating an elephant egg cell with preserved sperm of the mammoth. The resulting offspring would be a hybrid of the mammoth and its closest living relative the Asian elephant. After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth could be produced. However, sperm cells of modern mammals are typically potent for up to 15 years after deep-freezing, which could hinder this method.[19] In 2008, a Japanese team found usable DNA in the brains of mice that had been frozen for 16 years. They hope to use similar methods to find usable mammoth DNA.[20] In 2011, Japanese scientists announced plans to clone mammoths within six years.[21]
In March 2014, the Russian Association of Medical Anthropologists reported that blood recovered from a frozen mammoth carcass in 2013 would now provide a good opportunity for cloning the woolly mammoth.[19] Another way to create a living woolly mammoth would be to migrate genes from the mammoth genome into the genes of its closest living relative, the Asian elephant, to create hybridized animals with the notable adaptations that it had for living in a much colder environment than modern day elephants. This is currently being done by a team led by Harvard geneticist George Church.[22] The team has made changes in the elephant genome with the genes that gave the woolly mammoth its cold-resistant blood, longer hair, and an extra layer of fat.[22] According to geneticist Hendrik Poinar, a revived woolly mammoth or mammoth-elephant hybrid may find suitable habitat in the tundra and taiga forest ecozones.[23]
George Church has hypothesized the positive effects of bringing back the extinct woolly mammoth would have on the environment, such as the potential for reversing some of the damage caused by global warming.[24] He and his fellow researchers predict that mammoths would eat the dead grass allowing the sun to reach the spring grass; their weight would allow them to break through dense, insulating snow in order to let cold air reach the soil; and their characteristic of felling trees would increase the absorption of sunlight.[24] In an editorial condemning de-extinction, Scientific American pointed out that the technologies involved could have secondary applications, specifically to help species on the verge of extinction regain their genetic diversity.[25]
Pyrenean ibex
The Pyrenean ibex (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica) was a subspecies of Spanish ibex that lived on the Iberian Peninsula. While it was abundant through medieval times, over-hunting in the 19th and 20th centuries led to its demise. In 1999, only a single female named Celia was left alive in Ordesa National Park. Scientists captured her, took a tissue sample from her ear, collared her, then released her back into the wild, where she lived until she was found dead in 2000, having been crushed by a fallen tree.
In 2003, scientists used the tissue sample to attempt to clone Celia and resurrect the extinct subspecies. Despite having successfully transferred nuclei from her cells into domestic goat egg cells and impregnating 208 female goats, only one came to term. The baby ibex that was born had a lung defect, and lived for only seven minutes before suffocating from being incapable of breathing oxygen. Nevertheless, her birth was seen as a triumph and is considered the first de-extinction.[26] In late 2013, scientists announced that they would again attempt to resurrect the Pyrenean ibex.
A problem to be faced, in addition to the many challenges of reproduction of a mammal by cloning, is that only females can be produced by cloning the female individual Celia, and no males exist for those females to reproduce with. This could potentially be addressed by breeding female clones with the closely related Southeastern Spanish ibex, and gradually creating a hybrid animal that will eventually bear more resemblance to the Pyrenean ibex than the Southeastern Spanish ibex.[27]
Aurochs
The aurochs (Bos primigenius) was widespread across Eurasia, North Africa, and the Indian subcontinent during the Pleistocene, but only the European aurochs (B. p. primigenius) survived into historical times.[28] This species is heavily featured in European cave paintings, such as Lascaux and Chauvet cave in France,[29] and was still widespread during the Roman era. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, overhunting of the aurochs by nobility caused its population to dwindle to a single population in the Jaktorów forest in Poland, where the last wild one died in 1627.[30]
However, because the aurochs is ancestral to most modern cattle breeds, it is possible for it to be brought back through selective or back breeding. The first attempt at this was by Heinz and Lutz Heck using modern cattle breeds, which resulted in the creation of Heck cattle. This breed has been introduced to nature preserves across Europe; however, it differs strongly from the aurochs in physical characteristics, and some modern attempts claim to try to create an animal that is nearly identical to the aurochs in morphology, behavior, and even genetics.[31] There are several projects that aim to create a cattle breed similar to the aurochs through selectively breeding primitive cattle breeds over a course of twenty years to create a self-sufficient bovine grazer in herds of at least 150 animals in rewilded nature areas across Europe, for example the Tauros Programme and the separate Taurus Project.[32] This organization is partnered with the organization Rewilding Europe to help revert some European natural ecosystems to their prehistoric form.[33]
A competing project to recreate the aurochs is the Uruz Project by the True Nature Foundation, which aims to recreate the aurochs by a more efficient breeding strategy using genome editing, in order to decrease the number of generations of breeding needed and the ability to quickly eliminate undesired traits from the population of aurochs-like cattle.[34] It is hoped that aurochs-like cattle will reinvigorate European nature by restoring its ecological role as a keystone species, and bring back biodiversity that disappeared following the decline of European megafauna, as well as helping to bring new economic opportunities related to European wildlife viewing.[35]
Quagga
The quagga (Equus quagga quagga) is a subspecies of the plains zebra that was distinct in that it was striped on its face and upper torso, but its rear abdomen was a solid brown. It was native to South Africa, but was wiped out in the wild due to overhunting for sport, and the last individual died in 1883 in the Amsterdam Zoo.[36] However, since it is technically the same species as the surviving plains zebra, it has been argued that the quagga could be revived through artificial selection. The Quagga Project aims to breed a similar form of zebra by selective breeding of plains zebras.[37] This process is also known as back breeding. It also aims to release these animals onto the western Cape once an animal that fully resembles the quagga is achieved, which could have the benefit of eradicating introduced species of trees such as the Brazilian pepper tree, Tipuana tipu, Acacia saligna, bugweed, camphor tree, stone pine, cluster pine, weeping willow and Acacia mearnsii.[38]
Thylacine
The thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus), commonly known as the Tasmanian tiger, was native to the Australian mainland, Tasmania and New Guinea. It is believed to have become extinct in the 20th century. The thylacine had become extremely rare or extinct on the Australian mainland before British settlement of the continent. The last known thylacine died at the Hobart Zoo, on September 7, 1936. He is believed to have died as the result of neglect—locked out of his sheltered sleeping quarters, he was exposed to a rare occurrence of extreme Tasmanian weather: extreme heat during the day and freezing temperatures at night.[39] Official protection of the species by the Tasmanian government was introduced on July 10, 1936, roughly 59 days before the last known specimen died in captivity.[40]
In December 2017 it was announced in Nature Ecology and Evolution that the full nuclear genome of the thylacine had been successfully sequenced, marking the completion of the critical first step toward de-extinction that began in 2008, with the extraction of the DNA samples from the preserved pouch specimen.[41] The thylacine genome was reconstructed by using the genome editing method. The Tasmanian devil was used as a reference for the assembly of the full nuclear genome.[42] Andrew J. Pask from the University of Melbourne has stated that the next step toward de-extinction will be to create a functional genome, which will require extensive research and development, estimating that a full attempt to resurrect the species may be possible as early as 2027.[41]
In August 2022, the University of Melbourne and Colossal Biosciences announced a partnership to accelerate de-extinction of the thylacine via genetic modification of one of its closest living relatives, the fat-tailed dunnart.[43]
Passenger pigeon
_(14562557107).jpg)
The passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) numbered in the billions before being wiped out due to unsustainable commercial hunting and habitat loss during the early 20th century. The non-profit Revive & Restore obtained DNA from the passenger pigeon from museum specimens and skins; however, this DNA is degraded because it is so old. For this reason, simple cloning would not be an effective way to perform de-extinction for this species because parts of the genome would be missing. Instead, Revive & Restore focuses on identifying mutations in the DNA that would cause a phenotypic difference between the extinct passenger pigeon and its closest living relative, the band-tailed pigeon. In doing this, they can determine how to modify the DNA of the band-tailed pigeon to change the traits to mimic the traits of the passenger pigeon. In this sense, the de-extinct passenger pigeon would not be genetically identical to the extinct passenger pigeon, but it would have the same traits. The de-extinct passenger pigeon hybrid is expected to be ready for captive breeding by 2024 and released into the wild by 2030.[44]
Maclear's rat
The Maclear's rat (Rattus macleari), also known as the Christmas Island rat, was a large rat endemic to Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. It is believed Maclear's rat might have been responsible for keeping the population of Christmas Island red crab in check. It is thought that the accidental introduction of black rats by the Challenger expedition infected the Maclear's rats with a disease (possibly a trypanosome),[45] which resulted in the numbers of the species declining.[46] The last recorded sighting was in 1903.[47] In March 2022, researchers discovered the Maclear's Rat shared about 95 percent of its genes with the living brown rat, thus sparking hopes in bringing the species back to life. Although scientists were mostly successful in using CRISPR technology to edit the DNA of the living species to match that of the extinct one, a few key genes were missing, which would mean resurrected rats would not be genetically pure replicas.[48]
Future potential candidates for de-extinction
A "De-extinction Task Force" was established in April 2014 under the auspices of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) and charged with drafting a set of Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit to position the IUCN SSC on the rapidly emerging technological feasibility of creating a proxy of an extinct species.[49]
Birds
- Little bush moa – A slender species of moa slightly larger than a turkey that went extinct abruptly, around 500-600 years ago following the arrival and proliferation of the Māori people in New Zealand, as well as the introduction of Polynesian dogs.[50] Scientists at Harvard University assembled the first nearly complete genome of the species from toe bones, thus bringing the species a step closer to being "resurrected".[51][52] New Zealand politician Trevor Mallard had previously suggested bringing back a medium-sized species of moa.[53]
- Heath hen – This subspecies of the prairie chicken became extinct on Martha's Vineyard in 1932 despite conservation efforts; however, the availability of usable DNA in museum specimens and protected areas in its former range makes this bird a possible candidate for de-extinction and reintroduction to its former habitat.[54]
- Dodo – This large, flightless ground bird endemic to Mauritius was last sighted in the 1640s and was most likely extinct by 1700, due to exploitation by humans and due to introduced species such as rats and pigs, which ate their eggs. It has since become a symbol of extinction in popular culture. Due to a wealth of bones and some tissues, it is possible that this species may live again as it has a close relative in the surviving Nicobar pigeon.[55]
- Elephant bird – Some of the largest birds to have ever existed, the elephant birds were driven to extinction by the early colonization of Madagascar. Ancient DNA has been obtained from the eggshells but may be too degraded for use in de-extinction.[56][57]
- Carolina parakeet - One of the only indigenous parrots to North America, it was driven to extinction by destruction of its habitat, overhunting, competition from introduced honeybees, and persecution for crop damages. Hundreds of specimens with viable DNA still exist in museums around the world, making them a prime candidate for revival.[56][52]
- Great auk - A flightless bird native to the North Atlantic similar to the penguin. The great auk went extinct in the 1800s due to overhunting by humans for food. The last two known great auks lived on an island near Iceland and were clubbed to death by sailors. There have been no known sightings since.[58] The great auk has been identified as a good candidate for de-extinction by Revive and Restore, a non-profit organization. Because the great auk is extinct it cannot be cloned, but its DNA can be used to alter the genome of its closest relative, the razorbill, and breed the hybrids to create a species that will be very similar to the original great auks. The plan is to introduce them back into their original habitat, which they would then share with razorbills and puffins, who are also at risk for extinction. This would help restore the biodiversity and restore that part of the ecosystem.[59]
- Imperial woodpecker[56][52]
- Ivory-billed woodpecker[56][52]
- Cuban macaw[56][52]
- Labrador duck[56][52]
- Huia[56][52]
- Moho[56][52]
- Nēnē-nui[56][52]
- New Zealand swan[56][52]
- New Zealand merganser[56][52]
- Chatham Island merganser[56][52]
- Mascarene teal[56][52]
- Mariana mallard[56][52]
- Anas chathamica[56][52]
- Amsterdam wigeon[56][52]
- Malagasy shelduck[56][52]
- Mauritius sheldgoose[56][52]
- Réunion sheldgoose[56][52]
- New Zealand musk duck[56][52]
Mammals
- Caribbean monk seal[56][52]
- Irish elk[56][52]
- Cave lion – The discovery of two preserved cubs in the Sakha Republic ignited a project to clone the animal.[60][61]
- Steppe bison – The discovery of the mummified steppe bison of 9,000 years ago could help people clone the ancient bison species back, even though the steppe bison would not be the first to be "resurrected".[62] Russian and South Korean scientists are collaborating to clone steppe bison in the future, using DNA preserved from a 8,000 year old tail,[63][64] in wood bison, which themselves have been introduced to Yakutia to fulfill a similar niche.
- Tarpan – A population of free-ranging horses in Europe that went extinct in 1909. Much like the aurochs, there have been many attempts to breed tarpan-like horses from domestic horses, the first being by the Heck brothers, creating the Heck horse as a result. Though it is not a genetic copy, it is claimed to bear many similarities to the tarpan.[65] Other attempts were made to create tarpan-like horses. A breeder named Harry Hegardt was able to breed a line of horses from American Mustangs.[66] Other breeds of supposedly tarpan-like horse include the Konik and Strobel's horse.[citation needed]
- Baiji[52]
- Steller's sea cow[56][52]
- Woolly rhinoceros[56][52]
- Cave bear[56][52]
Reptiles
- Floreana Island tortoise – In 2008, mitochondrial DNA from the Floreana tortoise species was found in museum specimens. In theory, a breeding program could be established to "resurrect" a pure Floreana species from living hybrids.[67][68]
Amphibians
- Gastric-brooding frog – In 2013, scientists in Australia successfully created a living embryo from non-living preserved genetic material, and hope that by using somatic-cell nuclear transfer methods, they can produce an embryo that can survive to the tadpole stage.[56][69]
Insects
Plants
See also
References
Further reading
- O'Connor, M.R. (2015). Resurrection Science: Conservation, De-Extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9781137279293. Archived from the original on 2016-07-04.
- Shapiro, Beth (2015). How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691157054.
- Pilcher, Helen (2016). Bring Back the King: The New Science of De-extinction Archived 2021-05-07 at the Wayback Machine. Bloomsbury Press ISBN 9781472912251
External links
- TEDx DeExtinction March 15, 2013 conference sponsored by Revive and Restore project of the Long Now Foundation, supported by TEDx and hosted by the National Geographic Society, that helped popularize the public understanding of the science of de-extinction. Video proceedings, meeting report, and links to press coverage freely available.
- De-Extinction: Bringing Extinct Species Back to Life April 2013 article by Carl Zimmer for National Geographic magazine reporting on 2013 conference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-extinction
| Part of the Politics series |
| Politics |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics portal |
| Part of a series on |
| Law |
|---|
 |
| Foundations and Philosophy |
| Legal theory |
| Methodological background |
Bureaucracy (/bjʊəˈrɒkrəsi/) is a body of non-elected governing officials or an administrative policy-making group.[1] Historically, a bureaucracy was a government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials.[2] Today, bureaucracy is the administrative system governing any large institution, whether publicly owned or privately owned.[3] The public administration in many jurisdictions and sub-jurisdictions exemplifies bureaucracy, but so does any centralized hierarchical structure of an institution, e.g. hospitals, academic entities, business firms, professional societies, social clubs, etc.
There are two key dilemmas in bureaucracy. The first dilemma revolves around whether bureaucrats should be autonomous or directly accountable to their political masters.[4] The second dilemma revolves around bureaucrats' responsibility to follow procedure, regulation and law or the amount of latitude they may have to determine appropriate solutions for circumstances that may appear unaccounted for in advance.[4]
Various commentators have argued for the necessity of bureaucracies in modern society. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies are necessary to maintain order, to maximize efficiency, and to eliminate favoritism. On the other hand, Weber also saw unfettered bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom, with the potential of trapping individuals in an impersonal "iron cage" of rule-based, rational control.[5][6]
Etymology and usage
The term "bureaucracy" originated in the French language: it combines the French word bureau – desk or office – with the Greek word κράτος (kratos) – rule or political power.[7] The French economist Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay (1712–1759) coined the word in the mid-18th century.[8] Gournay never wrote the term down but a letter from a contemporary later quoted him:
The late M. de Gournay... sometimes used to say: "We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania." Sometimes he used to invent a fourth or fifth form of government under the heading of "bureaucracy."
— Baron von Grimm (1723–1807)[9]
The first known English-language use dates to 1818[7] with Irish novelist Lady Morgan referring to the apparatus used by the British government to subjugate Ireland as "the Bureaucratie, or office tyranny, by which Ireland has so long been governed".[10] By the mid-19th century the word appeared in a more neutral sense, referring to a system of public administration in which offices were held by unelected career officials. In this context "bureaucracy" was seen as a distinct form of management, often subservient to a monarchy.[11] In the 1920s the German sociologist Max Weber expanded the definition to include any system of administration conducted by trained professionals according to fixed rules.[11] Weber saw bureaucracy as a relatively positive development; however, by 1944 the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises opined in the context of his experience in the Nazi regime that the term bureaucracy was "always applied with an opprobrious connotation",[12] and by 1957 the American sociologist Robert Merton suggested that the term "bureaucrat" had become an "epithet, a Schimpfwort" in some circumstances.[13]
The word "bureaucracy" is also used in politics and government with a disapproving tone to disparage official rules that appear to make it difficult—by insistence on procedure and compliance to rule, regulation, and law—to get things done.[by whom?] In workplaces, the word is used[by whom?] very often to blame complicated rules, processes, and written work that are interpreted as obstacles rather than safeguards and accountability assurances.[14] Socio-bureaucracy would then refer to certain social influences that may affect the function of a society.[15]
In modern usage, modern bureaucracy has been defined as comprising four features:[16]
- hierarchy (clearly defined spheres of competence and divisions of labor)
- continuity (a structure where administrators have a full-time salary and advance within the structure)
- impersonality (prescribed rules and operating rules rather than arbitrary actions)
- expertise (officials are chosen according to merit, have been trained, and hold access to knowledge)
Bureaucracy in a political theory is mainly a centralized form of management and tends to be differentiated from adhocracy, in which management tends more to decentralization.
History
Ancient
Although the term "bureaucracy" first originated in the mid-18th century, organized and consistent administrative systems existed much earlier. The development of writing (c. 3500 BC) and the use of documents was critical to the administration of this system, and the first definitive emergence of bureaucracy occurred in ancient Sumer, where an emergent class of scribes used clay tablets to administer the harvest and to allocate its spoils.[17] Ancient Egypt also had a hereditary class of scribes that administered the civil-service bureaucracy.[18]
In China, when the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) unified China under the Legalist system, the emperor assigned administration to dedicated officials rather than nobility, ending feudalism in China, replacing it with a centralized, bureaucratic government. The form of government created by the first emperor and his advisors was used by later dynasties to structure their own government.[19][20] Under this system, the government thrived, as talented individuals could be more easily identified in the transformed society. The Han dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) established a complicated bureaucracy based on the teachings of Confucius, who emphasized the importance of ritual in a family, in relationships, and in politics.[21] With each subsequent dynasty, the bureaucracy evolved. In 165 BC, Emperor Wen introduced the first method of recruitment to civil service through examinations, while Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BC), cemented the ideology of Confucius into mainstream governance installed a system of recommendation and nomination in government service known as xiaolian, and a national academy[22][23][24] whereby officials would select candidates to take part in an examination of the Confucian classics, from which Emperor Wu would select officials.[25]
In the Sui dynasty (581–618) and the subsequent Tang dynasty (618–907) the shi class would begin to present itself by means of the fully standardized civil service examination system, of partial recruitment of those who passed standard exams and earned an official degree. Yet recruitment by recommendations to office was still prominent in both dynasties. It was not until the Song dynasty (960–1279) that the recruitment of those who passed the exams and earned degrees was given greater emphasis and significantly expanded.[26] During the Song dynasty (960–1279) the bureaucracy became meritocratic. Following the Song reforms, competitive examinations took place to determine which candidates qualified to hold given positions.[27] The imperial examination system lasted until 1905, six years before the Qing dynasty collapsed, marking the end of China's traditional bureaucratic system.[28]
A hierarchy of regional proconsuls and their deputies administered the Roman Empire.[citation needed] The reforms of Diocletian (Emperor from 284 to 305) doubled the number of administrative districts and led to a large-scale expansion of Roman bureaucracy.[29] The early Christian author Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325) claimed that Diocletian's reforms led to widespread economic stagnation, since "the provinces were divided into minute portions, and many presidents and a multitude of inferior officers lay heavy on each territory."[30] After the Empire split, the Byzantine Empire developed a notoriously complicated administrative hierarchy, and in the 20th century the term "Byzantine" came to refer to any complex bureaucratic structure.[31][32]
Modern
Ashanti Empire
The government of the Ashanti Empire was built upon a sophisticated bureaucracy in Kumasi, with separate ministries which saw to the handling of state affairs. Ashanti's Foreign Office was based in Kumasi. Despite the small size of the office, it allowed the state to pursue complex negotiations with foreign powers. The Office was divided into departments that handled Ashanti relations separately with the British, French, Dutch, and Arabs. Scholars of Ashanti history, such as Larry Yarak and Ivor Wilkes, disagree over the power of this sophisticated bureaucracy in comparison to the Asantehene. However, both scholars agree that it was a sign of a highly developed government with a complex system of checks and balances.[33]
United Kingdom
Instead of the inefficient and often corrupt system of tax farming that prevailed in absolutist states such as France, the Exchequer was able to exert control over the entire system of tax revenue and government expenditure.[34] By the late 18th century, the ratio of fiscal bureaucracy to population in Britain was approximately 1 in 1300, almost four times larger than the second most heavily bureaucratized nation, France.[35] Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in Guangzhou, argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China (1847) that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only", and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic.[36] Influenced by the ancient Chinese imperial examination, the Northcote–Trevelyan Report of 1854 recommended that recruitment should be on the basis of merit determined through competitive examination, candidates should have a solid general education to enable inter-departmental transfers, and promotion should be through achievement rather than "preferment, patronage, or purchase".[37][36] This led to implementation of Her Majesty's Civil Service as a systematic, meritocratic civil service bureaucracy.[38]
In the British civil service, just as it was in China, entrance to the civil service was usually based on a general education in ancient classics, which similarly gave bureaucrats greater prestige. The Cambridge-Oxford ideal of the civil service was identical to the Confucian ideal of a general education in world affairs through humanism.[39] (Well into the 20th century, Classics, Literature, History and Language remained heavily favoured in British civil service examinations.[40] In the period of 1925–1935, 67 percent of British civil service entrants consisted of such graduates.[41]) Like the Chinese model's consideration of personal values, the British model also took personal physique and character into account.[42]
France
Like the British, the development of French bureaucracy was influenced by the Chinese system.[43] Under Louis XIV of France, the old nobility had neither power nor political influence, their only privilege being exemption from taxes. The dissatisfied noblemen complained about this "unnatural" state of affairs, and discovered similarities between absolute monarchy and bureaucratic despotism.[44] With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancien regime of Europe.[45] Western perception of China even in the 18th century admired the Chinese bureaucratic system as favourable over European governments for its seeming meritocracy; Voltaire claimed that the Chinese had "perfected moral science" and François Quesnay advocated an economic and political system modeled after that of the Chinese.[46] The governments of China, Egypt, Peru and Empress Catherine II were regarded as models of Enlightened Despotism, admired by such figures as Diderot, D'Alembert and Voltaire.[44]
Napoleonic France adopted this meritocracy system [45] and soon saw a rapid and dramatic expansion of government, accompanied by the rise of the French civil service and its complex systems of bureaucracy. This phenomenon became known as "bureaumania". In the early 19th century, Napoleon attempted to reform the bureaucracies of France and other territories under his control by the imposition of the standardized Napoleonic Code. But paradoxically, that led to even further growth of the bureaucracy.[47]
French civil service examinations adopted in the late 19th century were also heavily based on general cultural studies. These features have been likened to the earlier Chinese model.[42]
Other industrialized nations
By the mid-19th century, bureaucratic forms of administration were firmly in place across the industrialized world. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx began to theorize about the economic functions and power-structures of bureaucracy in contemporary life. Max Weber was the first to endorse bureaucracy as a necessary feature of modernity, and by the late 19th century bureaucratic forms had begun their spread from government to other large-scale institutions.[11]
Within capitalist systems, informal bureaucratic structures began to appear in the form of corporate power hierarchies, as detailed in mid-century works like The Organization Man and The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations, a powerful class of bureaucratic administrators termed nomenklatura governed nearly all aspects of public life.[48]
The 1980s brought a backlash against perceptions of "big government" and the associated bureaucracy. Politicians like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan gained power by promising to eliminate government regulatory bureaucracies, which they saw as overbearing, and return economic production to a more purely capitalistic mode, which they saw as more efficient.[49][50] In the business world, managers like Jack Welch gained fortune and renown by eliminating bureaucratic structures inside corporations.[51] Still, in the modern world, most organized institutions rely on bureaucratic systems to manage information, process records, and administer complex systems, although the decline of paperwork and the widespread use of electronic databases is transforming the way bureaucracies function.[52]
Theories
Karl Marx
Karl Marx theorized about the role and function of bureaucracy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, published in 1843. In Philosophy of Right, Hegel had supported the role of specialized officials in public administration, although he never used the term "bureaucracy" himself. By contrast, Marx was opposed to bureaucracy. Marx posited that while corporate and government bureaucracy seem to operate in opposition, in actuality they mutually rely on one another to exist. He wrote that "The Corporation is civil society's attempt to become state; but the bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil society."[53]
John Stuart Mill
Writing in the early 1860s, political scientist John Stuart Mill theorized that successful monarchies were essentially bureaucracies, and found evidence of their existence in Imperial China, the Russian Empire, and the regimes of Europe. Mill referred to bureaucracy as a distinct form of government, separate from representative democracy. He believed bureaucracies had certain advantages, most importantly the accumulation of experience in those who actually conduct the affairs. Nevertheless, he believed this form of governance compared poorly to representative government, as it relied on appointment rather than direct election. Mill wrote that ultimately the bureaucracy stifles the mind, and that "a bureaucracy always tends to become a pedantocracy."[54]
Max Weber
The fully developed bureaucratic apparatus compares with other organisations exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes of production.
–Max Weber[55]
The German sociologist Max Weber was the first to formally study bureaucracy and his works led to the popularization of this term.[56] In his essay Bureaucracy,[1],[57] published in his magnum opus Economy and Society, Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration, government, and business. His ideal-typical bureaucracy, whether public or private, is characterized by:
- hierarchical organization
- formal lines of authority (chain of command)
- a fixed area of activity
- rigid division of labor
- regular and continuous execution of assigned tasks
- all decisions and powers specified and restricted by regulations
- officials with expert training in their fields
- career advancement dependent on technical qualifications
- qualifications evaluated by organizational rules, not individuals[5][58][59]
Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence of bureaucracy, including an increase in the amount of space and population being administered, an increase in the complexity of the administrative tasks being carried out, and the existence of a monetary economy requiring a more efficient administrative system.[58] Development of communication and transportation technologies make more efficient administration possible, and democratization and rationalization of culture results in demands for equal treatment.[58]
Although he was not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber saw bureaucratization as the most efficient and rational way of organizing human activity and therefore as the key to rational-legal authority, indispensable to the modern world.[60] Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalization of Western society.[5][61] Weber also saw bureaucracy, however, as a threat to individual freedoms, and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control.[5][6] Weber's critical study of the bureaucratization of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work.[5][61] Many aspects of modern public administration are based on his work, and a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service" or "Weberian bureaucracy".[62] It is debated among social scientists whether Weberian bureaucracy contributes to economic growth.[63]
Woodrow Wilson
Writing as an academic while a professor at Bryn Mawr College, Woodrow Wilson's essay The Study of Administration[64] argued for bureaucracy as a professional cadre, devoid of allegiance to fleeting politics. Wilson advocated a bureaucracy that:
...is a part of political life only as the methods of the counting house are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress.
Wilson did not advocate a replacement of rule by the governed, he simply advised that, "Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices". This essay became a foundation for the study of public administration in America.[65]
Ludwig von Mises
| This section needs additional citations for verification. (January 2019) |
In his 1944 work Bureaucracy, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises compared bureaucratic management to profit management. Profit management, he argued, is the most effective method of organization when the services rendered may be checked by economic calculation of profit and loss. When, however, the service in question can not be subjected to economic calculation, bureaucratic management is necessary. He did not oppose universally bureaucratic management; on the contrary, he argued that bureaucracy is an indispensable method for social organization, for it is the only method by which the law can be made supreme, and is the protector of the individual against despotic arbitrariness. Using the example of the Catholic Church, he pointed out that bureaucracy is only appropriate for an organization whose code of conduct is not subject to change. He then went on to argue that complaints about bureaucratization usually refer not to the criticism of the bureaucratic methods themselves, but to "the intrusion of bureaucracy into all spheres of human life." Mises saw bureaucratic processes at work in both the private and public spheres; however, he believed that bureaucratization in the private sphere could only occur as a consequence of government interference. According to him, "What must be realized is only that the strait jacket of bureaucratic organization paralyzes the individual's initiative, while within the capitalist market society an innovator still has a chance to succeed. The former makes for stagnation and preservation of inveterate methods, the latter makes for progress and improvement."[12]
Robert K. Merton
American sociologist Robert K. Merton expanded on Weber's theories of bureaucracy in his work Social Theory and Social Structure, published in 1957. While Merton agreed with certain aspects of Weber's analysis, he also noted the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, which he attributed to a "trained incapacity" resulting from "over conformity". He believed that bureaucrats are more likely to defend their own entrenched interests than to act to benefit the organization as a whole but that pride in their craft makes them resistant to changes in established routines. Merton stated that bureaucrats emphasize formality over interpersonal relationships, and have been trained to ignore the special circumstances of particular cases, causing them to come across as "arrogant" and "haughty".[13]
Elliott Jaques
In his book A General Theory of Bureaucracy, first published in 1976, Dr. Elliott Jaques describes the discovery of a universal and uniform underlying structure of managerial or work levels in the bureaucratic hierarchy for any type of employment systems.[66]
Elliott Jaques argues and presents evidence that for the bureaucracy to provide a valuable contribution to the open society some of the following conditions must be met:
- Number of levels in a bureaucracy hierarchy must match the complexity level of the employment system for which the bureaucratic hierarchy is created (Elliott Jaques identified maximum 8 levels of complexity for bureaucratic hierarchies).
- Roles within a bureaucratic hierarchy differ in the level of work complexity.
- The level of work complexity in the roles must be matched with the level of human capability of the role holders (Elliott Jaques identified maximum 8 Levels of human capability).
- The level of work complexity in any managerial role within a bureaucratic hierarchy must be one level higher than the level of work complexity of the subordinate roles.
- Any managerial role in a bureaucratic hierarchy must have full managerial accountabilities and authorities (veto selection to the team, decide task types and specific task assignments, decide personal effectiveness and recognition, decide initiation of removal from the team within due process).
- Lateral working accountabilities and authorities must be defined for all the roles in the hierarchy (7 types of lateral working accountabilities and authorities: collateral, advisory, service-getting and -giving, coordinative, monitoring, auditing, prescribing).[67][68][69]
The definition of effective bureaucratic hierarchy by Elliott Jaques is of importance not only to sociology but to social psychology, social anthropology, economics, politics, and social philosophy. They also have a practical application in business and administrative studies.
Bureaucracy and democracy
Like every modern state, a liberal democracy is highly bureaucratized, with numerous sizable organizations filled with career civil servants. Some of those bureaucracies have a substantial amount of influence to preserve the current political system because they are primarily focused on defending the country and the state from threats from both within and beyond. Since these institutions frequently operate independently and are mostly shielded from politics, they frequently have no affiliation with any particular political party or group. For instance, loyal British civil officials work for both the Conservative and Labour parties. However, on occasion a group might seize control of a bureaucratic state, as the Nazis did in Germany in the 1930s.[70]
Although numerous ideals associated with democracy, such as equality, participation, and individuality, are in stark contrast to those associated with modern bureaucracy, specifically hierarchy, specialization, and impersonality, political theorists did not recognize bureaucracy as a threat to democracy. Yet democratic theorists still have not developed a sufficient solution to the problem[further explanation needed] bureaucratic authority poses to democratic government.[71]
One answer to this problem is to say that bureaucracy has no place at all in a real democracy. Theorists who adopt this perspective typically understand that they must demonstrate that bureaucracy does not necessarily occur in every contemporary society, only in those they perceive to be non-democratic. Because their democracy was resistant to bureaucracy, nineteenth-century British writers frequently referred to it as the "Continental nuisance".[71]
According to Marx and other socialist thinkers, the most advanced bureaucracies were those in France and Germany. However, they argued that bureaucracy was a symptom of the bourgeois state and would vanish along with capitalism, which gave rise to the bourgeois state. Though clearly not the democracies Marx had in mind, socialist societies ended up being more bureaucratic than the governments they replaced. Similarly, after capitalist economies developed the administrative systems required to support their extensive welfare states, the idea that bureaucracy exclusively exists in socialist governments could scarcely be maintained.[71]
See also
- Adhocracy
- Anarchy
- Authority
- Civil servant
- Hierarchical organization
- Michel Crozier
- Outline of organizational theory
- Power (social and political)
- Public administration
- Red tape
- Requisite organization
- State (polity)
- Technocracy
References
Definition of bureaucracy [:] [...] 1a: a body of nonelected government officials
b: an administrative policy-making group
Palace scribes recorded the activities of kings and the affairs of kingdoms in ancient Mesopotamia. Scribes served a variety of administrative functions, including arrangement and storage of texts [...], collection of taxes and supervision of workers, and supervision of public buildings such as granaries. [...] Scribes associated with the temple were not officiants in the temple cult. They functioned largely in administrative and bureaucratic roles. They received incoming staples for the temple, including commodities such as grain, fish, wool, and silver. They traveled to various cities to fulfill official duties, such as the purchase of grain for the temple complex.
- Creel, H.G. 1960. pp. 239–241. Confucius and the Chinese Way
- Creel, H.G. 1970, What Is Taoism?, 86–87
- Xinzhong Yao 2003. p. 231. The Encyclopedia of Confucianism: 2-volume Set. https://books.google.com/books?id=P-c4CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA231
- Griet Vankeerberghen 2001 pp. 20, 173. The Huainanzi and Liu An's Claim to Moral Authority. https://books.google.com/books?id=zt-vBqHQzpQC&pg=PA20
the government of imperial China still seems in many ways curiously modern and familiar. Bureaucratically organized, and dominated by a graded civil service led by men selected through competitive examinations, it was both a model for a precursor of the complex administrations of our modern world.
- “Bureaucracy and Democracy.” Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business, and Healthcare, by Dennis F. Thompson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 50–70.
Further reading
- Albrow, Martin. Bureaucracy. (London: Macmillan, 1970).
- Cheng, Tun-Jen, Stephan Haggard, and David Kang. "Institutions and growth in Korea and Taiwan: the bureaucracy". in East Asian Development: New Perspectives (Routledge, 2020) pp. 87-111. online
- Cornell, Agnes, Carl Henrik Knutsen, and Jan Teorell. "Bureaucracy and Growth". Comparative Political Studies 53.14 (2020): 2246-2282. online
- Crooks, Peter, and Timothy H. Parsons, eds. Empires and bureaucracy in world history: from late antiquity to the twentieth century (Cambridge University Press, 2016) online.
- Kingston, Ralph. Bureaucrats and Bourgeois Society: Office Politics and Individual Credit, 1789–1848. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
- Neil Garston (ed.), Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms. Boston: Kluwer, 1993.
- On Karl Marx: Hal Draper, Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, Volume 1: State and Bureaucracy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1979.
- Marx comments on the state bureaucracy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Engels discusses the origins of the state in Origins of the Family, marxists.org
- Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, Yale University Press, 1962. Liberty Fund (2007), ISBN 978-0-86597-663-4
- Schwarz, Bill. (1996). The expansion of England: race, ethnicity and cultural history. Psychology Pres; ISBN 0-415-06025-7.
- Watson, Tony J. (1980). Sociology, Work and Industry. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-32165-5. On Weber
- Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1947.
- Wilson, James Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00785-1.
- Weber, Max, "Bureaucracy" in Weber, Max. Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society: New translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification. Edited and Translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, 2015. ISBN 1137373539. English translation of "Bureaucracy" by Max Weber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy
| Part of the Politics series |
| Basic forms of government |
|---|
| List of forms of government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics portal |
Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power over a state is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject neither to external legal restraints nor to regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of a coup d'état or other forms of rebellion).[1]
In earlier times, the term autocrat was coined as a favorable description of a ruler, having some connection to the concept of "lack of conflicts of interests" as well as an indication of grandeur and power. This use of the term continued into modern times, as the Russian emperor was styled "Autocrat of all the Russias" as late as the early 20th century. In the 19th century, Eastern and Central Europe were under autocratic monarchies within the territories of which lived diverse peoples.
Autocracy is the most common and durable regime type since the emergence of the state.[2]
History and etymology
Autocracy comes from the Ancient Greek autos (Greek: αὐτός; "self") and kratos (Greek: κράτος; "power", "strength") from Kratos, the Greek personification of authority. In Medieval Greek, the term Autocrates was used for anyone holding the title emperor, regardless of the actual power of the monarch. The term was used in Ancient Greece and Rome with varying meanings. In the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Emperor was styled Autocrat of the Romans. Some historical Slavic monarchs such as Russian tsars and emperors, due to Byzantine influence, included the title Autocrat as part of their official styles, distinguishing them from the constitutional monarchs elsewhere in Europe.
Comparison with other forms of government
Both totalitarian and military dictatorship are often identified with, but need not be, an autocracy. Totalitarianism is a system where the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society.[3] It can be headed by a supreme leader, making it autocratic, but it can also have a collective leadership such as a presidium, military junta, or a single political party as in the case of a one-party state.
Origin and developments
Examples from early modern Europe suggests early statehood was favorable for democracy.[4] According to Jacob Hariri, outside Europe, history shows that early statehood has led to autocracy.[5] The reasons he gives are continuation of the original autocratic rule and absence of "institutional transplantation" or European settlement.[5] This may be because of the country's capacity to fight colonization, or the presence of state infrastructure that Europeans did not need for the creation of new institutions to rule. In all the cases, representative institutions were unable to get introduced in these countries and they sustained their autocratic rule. European colonization was varied and conditional on many factors. Countries which were rich in natural resources had an extractive[?] and indirect rule whereas other colonies saw European settlement.[6] Because of this settlement, these countries possibly experienced setting up of new institutions. Colonization also depended on factor endowments and settler mortality.[5]
Mancur Olson theorizes the development of autocracies as the first transition from anarchy to state. For Olson, anarchy is characterized by a number of "roving bandits" who travel around many different geographic areas extorting wealth from local populations leaving little incentive for populations to invest and produce. As local populations lose the incentive to produce, there is little wealth for either the bandits to steal or the people to use. Olson theorizes autocrats as "stationary bandits" who solve this dilemma by establishing control over a small fiefdom and monopolize the extortion of wealth in the fiefdom in the form of taxes. Once an autocracy is developed, Olson theorizes that both the autocrat and the local population will be better off as the autocrat will have an "encompassing interest" in the maintenance and growth of wealth in the fiefdom. Because violence threatens the creation of rents, the "stationary bandit" has incentives to monopolize violence and to create a peaceful order.[7] Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard and G.T. Svendsen have argued that the Viking expansion and settlements in the 9th-11th centuries may be interpreted as an example of roving bandits becoming stationary.[8]
Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast describe autocracies as limited access orders that arise from this need to monopolize violence. In contrast to Olson, these scholars understand the early state not as a single ruler, but as an organization formed by many actors. They describe the process of autocratic state formation as a bargaining process among individuals with access to violence. For them, these individuals form a dominant coalition that grants each other privileges such as the access to resources. As violence reduces the rents, members of the dominant coalition have incentives to cooperate and to avoid fighting. A limited access to privileges is necessary to avoid competition among the members of the dominant coalition, who then will credibly commit to cooperate and will form the state.[9]
Closed vs Elected Autocracy
There are several significant distinctions between closed and elected autocracies, both of which are authoritarian types of governance in which one person or group has total authority.
A closed autocracy is a form of governance whereby all parties except for one official party are prohibited, although political independents who are not overtly anti-regime may occasionally be elected - this elite group faces no accountability from the population, as the population receives no civil liberties.[10] These people may acquire their positions of authority by inheritance, a coup, or other illegitimate methods, with no “choice” over their leader.[11] According to the 2022 V-Dem Democracy Report, there is a growing number of closed autocracies (30 countries as of 2020), that account for 26% of the global population.[12] In order to move a country toward liberal democracy in a closed autocracy, there needs to be an initial semi-liberal autocratic transition phase (unless they become occupied by foreign powers during a war who are willing to democratize).[10]
On the other hand, an elected autocracy is a form of government in which the autocrat gains control through a democratic procedure, such as an election.[13] Once in charge, an autocrat will, however, use their position to expand their authority, restrict the impact of other political figures, and attack democratic institutions like the court and the free press,[13] manipulating contestation to make turnover unlikely or impossible.[14] Although there may be some appearance of democracy under an elected autocracy, in reality the autocrat controls most of the authority and the public has little opportunity to hold them accountable, as with a closed autocracy. This is also referred to as a “hybrid regime that leans more toward the autocratic side”.[15] Elected autocracies are still considered to be the most common government structure globally - 44% of the world’s population live under this regime.[12] In order to move toward liberal democracy in an elected autocracy, the remaining barriers of illegitimacy and unfairness must be gradually removed.[10]
Maintenance
Because autocrats need a power structure to rule, it can be difficult to draw a clear line between historical autocracies and oligarchies. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, their merchants, the military, the priesthood, or other elite groups.[16] Some autocracies are rationalized by assertion of divine right; historically this has mainly been reserved for medieval kingdoms. In recent years researchers have found significant connections between the types of rules governing succession in monarchies and autocracies and the frequency with which coups or succession crises occur.[17]
According to Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast, in limited access orders the state is ruled by a dominant coalition formed by a small elite group that relates to each other by personal relationships. To remain in power, this elite hinders people outside the dominant coalition to access organizations and resources. Autocracy is maintained as long as the personal relationships of the elite continue to forge the dominant coalition. These scholars further suggest that once the dominant coalition starts to become broader and allow for impersonal relationships, limited access orders can give place to open access orders.[9]
For Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson, the allocation of political power explains the maintenance of autocracies which they usually refer to as "extractive states".[18] For them, the de jure political power comes from political institutions, whereas the de facto political power is determined by the distribution of resources. Those holding the political power in the present will design the political and economic institutions in the future according to their interests. In autocracies, both de jure and de facto political powers are concentrated in one person or a small elite that will promote institutions for keeping the de jure political power as concentrated as the de facto political power, thereby maintaining autocratic regimes with extractive institutions.
Yu-Ming Liou and Paul Musgrave have found evidence that resource-rich autocracies often times apply antisocial policies in order to harm targeted groups (for example, restricting women's autonomy, especially in Middle Eastern autocracies) as a form of strategy to stay in power.[19]
Autocracy promotion
It has been argued that authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia and totalitarian states such as North Korea have attempted to export their system of government to other countries through "autocracy promotion".[20] A number of scholars are skeptical that China and Russia have successfully exported authoritarianism abroad.[21][22][23][24]
Historical examples
 | This section possibly contains original research. (September 2020) |
-2.jpg)
- The Roman Empire, which Augustus founded following the end of the Roman Republic in 27 BC. Augustus officially kept the Roman Senate while effectively consolidating all of the real power in himself. Rome was generally peaceful and prosperous until the imperial rule of Commodus starting in 180 AD. The crisis of the Third Century saw the barbarian invasions and insurrections by prominent generals as well as economic decline. Both Diocletian and Maximian ruled as autocratic leaders, strengthening the control of the emperor in a phase known as Dominate. The empire was extremely large, difficult to govern by a single emperor, and was ruled by a tetrarchy, instituted by Diocletian. Eventually, it was split into two halves, namely the Western and the Eastern. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 after civic unrest, further economic decline and invasions led to the surrender of Romulus Augustus to Odoacer, a Germanic king.[25] On the other hand, the Eastern Roman Empire survived until 1453, with the Fall of Constantinople. Its rulers' main titles in Greek were Autokrator and Basileus.
- The Eastern Han dynasty of China under Dong Zhuo.[26]
- Tsarist and Imperial Russia under Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Shortly after being crowned as ruler, Ivan IV immediately removed his political enemies by execution or exile and established dominance over the Russian empire, expanding the borders of his kingdom dramatically. To enforce his rule, Ivan established the Streltzy as Russia's standing army and developed two cavalry divisions that were fiercely loyal to the Tsar. He also established the Cossacks and the Oprichniki. In his later years, Ivan made orders for his forces to sack the city of Novgorod in fear of being overthrown. The ideology Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality was introduced by Emperor Nicholas I of Russia and would last until its fall in the Russian Revolution and the rise of Vladimir Lenin.[27][28]
- The Tokugawa shogunate, a period of Japanese history which followed a series of conflicts between warring clans, states, and rulers. Tokugawa Ieyasu seized control of all of Japan through a mix of superior tactics and diplomacy, until he became the undisputed shogun (military ruler of Japan). The shogunate established by Tokugawa and continued by his successors controlled all aspects of life, closing the borders of Japan to all foreign nations and ruling with a policy of isolationism known as sakoku.
- Sweden during the reigns of Gustav I (1523–1560), Charles XI and Charles XII (1680–1718), and Gustav III and Gustav IV Adolf (1772–1809).[29]
- Denmark–Norway under the House of Oldenburg.
- The French Republic and the French Empire from 1799 to 1814 under Napoleon Bonaparte.
- The Ottoman Empire from 1878 to 1908 under Abdul Hamid II.[30][31]
- The Soviet Union during the tenure of Joseph Stalin in addition to other Soviet leaders. The Soviet Union was founded by Vladimir Lenin in 1922 following the Russian Civil War (1917–1922), and several of its leaders have been considered autocratic.[citation needed] Political repression occurred in the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991.
- Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini.
- Empire of Japan under Emperor Hirohito and the Imperial Rule Assistance Association.
- Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler.
- Francoist Spain under Francisco Franco (1939-1975).[32]
- Indonesia under Suharto's New Order (1966–1998).
- Greece under the military junta of Georgios Papadopoulos (1967–1974).
- Brazil under Getúlio Vargas (1930-45)
- Paraguay under the government of Alfredo Stroessner.
- The People’s Republic of China under the leadership of Mao Zedong.
- Cuba under Fidel Castro.
_(cropped).jpg)
- Haiti under François Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude Duvalier during the period of Family dynastic dictatorship in the Caribbean.
- The Republic of Zaire under the dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko in Africa.
- Syria under Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar al-Assad
- Libya under Muammar Gaddafi
- Iran under Ruhollah Khomeini.
- North Korea has been under the Kim dynasty beginning with Kim Il Sung since 1948.
- Taiwan under Chiang Kai-Shek.
- Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko
- Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, and currently Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.
- The Russian Federation under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.
See also
- Absolute monarchy
- Anocracy
- Autarchism
- Authoritarianism
- Caudillo
- Centralisation
- Caesaropapism
- Despotism
- Dictatorship
- Führerprinzip
- Kleptocracy
- Monocracy
- Political polarization
- Ruscism
- Theocracy
- Triumvirate
- Tsarist autocracy
- Tyranny
- Theonomy
References
- Esteban Navarro, Miguel Ángel (1987). "La categorización política del Franquismo. Un análisis de las principales aportaciones historiográficas". Brocar: Cuadernos de investigación histórica (in Spanish). Publicaciones Universidad de La Rioja (13): 12. ISSN 1885-8309.
[...] su naturaleza antidemocrática en el mundo político y social, la actitud represiva, la continuidad autocrática en la jefatura del Estado, [...]
External links
- Felix Bethke: "Research on Autocratic Regimes: Divide et Impera", Katapult-Magazine (2015-03-15)
| Authority control: National |
|---|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy
Category:Authoritarianism
| About Category:Authoritarianism and related categories: This category's scope contains articles about Authoritarianism, which may be a contentious label. |
Subcategories
This category has the following 6 subcategories, out of 6 total.
B
- Books about authoritarianism (1 C, 5 P)
C
- Communist states (11 C, 39 P)
D
- Dictatorship (5 C, 42 P)
J
- Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (1 C, 11 P)
T
- Totalitarianism (13 C, 38 P)
Pages in category "Authoritarianism"
The following 108 pages are in this category, out of 108 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
A
C
D
E
I
M
N
P
T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Authoritarianism
| Part of the Politics series |
| Basic forms of government |
|---|
| List of forms of government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics portal |
Theocracy is a form of government in which one or more deities are recognized as supreme ruling authorities, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries who manage the government's daily affairs.[2][3]
Etymology
The word theocracy originates from the Greek: θεοκρατία (theocratia) meaning "the rule of God". This, in turn, derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule". Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).
The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century AD to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. However, according to Josephus, the government of the Jews was unique. Josephus offered the term "theocracy" to describe this polity in which a god was sovereign and his word was law.[4]
Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the Enlightenment era, when the term took on negative connotations and was barely salvaged by Hegel's commentary.[5] The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in ancient Israel and Judah); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" was first recorded in 1825.
Definition
The term theocracy derives from the Koine Greek θεοκρατία, "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah,[6] reflecting the view that "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state.[7] The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, may be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy.[8]
In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a personal connection with the deity or deities of that civilization's religion or belief, such as Muhammad's leadership of the early Muslims with prophecies from Allah. In an ecclesiocracy, the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation.
A related phenomenon is a secular government co-existing with a state religion or delegating some aspects of civil law to religious communities. For example, in Israel, marriage is governed by officially recognized religious bodies who each provide marriage services for their respected adherents, yet no form of civil marriage (free of religion) exists, nor marriage by non-recognized minority religions.
According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, there are two meanings for the word "theocracy": (1) government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided; and (2) a state governed by a theocracy.
Current theocracies
Christian theocracies
Holy See (Vatican City)
Following the Capture of Rome on 20 September 1870, the Papal States including Rome with the Vatican were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy. In 1929, through the Lateran Treaty signed with the Italian Government, the new state of Vatican City (population 842[when?]) was formally created and recognized as an independent state.[9] The head of state of the Vatican is the pope, elected by the College of Cardinals, an assembly of high-ranking clergy.[9] The pope is elected for life, and either dies or may resign. The cardinals are appointed by the popes, who thereby choose the electors of their successors.
Voting is limited to cardinals under 80 years of age.[9] A Secretary for Relations with States, directly responsible for international relations, is appointed by the pope. The Vatican legal system is rooted in canon law and ultimately is decided by the pope; the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff "has the fullness of legislative, executive and judicial powers."[10] Although the laws of Vatican City come from the secular laws of Italy, under article 3 of the Law of the Sources of the Law, provision is made for the supplementary application of the "laws promulgated by the Kingdom of Italy".[11]
Mount Athos
Mount Athos is a mountain peninsula in Greece which is an Eastern Orthodox autonomous area consisting of 20 monasteries under the direct jurisdiction of the Primate of Constantinople. There have been almost 1,800 years of a continuous Christian presence on Mount Athos, and it has a long history of monasteries, which dates back to at least 800 AD. The origin of self-rule at Mount Athos can be traced back to a royal edict issued by the Byzantine Emperor John Tzimisces in 972, and reaffirmed by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos in 1095. Greece wrestled control of the area from the Ottoman Empire during the First Balkan War in 1912. However, it was formally recognized as part of Greece only after a diplomatic dispute with the Russian Empire was no longer an obstacle; after the latter's collapse during World War I.[12]
Mount Athos is specifically exempt from the free movement of people and goods required by Greece's membership of the European Union,[13] and entrance is allowed only with express permission from the monks. The number of daily visitors to Mount Athos is restricted, with all visitors required to obtain an entrance permit. Only men are permitted to visit, and Eastern Orthodox Christians take precedence in the issuing of permits. Residents of Mount Athos must be men aged 18 and over who are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and also either monks or workers.[14]
Athos is governed jointly by a community consisting of members of the 20 monasteries and a Civil Administrator, appointed by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The monastic community is led by the Protos.
Islamic theocracies
An Islamic republic is the name given to several states that are officially ruled by Islamic laws, including the Islamic Republics of Iran, Pakistan, and Mauritania. Pakistan first adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. Mauritania adopted it on 28 November 1958. Iran adopted it after the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty. Afghanistan adopted it in 2004 after the fall of the Taliban government. Despite having similar names, the countries differ greatly in their governments and laws.
The term "Islamic republic" has come to mean several different things, at times contradictory. To some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, an Islamic republic is a state under a particular Islamic form of government. They see it as a compromise between a purely Islamic caliphate and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some or all laws of Sharia, and the state may not be a monarchy, as many Middle Eastern states presently are.[citation needed]
Afghanistan
Afghanistan was an Islamic theocracy when the Taliban first ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and since their reinstatement of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2021, Afghanistan is an Islamic theocracy again.
Spreading from Kandahar, the Taliban eventually captured Kabul in 1996. By the end of 2000, the Taliban controlled 90% of the country, aside from the opposition (Northern Alliance) strongholds which were primarily found in the northeast corner of Badakhshan Province. Areas under the Taliban's direct control were mainly Afghanistan's major cities and highways. Tribal khans and warlords had de facto direct control over various small towns, villages, and rural areas.[15] The Taliban sought to establish law and order and to impose a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, along with the religious edicts of Mullah Mohammed Omar, upon the entire country of Afghanistan.[16]
During the five-year history of the Islamic Emirate, the Taliban regime interpreted the Sharia in accordance with the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the religious edicts of Mullah Omar.[16] The Taliban forbade pork and alcohol, many types of consumer technology such as music,[16] television,[16] and film,[16] as well as most forms of art such as paintings or photography,[16] male and female participation in sport,[16] including football and chess;[16] recreational activities such as kite-flying and keeping pigeons or other pets were also forbidden, and the birds were killed according to the Taliban's ruling.[16] Movie theaters were closed and repurposed as mosques.[16] Celebration of the Western and Iranian New Year was forbidden.[16] Taking photographs and displaying pictures or portraits was forbidden, as it was considered by the Taliban as a form of idolatry.[16] Women were banned from working,[16] girls were forbidden to attend schools or universities,[16] were requested to observe purdah and to be accompanied outside their households by male relatives; those who violated these restrictions were punished.[16] Men were forbidden to shave their beards and required to let them grow and keep them long according to the Taliban's liking, and to wear turbans outside their households.[16][17] Communists were systematically executed. Prayer was made compulsory and those who did not respect the religious obligation after the azaan were arrested.[16] Gambling was banned.[16] Thieves were punished by amputating their hands or feet.[16] In 2000, the Taliban leader Mullah Omar officially banned opium cultivation and drug trafficking in Afghanistan;[16][18][19] the Taliban succeeded in nearly eradicating opium production (99%) by 2001.[18][19][20] Under the Taliban governance of Afghanistan, both drug users and dealers were severely prosecuted.[16]
Cabinet ministers and deputies were mullahs with a "madrasah education." Several of them, such as the Minister of Health and Governor of the State bank, were primarily military commanders who were ready to leave their administrative posts to fight when needed. Military reverses that trapped them behind lines or led to their deaths increased the chaos in the national administration.[21] At the national level, "all senior Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara bureaucrats" were replaced "with Pashtuns, whether qualified or not." Consequently, the ministries "by and large ceased to function."[22]
Rashid described the Taliban government as "a secret society run by Kandaharis ... mysterious, secretive, and dictatorial."[23] They did not hold elections, as their spokesman explained:
The Sharia does not allow politics or political parties. That is why we give no salaries to officials or soldiers, just food, clothes, shoes, and weapons. We want to live a life like the Prophet lived 1400 years ago, and jihad is our right. We want to recreate the time of the Prophet, and we are only carrying out what the Afghan people have wanted for the past 14 years.[24]
They modeled their decision-making process on the Pashtun tribal council (jirga), together with what they believed to be the early Islamic model. Discussion was followed by a building of a consensus by the "believers".[25] Before capturing Kabul, there was talk of stepping aside once a government of "good Muslims" took power, and law and order were restored.
As the Taliban's power grew, decisions were made by Mullah Omar without consulting the jirga and without consulting other parts of the country. One such instance is the rejection of Loya Jirga decision about expulsion of Osama Bin Laden. Mullah Omar visited the capital, Kabul, only twice while in power. Instead of an election, their leader's legitimacy came from an oath of allegiance ("Bay'ah"), in imitation of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs. On 4 April 1996, Mullah Omar had "the Cloak of Muhammad" taken from its shrine, Kirka Sharif, for the first time in 60 years. Wrapping himself in the relic, he appeared on the roof of a building in the center of Kandahar while hundreds of Pashtun mullahs below shouted "Amir al-Mu'minin!" (Commander of the Faithful), in a pledge of support. Taliban spokesman Mullah Wakil explained:
Decisions are based on the advice of the Amir-ul Momineen. For us, consultation is not necessary. We believe that this is in line with the Sharia. We abide by the Amir's view even if he alone takes this view. There will not be a head of state. Instead, there will be an Amir al-Mu'minin. Mullah Omar will be the highest authority, and the government will not be able to implement any decision to which he does not agree. General elections are incompatible with Sharia and therefore we reject them.[26]
The Taliban were reluctant to share power, and since their ranks were overwhelmingly Pashtun they ruled as overlords over the 60% of Afghans from other ethnic groups. In local government, such as the Kabul city council[23] or Herat,[27] Taliban loyalists, not locals, dominated, even when the Pashto-speaking Taliban could not communicate with roughly half of the population who spoke Dari or other non-Pashtun tongues.[27] Critics complained that this "lack of local representation in urban administration made the Taliban appear as an occupying force."[22]
Iran
Iran has been described as a "theocratic republic" by the CIA World Factbook,[28] and its constitution has been described as a "hybrid" of "theocratic and democratic elements" by Francis Fukuyama.[29] Like other Islamic states, it maintains religious laws and has religious courts to interpret all aspects of law. According to Iran's constitution, "all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria."[30]
In addition, Iran has a religious ruler and many religious officials in powerful governmental positions. The head of state, or "Supreme Leader", is a faqih (scholar of Islamic law)[31] and has more power than the president of Iran. The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful governmental positions: the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of powerful major religious and economic foundations, the chief justice of Iran, the attorney general (indirectly through the chief justice), special tribunals, and members of the supreme national security council who are dealing with defense and foreign affairs. He also co-appoints the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council.[32]
The Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts[28][33] which is made up of mujtahids,[34] who are Islamic scholars competent in interpreting Sharia.
The Guardian Council, has the power to reject bills passed by the Parliament. It can also approve or reject candidates who want to run for the Presidency, Parliament, and the Assembly of Experts. The council supervises elections, and can allow or ban investigations into elections.[28] Six of the twelve council members are faqih and have the power to approve or reject all bills passed by the Parliament; Whether the faqih believes that the bill is in accordance with Islamic laws and customs (Sharia) or not. The other six members are lawyers appointed by the chief justice, who is a cleric and appointed by the Leader.[35]
Saudi Arabia
In the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia defines itself as a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its official religion. However, some critiques describe Saudi Arabia as an Islamic theocracy. Religious minorities do not have the right to practice their religion openly. Conversion from Islam to another religion is punishable by death as apostasy.[36] Muhammad Al-Atawneh describes the current Saudi regime as a ‘theo-monarchy, that draws power from long-standing religio-cultural norms.'[37]
Jewish theocracies
Israel
Israel describes itself as a Jewish state.[38] Israel recognizes by law[39] the Chief Rabinate of Israel as the supreme rabbinic authority for Judaism in Israel. Gail Page describes Israel as a "theocracy", a "country that has openly declared itself for a particular religious group".[40] On July 2019, the Israeli Knesset voted to pass the nation-state law which declares Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people;[38] Haidar Eid thus describes Israel as an ethno-religious state.[41]
Central Tibetan Administration
The Central Tibetan Administration, colloquially known as the Tibetan government in exile, is a Tibetan exile organization with a state-like internal structure. According to its charter, the position of head of state of the Central Tibetan Administration belongs ex officio to the Dalai Lama, a religious hierarch. In this respect, it continues the traditions of the former government of Tibet, which was ruled by the Dalai Lamas and their ministers, with a specific role reserved for a class of monk officials.
On 14 March 2011, at the 14th Dalai Lama's suggestion, the parliament of the Central Tibetan Administration began considering a proposal to remove the Dalai Lama's role as head of state in favor of an elected leader.
The first directly elected Kalön Tripa was Samdhong Rinpoche, who was elected on 20 August 2001.[42]
Before 2011, the Kalön Tripa position was subordinate to the 14th Dalai Lama[43] who presided over the government in exile from its founding.[44] In August of that year, Lobsang Sangay received 55 percent of 49,189 votes, defeating his nearest rival Tethong Tenzin Namgyal by 8,646 votes,[45] becoming the second popularly elected Kalon Tripa. The Dalai Lama announced that his political authority would be transferred to Sangay.[46]
Change to Sikyong
On 20 September 2012, the 15th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile unanimously voted to change the title of Kalön Tripa to Sikyong in Article 19 of the Charter of the Tibetans in exile and relevant articles.[47] The Dalai Lama had previously referred to the Kalon Tripa as Sikyong, and this usage was cited as the primary justification for the name change. According to Tibetan Review, "Sikyong" translates to "political leader", as distinct from "spiritual leader".[48] Foreign affairs Kalon Dicki Chhoyang stated that the term "Sikyong" has had a precedent dating back to the 7th Dalai Lama, and that the name change "ensures historical continuity and legitimacy of the traditional leadership from the Fifth Dalai Lama".[49] The online Dharma Dictionary translates sikyong (srid skyong) as "secular ruler; regime, regent".[50] The title sikyong had previously been used by regents who ruled Tibet during the Dalai Lama's minority.
States with official state religions
Having a state religion is not sufficient enough to mean that a state is a theocracy in the narrow sense of the term. Many countries have a state religion without the government directly deriving its powers from a divine authority or a religious authority which is directly exercising governmental powers. Since few theocracies exist in the modern world, the word "theocracy" is now used as a descriptive term for a government which enforces a state religion.
States with an ambiguous status
North Korea
North Korea is a socialist republic where the government's official state ideology is Juche which centers around the Kim family. According to Ashley J. Tellis and Michael Wills, this amendment to the preamble was an indication of the unique North Korean characteristic of being a theocratic state based on the personality cult surrounding Kim Il-sung. Kim Il-sung, who died in 1994, remains North Korea's "Eternal President" and the country adopted a Juche calendar dating from 1912, the year of Kim's birth.[51]
Historic states with theocratic aspects
Sumer
Sumerian cities during the Uruk period were probably theocratic and were most likely headed by a priest-king (ensi), assisted by a council of elders including both men and women.[52]
Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egyptian pharaohs were seen as divine and associated with Horus, and after death, Osiris.[53] While not considered equal to other members of the Egyptian pantheon, the pharaoh was seen as having the responsibility of mediating between the gods and the people.[54]
Japan
The emperor was historically venerated as the descendant of the Shinto sun goddess Amaterasu. Through this line of descent, the emperor was seen as a living god who was the supreme leader of the Japanese people. This status only changed with the Occupation of Japan following the end of the Second World War when Emperor Hirohito was forced to declare that he was not a living god in order for Japan to reorganize into a democratic nation.[55]
Israel
In biblical times, Early Israel was a Kritarchy, ruled by Judges before instituting a monarchy. The Judges were believed to be representatives of YHWH (Yahweh).
Rome
The Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified Roman emperors and some members of their families with the divinely sanctioned authority (auctoritas) of the Roman State. The official offer of cultus to a living emperor acknowledged his office and rule as divinely approved and constitutional: his Principate should therefore demonstrate pious respect for traditional republican deities and mores.
Tibet
Unified religious rule in Buddhist Tibet began in 1642, when the Fifth Dalai Lama allied with the military power of the Mongol Gushri Khan to consolidate the political power and center control around his office as head of the Gelug school.[56] This form of government is known as the dual system of government. Prior to 1642, particular monasteries and monks had held considerable power throughout Tibet but had not achieved anything approaching complete control, though power continued to be held in a diffuse, feudal system after the ascension of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Power in Tibet was held by a number of traditional elites, including members of the nobility, the heads of the major Buddhist sects (including their various tulkus), and various large and influential monastic communities.[57]
The Bogd Khanate period of Mongolia (1911–19) is also cited as a former Buddhist theocracy.
China
Similar to the Roman Emperor, the Chinese sovereign was historically held to be the Son of Heaven. However, from the first historical Emperor on, this was largely ceremonial and tradition quickly established it as a posthumous dignity, like the Roman institution. The situation before Qin Shi Huang Di is less clear.
The Shang dynasty essentially functioned as a theocracy, declaring the ruling family the sons of heaven and calling the chief sky god Shangdi after a word for their deceased ancestors.[58] After their overthrow by the Zhou, the royal clan of Shang were not eliminated but instead moved to a ceremonial capital where they were charged to continue the performance of their rituals.
The titles combined by Shi Huangdi to form his new title of emperor were originally applied to god-like beings who ordered the heavens and earth and to culture heroes credited with the invention of agriculture, clothing, music, astrology, etc. Even after the fall of Qin, an emperor's words were considered sacred edicts (聖旨) and his written proclamations "directives from above" (上諭).
As a result, some Sinologists translate the title huangdi (usually rendered "emperor") as thearch. The term properly refers to the head of a thearchy (a kingdom of gods), but the more specific "theocrat" carries associations of a strong priesthood that would be generally inaccurate in describing imperial China. Others reserve the use of "thearch" to describe the legendary figures of Chinese prehistory while continuing to use "emperor" to describe historical rulers.[58]
The Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace in 1860s Qing China was a heterodox Christian theocracy led by a person who said that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, Hong Xiuquan. This theocratic state fought one of the most destructive wars in history, the Taiping Rebellion, against the Qing dynasty for fifteen years before being crushed following the fall of the rebel capital Nanjing.
Caliphate
The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a Caliph should be selected or elected by Muslims or their representatives. Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a Caliph should be an Imam chosen by God from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendants).
Byzantine Empire
The Byzantine Empire (a.d. 324–1453) operated under Symphonia, meaning that the emperor was both the head of civil society and the ultimate authority over the ecclesiastical authorities, the patriarchates. The emperor was considered to be God's omnipotent representative on earth and he ruled as an absolute autocrat.[59]
Jennifer Fretland VanVoorst argues, "the Byzantine Empire became a theocracy in the sense that Christian values and ideals were the foundation of the empire's political ideals and heavily entwined with its political goals".[60] Steven Runciman says in his book on The Byzantine Theocracy (2004):
The constitution of the Byzantine Empire was based on the conviction that it was the earthly copy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as God ruled in Heaven, so the Emperor, made in His image, should rule on earth and carry out his commandments. ...It saw itself as a universal empire. Ideally, it should embrace all the peoples of the Earth who, ideally, should all be members of the one true Christian Church, its own Orthodox Church. Just as man was made in God's image, so man's kingdom on Earth was made in the image of the Kingdom of Heaven.[61]
Münster (16th century)
Between 1533 and 1535 the Protestant leaders Jan Mattys and John of Leiden erected a short-living theocratic kingdom in the city of Münster. They created an Anabaptist regime with chiliastic and millenarian expectations. Money was abolished and any violations of the Ten Commandments were punished by death. Despite the pietistic ideology, polygamy was allowed and von Leiden had 17 wives. In 1535, Münster was recaptured by Franz von Waldeck, ending the existence of the kingdom.
Geneva and Zurich (16th century)
Historians debate the extent to which Geneva, Switzerland, in the days of John Calvin (1509–64) was a theocracy. On the one hand, Calvin's theology clearly called for separation between church and state. Other historians have stressed the enormous political power wielded on a daily basis by the clerics.[62][63]
In nearby Zurich, Switzerland, Protestant reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) built a political system that many scholars have called a theocracy, while others have denied it.[64]
Deseret (LDS Church, USA)
The question of theocracy has been debated extensively by historians regarding the Latter-Day Saint communities in Illinois, and especially in Utah.[65][66][67]
Joseph Smith, mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, ran as an independent for president in 1844. He proposed the redemption of slaves by selling public lands, reducing the size and salary of Congress, the closure of prisons, the annexation of Texas, Oregon, and parts of Canada, the securing of international rights on high seas, free trade, and the re-establishment of a national bank.[68] His top aide Brigham Young campaigned for Smith saying, "He it is that God of Heaven designs to save this nation from destruction and preserve the Constitution."[69] The campaign ended when Smith was killed by a mob while in the Carthage, Illinois, jail on June 27, 1844.[70]
After severe persecution, the Mormons left the United States and resettled in a remote part of what is now Utah, which was then part of Mexico. However the United States took control in 1848 and would not accept polygamy. The Mormon State of Deseret was short-lived.[71] Its original borders stretched from western Colorado to the southern California coast. When the Mormons arrived in the valley of the Great Salt Lake in 1847, the Great Basin was still a part of Mexico and had no secular government. As a result, Brigham Young administered the region both spiritually and temporally through the highly organized and centralized Melchizedek Priesthood. This original organization was based upon a concept called theodemocracy, a governmental system combining biblical theocracy with mid-19th-century American political ideals.[72][73]
In 1849, the Saints organized a secular government in Utah, although many ecclesiastical leaders maintained their positions of secular power. The Mormons also petitioned Congress to have Deseret admitted into the Union as a state. However, under the Compromise of 1850, Utah Territory was created and Brigham Young was appointed governor. In this situation, Young still stood as head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) as well as of Utah's secular government.
After the abortive Utah War of 1857–1858, the replacement of Young by an outside Federal Territorial Governor, intense federal prosecution of LDS Church leaders, the eventual resolution of controversies regarding plural marriage, and accession by Utah to statehood, the apparent temporal aspects of LDS theodemocracy receded markedly.[74]
Persia/Iran
During the Achaemenid Empire, Zoroastrianism was the state religion and included formalized worship. The Persian kings were known to be pious Zoroastrians and they ruled with a Zoroastrian form of law called asha. However, Cyrus the Great, who founded the empire, avoided imposing the Zoroastrian faith on the inhabitants of conquered territory. Cyrus's kindness towards Jews has been cited as sparking Zoroastrian influence on Judaism.[75]
Under the Seleucids, Zoroastrianism became autonomous. During the Sassanid period, the Zoroastrian calendar was reformed, image-use in worship was banned, Fire Temples were increasingly built, and intolerance towards other faiths prevailed.[76]
Florence under Savonarola
The short reign (1494–1498) of Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican priest, over the city of Florence had features of a theocracy. During his rule, "unchristian" books, statues, poetry, and other items were burned (in the Bonfire of the Vanities), sodomy was made a capital offense, and other Christian practices became law.
Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro
The Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro was an ecclesiastical principality that existed from 1516 until 1852. The principality was located around modern-day Montenegro. It emerged from the Eparchy of Cetinje, later known as the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral, whose bishops defied the Ottoman Empire overlordship and transformed the parish of Cetinje into a de facto theocracy, ruling it as Metropolitans (Vladike, also known as prince-bishops). The first prince-bishop was Vavila. The system was transformed into a hereditary one by Danilo Šćepčević, a bishop of Cetinje who united the several tribes of Montenegro into fighting the Ottoman Empire that had occupied all of Montenegro (as the Sanjak of Montenegro and Montenegro Vilayet) and most of southeastern Europe at the time.
See also
- General:
- Christian:
- Islamic:
- Jewish:
- Others:
- Fictional:
References
An annex to the treaty of Sèvres of 1920 constituted the twenty monasteries of Mount Athos into a theocratic republic under the suzerainty of Greece [..]
Mount Athos is one of the world's few remaining theocratic states, alongside Iran and the Vatican.
Saudi Arabia is a leading Islamic theocracy in the world today
Is Saudi Arabia a Theocracy? Religion and Governance in Contemporary Saudi Arabia
- "Zoroastrianism under Persian rule". BBC. Archived from the original on 25 November 2020. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Further reading
- Ankerl, Guy (2000). Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research, vol. 1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press. ISBN 978-2-88155-004-1.
- Hirschl, Ran. Constitutional Theocracy. Harvard University Press, 2010. ISBN 0-674-04819-9, 978-0-674-04819-5.
- (in French) Baslez, Marie-Françoise and Schwentzel, Christian-Georges.Les dieux et le pouvoir: aux origines de la théocratie. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2016. ISBN 978-2-7535-4864-0.
External links
Media related to Theocracy at Wikimedia Commons- Biblical Theocracy, etext of a book by Stephen Palmquist (Philopsychy Press, 1993).
- Dominionism, sacralism and theocracy – Rachel Tabachnik, Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. Martin Erdmann, Rudolf Ebertshäuser, Sarah Leslie, Discernment Ministries Inc. u.v.m, Eds (English + German)
- Freedom of Religion in Israel Archived 2016-11-28 at the Wayback Machine
- "Is Judaism a Theocracy?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
Category:Oligarchy
Subcategories
This category has the following 9 subcategories, out of 9 total.
- Oligarchs (1 C, 4 P)
D
- Dictatorship (5 C, 42 P)
F
- Feudalism (14 C, 93 P)
G
- Gentry (6 C, 22 P)
N
- Nobility (32 C, 36 P)
O
- Oligopoly (11 P)
T
- Theocracies (6 C, 9 P)
Pages in category "Oligarchy"
The following 58 pages are in this category, out of 58 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oligarchy
Category:Forms of government
 | Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories. |
Forms of government are sets of constitutional institutions by which states are organized.
Subcategories
This category has the following 18 subcategories, out of 18 total.
- Countries by form of government (13 C, 3 P)
*
- Forms of local government (3 C, 18 P)
A
- Authoritarianism (6 C, 108 P)
D
- Democracy (14 C, 125 P)
E
- Empires (11 C, 19 P)
F
- Federalism (8 C, 48 P)
G
- Government by algorithm (3 C, 42 P)
I
- Ideocracy (2 C, 3 P)
M
- Monarchy (44 C, 103 P)
O
- Oligarchy (9 C, 58 P)
P
R
- Rule by a subset of population (3 C, 12 P)
S
- Separation of powers (6 C, 34 P)
T
- Theocracy (3 C, 22 P)
U
- Unitary state (7 P)
W
- World government (7 C, 66 P)
Pages in category "Forms of government"
The following 25 pages are in this category, out of 25 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
F
I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Forms_of_government
Scientocracy is the practice of basing public policies on science.
Discourse
Peter A. Ubel, an American physician, is a proponent of scientocracy. In an article titled "Scientocracy: Policy making that reflects human nature", he writes, "When I talk about Scientocracy, then, I'm not talking about a world ruled by behavioral scientists, or any other kind of scientists. Instead, I am imagining a government of the people, but informed by scientists. A world where people don't argue endlessly about whether educational vouchers will improve schools, whether gun control will reduce crime, or whether health savings accounts can lower health care expenditures,... but one instead where science has a chance to show us whether vouchers, gun control laws, and health savings accounts work and, if so, under what conditions."[1]
Deepak Kumar, a historian, has written about the "Emergence of 'Scientocracy'" in India.[2]
Earlier use
Florence Caddy (1837–1923) wrote a book titled Through the fields with Linnaeus: a chapter in Swedish history. That book was published in two volumes in 1887. In volume 1 she wrote, "His lesson in Hamburg had taught him that a novus homo must not be arrogant when he enters the society of the scientocracy, and that he must not run himself rashly against vested interests. Yet for all his poverty, Carl Linnaeus seems to have lived in intimacy with the scientocrats of Leyden—Van Royen, Van Swieten, Lieberkuhn, Lawson, and Gronovius."[3] In these two sentences she uses "society of the scientocracy" and "scientocrats" to refer to groups of eminent scientists of that time.
In 1933, Hugo Gernsback defined scientocracy as "the direction of the country and its resources by Scientists and not by Technicians".[4]
See also
- Evidence-based policy
- Oligarchy
- Scientific consensus
- Scientific management
- Scientism
- Scientific socialism
- Technocracy
References
- Gernsback, Hugo (1933). Technocracy Review, March 1933; quoted by Gary Westfahl in Hugo Gernsback and the Century of Science Fiction. McFarland & Company, 2007, p. 68.
Further reading
- Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum (2009). Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future. Basic Books; New York City, N.Y. ISBN 978-0-465-01305-0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientocracy
Logocracy is the rule of, or government by, words. It is derived from the Greek λόγος (logos)—"word" and from κράτος (kratos)—to "govern". The term can be used either positively, ironically, or negatively.
Historical examples
The United States is described as a logocracy in Washington Irving's 1807 work Salmagundi. A visiting foreigner, "Mustapha Rub-a-dub Keli Khan", describes it as such, by which he means that via the tricky use of words, one can have power over others. Those most adept at this are termed "slang-whangers", while Congress is a "blustering, windy assembly".[1] Mustapha describes how:
"unknown to these people themselves, their government is a pure unadulterated LOGOCRACY or government of words. The whole nation does every thing viva voce, or, by word of mouth, and in this manner is one of the most military nations in existence [...] In a logocracy thou well knowest there is little or no occasion for fire arms, or any such destructive weapons. Every offensive or defensive measure is enforced by wordy battle, and paper war; he who has the longest tongue or readiest quill, is sure to gain the victory—will carry horror, abuse, and ink shed into the very trenches of the enemy, and without mercy or remorse, put men, women, and children to the point of the—pen!"[2]
The Soviet Union was described by Nobel Prize winner Czesław Miłosz[3] as a logocracy.[4] It was for example, according to Christine D. Tomei, a "pseudo-reality created by mere words".[5] Moreover, after the revolution Luciano Pellicani describes how a "language reform plan" was introduced by Kisselev. In it he "stressed that the old mentality would never be overthrown, if the structure of the Russian language was not also transformed and purged."
This process led to a Soviet language that George Orwell would later dub "neo-language", and was a precursor to his Nineteen Eighty-Four Newspeak.[6] The new Soviet 'language' was less a real language than an 'orthogloxy', a "stereotyped jargon consisting of formulas and empty slogans, whose purpose was to prevent people from thinking outside the boundaries of collective thought"—i.e. it was speech which destroyed individuality.[6] Janina Frentzel-Zagórska, however, queries the importance of political language in the USSR, saying that "the old ideological 'Newspeak' had completely disappeared in the Soviet Union long before" the fall of Communism.[7]
Totalitarianism, according to political theorist Hannah Arendt, can be considered a logocracy, since in it ideas are no longer important, just how they are expressed.[8]
Academic Yahya Michot has referred to Sunni Islam as a "popular" or "laic logocracy", in that it is government by the word of the Koran.[9]
See also
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocracy
Devolution is the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level.[1] It is a form of administrative decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area, thus granting them a higher level of autonomy.[2]
Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and are reversible, ultimately residing with the central government. Thus, the state remains de jure unitary.[3] Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute. In federal systems, by contrast, sub-unit government is guaranteed in the constitution, so the powers of the sub-units cannot be withdrawn unilaterally by the central government (i.e. not without the process of constitutional amendment). The sub-units therefore have a lower degree of protection under devolution than under federalism.[4]
Australia
Australia is a federation. It has six states and two territories with less power than states.
The Australian Capital Territory refused self-government in a 1978 referendum, but was given limited self-government by a House of Assembly from 1979, and a Legislative Assembly with wider powers in 1988.
The Northern Territory refused statehood in a 1998 referendum. The rejection was a surprise to both the Australian and Northern Territory governments.
Territory legislation can be disallowed by the Commonwealth Parliament in Canberra, with one notable example being the NT's short-lived voluntary euthanasia legislation.
Canada
Although Canada is a federal state, a large portion of its land mass in the north is under the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government (called territories, as opposed to provinces). This has been the case since 1870. In 1870 the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order effected the admission of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory to Canada, pursuant to section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Rupert's Land Act, 1868. The Manitoba Act, 1870, which created Manitoba out of part of Rupert's Land, also designated the remainder of both the Northwest Territories (NWT), over which Parliament was to exercise full legislative authority under the Constitution Act, 1871.
Yukon was carved from the Northwest Territories in 1898 but remained a territory. In 1905, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were carved from the Northwest Territories. Portions of Rupert's Land were added to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, extending those provinces northward from their previous narrow band around the St. Lawrence and lower Great Lakes. The District of Ungava was a regional administrative district of Canada's Northwest Territories from 1895 to 1912. The continental areas of said district were transferred by the Parliament of Canada with the adoption of the Quebec Boundary Extension Act, 1898 and the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912. The status of the interior of Labrador that was believed part of Ungava was settled in 1927 by the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which ruled in favour of the Dominion of Newfoundland. The offshore islands to the west and north of Quebec remained part of the Northwest Territories until the creation of Nunavut in 1999.
Since the 1970s, the federal government has been transferring its decision-making powers to territorial governments. This means greater local control and accountability by northerners for decisions central to the future of the territories. In 1999, the federal government created Nunavut pursuant to a land claim agreement reached with Inuit, the indigenous people of Canada's Eastern Arctic. Since that time, the federal government has slowly devolved legislative jurisdiction to the territories. Enabling the territories to become more self-sufficient and prosperous and to play a stronger role in the Canadian federation is considered a key component to development in Canada's North. Among the three territories, devolution is most advanced in Yukon.
On June 18, 2021, the Labrador Inuit self-government Nunatsiavut stated that it had begun the process of seeking devolution of child protection services from the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Children, Seniors, and Social Development with the goal for negotiations to conclude within three years.[5][6][7]
Northwest Territories
The Northwest Territories (NWT) was governed from Ottawa from 1870 until the 1970s, except for the brief period between 1898 and 1905 when it was governed by an elected assembly. The Carrothers Commission was established in April 1963 by the government of Lester B. Pearson to examine the development of government in the NWT. It conducted surveys of opinion in the NWT in 1965 and 1966 and reported in 1966. Major recommendations included that the seat of government should be located in the territory. Yellowknife was selected as the territorial capital as a result. Transfer of many responsibilities from the federal government was recommended and carried out. This included responsibility for education, small business, public works, social services and local government. Since the report, the government of Northwest Territories has taken over responsibilities for several other programs and services including the delivery of health care, social services, education, administration of airports, and forestry management. The legislative jurisdiction of the territorial legislature is set out in section 16 of the Northwest Territories Act.
Now, the government of Canada is negotiating the transfer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development's remaining provincial-type responsibilities in the NWT. These include the legislative powers, programs and responsibilities for land and resources associated with the department's Northern Affairs Program (NAP) with respect to:
- Powers to develop, conserve, manage, and regulate of surface and subsurface natural resources in the NWT for mining and minerals (including oil and gas) administration, water management, land management and environmental management;
- Powers to control and administer public land with the right to use, sell or otherwise dispose of such land; and
- Powers to levy and collect resource royalties and other revenues from natural resources.
The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Aboriginal Summit and the Government of Canada have each appointed a Chief Negotiator to work on devolution. A Framework Agreement was concluded in 2004. The target date for the completion of devolution talks for the NWT was March 2007. However, stumbling blocks associated with the transfer of current federal employees to the territorial government, and the unresolved issue of how much money the Northwest Territories will receive for its resources has delayed the conclusion of a devolution agreement for the NWT.
In 1966, the federal government established the Carruthers Commission to look at the issue of government in the north. After extensive study and consultation, the Commission concluded that division of the NWT was probably both advisable and inevitable. There was a recognition that Northerners wanted to run their own affairs and must be given the opportunity to do so. At the same time, however, it noted that governmental reform was required before this could happen. It recommended the establishment of a new system of representative government. As a result, in the late 1960s and 1970s, the federal government gradually created electoral constituencies and transferred many federally run programs to the territorial government. Northerners took on more and more responsibility for the day-to-day running of their own affairs. In 1982 a plebiscite was held in the NWT asking the question, "Do you think the NWT should be divided?" Fifty-three percent of eligible voters participated in the plebiscite, with 56.4 percent of them voting "yes". Voter turnout and support for division was particularly strong in the Eastern Arctic. The Inuit population of the eastern section of the territory had become increasingly receptive of the idea of self-government. It was viewed as the best way to promote and protect their culture and traditions and address their unique regional concerns.
Both the NWT Legislative Assembly and the federal government accepted the idea of dividing the territory. The idea was viewed as an important step towards enabling the Inuit, and other residents of the Eastern Arctic, to take charge of their own destiny. There were some reservations, however. Before action could be taken, certain practical considerations had to be addressed. First of all, outstanding land claims had to be settled. Second, all parties had to agree on a new boundary. Finally, all parties had to agree on the division of powers between territorial, regional and local levels of government. The various governments and native groups worked closely together to realize these goals. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was ratified by the Inuit in November 1992, signed by the Prime Minister of Canada on May 25, 1993, and passed by the Canadian Parliament in June of the same year. It was the largest native land claim settlement in Canadian history. It gave the Inuit title over 350,000 square kilometres of land. It also gave the Inuit capital transfers from the federal government of over $1.1 billion over the next 14 years. This money will be held in trust with the interest to be used in a variety of different projects, including financing for regional businesses and scholarships for students. The Inuit also gained a share of resource royalties, hunting rights and a greater role in managing the land and protecting the environment. The land claims agreement also committed the Government of Canada to recommend to Parliament legislation to create a new territory in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories.
While negotiations on a land claims settlement progressed, work was also taking place to determine potential jurisdictional boundaries for a new Eastern Territory. A proposal was presented to all NWT voters in a May 1992 plebiscite. Of those voting, 54 percent supported the proposed boundary. The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (the Inuit claims organization) and the federal government formally adopted the boundary for division in the Nunavut Political Accord. The final piece of the equation fit into place on June 10, 1993, when the Nunavut Act received Royal Assent. It officially established the territory of Nunavut and provided a legal framework for its government. It fixed April 1, 1999, as the day on which the new territory would come into existence.
The government of Nunavut is currently negotiating with the government of Canada on a devolution agreement. Nunavut Tunngavik, the organization of Inuit of Nunavut, is also a participant to negotiations to ensure that Inuit interests are represented.
Devolution over natural resources to the government of Nunavut moved forward with the appointment of a Ministerial Representative for Nunavut Devolution. The Representative has held meetings with interested parties including the Boards established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), territorial and federal government departments in order to determine if devolution will occur and if so the future mandate of devolution. The government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik have appointed negotiators.
Yukon
In 1896 prospectors discovered gold in Yukon. There ensued what is often considered[by whom?] the world's greatest gold rush, which saw the population of Yukon grow rapidly. Indeed, by 1898, Dawson grew into the largest Canadian city west of Winnipeg, with a population of 40,000. In response, the Canadian government officially established the Yukon Territory in 1898. The North-West Mounted Police were sent in to ensure Canadian jurisdiction and the Yukon Act provided for a commissioner to administer the territory. The 1898 statute granted the Commissioner in Council "the same powers to make ordinances... as are possessed by the Lieutenant Governor of the North-west Territories, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly thereof". In 1908 amendments to the Yukon Act transformed the Council into an elected body.
Over time the territorial government exercised expanded functions. Relevant developments include the following:
- By the mid-1960s, schools, public works, welfare, and various other matters of a local nature had come under territorial administration.
- Increased authority of elected Council members over the ensuing period contributed to significant changes in the Yukon Commissioner's role. In 1979, instructions from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Minister) directed the Commissioner to allow elected members and the Executive Council to make important policy decisions, specifying that his/her actions should normally be based on the advice and taken with the consent of the elected Executive Council.
- As in the Northwest Territories, federal responsibilities were transferred to the Yukon government in the 1980s. In 1988 the Minister and the Yukon Government Leader signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the parties to smooth the progress of devolution of remaining province-like responsibilities to the Yukon Government. Responsibilities transferred since then include fisheries, mine safety, intra-territorial roads, hospitals and community-health care, oil-and-gas and, most recently, natural resources.
- Discussion to transfer land- and resource-management responsibilities to the Yukon Government began in 1996, followed by a formal federal devolution proposal to the Yukon Government in January 1997. In September 1998 a Devolution Protocol Accord to guide devolution negotiations was signed. On August 28, 2001, a final draft of the Devolution Transfer Agreement was completed for consideration. The Yukon Devolution transfer Agreement was concluded on October 29, 2001, with the Government of Canada enabling the transfer of remaining province-like responsibilities for land, water and resource management to the Government of Yukon on April 1, 2003.
Mexico
The Federal District
All constituent states of Mexico are fully autonomous and comprise a federation. The Federal District, originally integrated by Mexico City and other municipalities, was created in 1824 to be the capital of the federation. As such, it was governed directly by the central or federal government and the president of Mexico appointed its governor or executive regent. Even though the municipalities within the Federal District were autonomous, their powers were limited. In 1928, these municipalities were abolished and transformed into non-autonomous delegaciones or boroughs and a "Central Department", later renamed as Mexico City. In 1970 this department was split into four new delegaciones, and Mexico City was constitutionally defined to be synonymous and coterminous with the entire Federal District.[8] (As such, the boroughs of the Federal District are boroughs of Mexico City).
In the 1980s, the citizens of the Federal District, being the most populated federal entity in Mexico, began to demand home rule: a devolution of autonomy in order to directly elect their head of government and to set up a Legislative Assembly. In 1987, an Assembly of Representatives was created, by constitutional decree, whose members were elected by popular vote. The devolution of the executive power was not granted until 1997 when the first head of government was elected by popular vote. Finally, in 2000, power was devolved to the delegaciones, though limited: residents can now elect their own "heads of borough government" (jefes delegacionales, in Spanish), but the delegaciones do not have regulatory powers and are not constituted by a board of trustees, like the municipalities of the constituent states.
The autonomy, or home rule, of the Federal District, was granted by the federal government, which in principle has the right to remove it. The president of Mexico still holds the final word in some decisions (e.g. he must approve some posts), and the Congress of the Union reviews the budget of the Federal District and sets the limit to its debt.[9]
Some left-wing groups and political parties have advocated, since the 1980s, for a full devolution of powers by transforming the Federal District into the thirty-second constituent state of the Federation (with the proposed name of "State of the Valley of Mexico", to be distinguished from the state of México; another proposed name is "State of the Anahuac").
Indigenous peoples
In a recent amendment to the Constitution of Mexico, the country was defined as a "pluricultural nation" founded upon the "indigenous peoples".[10] They are granted "free-determination" to choose the social, economic, cultural and political organization for which they are to elect representatives democratically in whatever manner they see fit, traditionally or otherwise, as long as women have the same opportunities to participate in their social and political life. There are, however, no prescribed limits to their territories, and they are still under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and states in which they are located; the indigenous peoples can elect representatives before the municipal councils. In practice, they are allowed to have an autonomous form of self-government, but they are still subject to the rights and responsibilities set forth by the federal constitution and the constitution of the states in which they are located.[11]
France
In the late 1980s a process of decentralisation was undertaken by the French government. Initially regions were created and elected regional assemblies set up. Together with the departmental councils these bodies have responsibility for infrastructure spending and maintenance (schools and highways) and certain social spending. They collect revenues through property taxes and various other taxes. In addition a large part of spending is provided by direct grants to such authorities.[12]
There also are groups calling for devolution or full independence for Occitania, the Basque Country, Corsica, Alsace, and Brittany.
Spain
The Spanish Constitution of 1978 granted autonomy to the nationalities and regions of which the Kingdom of Spain is composed. (See also autonomous communities and cities of Spain)
Under the "system of autonomies" (Spanish: Estado de las Autonomías), Spain has been quoted to be "remarkable for the extent of the powers peacefully devolved over the past 30 years"[13] and "an extraordinarily decentralised country", with the central government accounting for just 18% of public spending; the regional governments 38%, the local councils 13% and the social-security system the rest.[14]
In 2010 the Constitutional Court had ruled that non-binding referendums could be held and subsequently several municipalities held such referendums.[citation needed]
On December 12, 2013, the Catalan Government announced that a referendum would be held on self-determination. The central government of Spain considers that a binding referendum is unconstitutional and cannot be held.[15] On October 1, 2017, the regional government held a referendum despite having been declared illegal by the Spanish courts. Subsequently, several leaders were arrested and imprisoned on charges of "sedition" and "rebellion". The regional president fled to Brussels, but has so far escaped extradition as those offenses are not part of Belgian law or the European Arrest Warrant.[16] On December 21, 2017, fresh elections were held in which pro-independence parties held a slim majority and a broad coalition of constitutionalist parties expressed disappointment and concern for the future.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, devolved government was created for Northern Ireland in 1921 by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, for Wales and Scotland in September 1997 following simple majority referendums, and in London in May 1998. Between 1998 and 1999, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd (Welsh Parliament), Northern Ireland Assembly and London Assembly were established by law. The Campaign for an English Parliament, which supports English devolution (i.e. the establishment of a separate English parliament or assembly) was formed in 1998.
A referendum was held in Scotland on 18 September 2014 which asked citizens whether Scotland should be an independent country.[17] By a margin of approximately 55 percent to 45 percent, people living in Scotland rejected the proposal.[18] The leaders of the three largest British political parties pledged on 16 September 2014 a new devolution settlement for Scotland in the event of a No vote, promising to deliver "faster, safer and better change",[19] and as a result of this vote and promises made during the referendum campaign, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to devolve additional powers to the Scottish government, the nature of which would be determined by the Smith Commission.[20] These powers were subsequently transferred in the Scotland Act 2016.[21] Following the outcome of the Brexit vote on 23 June 2016, calls for further devolution have been raised,[22] including differential membership of the European single market for the devolved areas of the United Kingdom.[23]
The Yorkshire Party is a regionalist political party in Yorkshire, a historic county of England. Founded in 2014, it campaigns for the establishment of a devolved Yorkshire Assembly within the UK, with powers over education, environment, transport and housing.[24] In the 2021 West Yorkshire mayoral election, the Yorkshire Party came 3rd, ahead of major parties.[citation needed]
United States
In the United States the federal government and state governments are sovereign. As Native American tribes and the governments they formed pre-date the formation of the United States, their legal position as sovereigns co-exists alongside the individual states and the Federal government. The Legal relationships with Native American tribes and their government structures are the jurisdiction of Congress. This relationship is unique to each of the more than 500 tribes and also involves International Treaties between various tribes and Spain, Great Britain, and the eventual United States. Territories are under the direct jurisdiction of Congress. Territorial governments are thus devolved by acts of Congress. Political subdivisions of a state, such as a county or municipality, are a type of devolved government and are defined by individual state constitutions and laws.
District of Columbia
In the United States, the District of Columbia offers an illustration of devolved government. The District is separate from any state, and has its own elected government. In many ways, on a day-to-day basis, it operates much like another state, with its own laws, court system, Department of Motor Vehicles, public university, and so on. However, the governments of the 50 states are reserved a broad range of powers in the U.S. Constitution, and most of their laws cannot be voided by any act of U.S. federal government. The District of Columbia, by contrast, is constitutionally under the sole control of the United States Congress, which created the current District government by statute. Any law passed by the District legislature can be nullified by congressional action, and indeed the District government could be significantly altered or eliminated by a simple majority vote in Congress.
List of unitary states with devolution
| Year | State | Government type | Subdivisions article | Main regional units | Other regional units |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 |  Azerbaijan
|
Presidential republic | Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan | 10 autonomous regions, 66 rayons and 77 cities | Autonomous republic: Nakhchivan |
| 2009 |  Bolivia
|
Constitutional republic | Departments of Bolivia | 9 departments |
|
| 1980 |  Chile
|
Republic | Regions of Chile | 15 regions |
|
| 1949 |  China
|
Socialist republic | Administrative divisions of China | 22 provinces (Taiwan is claimed as the 23rd province), 5 autonomous regions and 4 municipalities | 2 special administrative regions: Hong Kong and Macau |
| 1991 |  Colombia
|
Republic | Departments of Colombia | 32 departments | 1 Capital District, Bogotá, has the same autonomy and privileges as Colombian Departments. |
| 1992 |  Czech Republic
|
Republic | Regions of the Czech Republic | 13 regions (kraje) | 1 Capital District, Prague, has the same autonomy and privileges as Czech regions. |
| 1849 |  Denmark
|
Constitutional monarchy | Regions of Denmark | 5 regions and 98 communes | 2 autonomous territories: Greenland and Faroe Islands |
| 1919 |  Finland
|
Republic | Regions of Finland | 19 regions | Åland |
| 1982 |  France
|
Republic | Regions of France | 18 regions |
|
| 1991 |  Georgia
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of Georgia | 9 regions (one of them declared de facto independence: Abkhazia (1999)), 1 city, and 2 autonomous republics (one of them also declared de facto independence: South Ossetia (2006)) | Adjara and South Ossetia (Tskhinvali region) |
| 1975 |  Greece
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of Greece | 13 regions | Mount Athos |
| 1950 |  Indonesia
|
Republic | Provinces of Indonesia | 38 provinces which 9 have special status | Provinces with special status: Aceh, Jakarta, Yogyakarta (de jure not a province), Central Papua, Highland Papua, Papua, South Papua, Southwest Papua, and West Papua |
| 1946 |  Italy
|
Republic | Regions of Italy | 20 regions, of which 5 have a special degree of autonomy | 2 autonomous provinces |
| 1947 |  Japan
|
Constitutional monarchy | Prefectures of Japan | 47 prefectures |
|
| 1964 |  Kenya
|
Presidential republic | Counties of Kenya | 47 counties based on 47 districts, with 47 elected governors, recognized by 2010 Constitution[25][26] |
|
| 1991 |  Moldova
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of Moldova | 32 districts and 3 municipalities | 2 provinces: Gagauzia and Transnistria. Transnistria is a de facto independent state. |
| 1989 |  Myanmar
|
Constitutional Republic | Administrative divisions of Myanmar | 7 states and 7 divisions | De facto autonomous state: Wa State |
| 1954 |  Netherlands
|
Constitutional monarchy | Provinces of the Netherlands | 12 provinces and 3 Caribbean public bodies | minor constituent countries Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten |
| 1986 |  New Zealand
|
Commonwealth realm | Regions of New Zealand | 16 regions | Two territories in free association: Cook Islands and Niue and two dependencies: Tokelau and Ross |
| 1986 |  Nicaragua
|
Republic | Departments of Nicaragua | 15 departments | Two autonomous regions: North Atlantic and South Atlantic |
| 1975 |  Papua New Guinea
|
Commonwealth realm | Provinces of Papua New Guinea | 20 provinces | 1 capital territory: National Capital District and 1 autonomous region: Bougainville |
| 1993 |  Peru
|
Republic | Regions of Peru | 25 regions | 1 province at the first order: Lima |
| 1987 |  Philippines
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of the Philippines | 17 regions (including BARMM), 81 provinces, 144 cities, 1,491 municipalities, and 42,028 barangays | Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao |
| 1976 |  Portugal
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of Portugal | 308 municipalities | 2 Autonomous Regions: Azores and Madeira |
| 2006 |  Serbia
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of Serbia | 138 municipalities and 23 cities | Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija (Serbia does not recognize the independence of Kosovo) |
| 1978 |  Solomon Islands
|
Commonwealth realm | Provinces of the Solomon Islands | 9 provinces | 1 capital territory: Honiara |
| 1996 |  South Africa
|
Republic | Provinces of South Africa | 9 provinces |
|
| 1948 |  South Korea
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of South Korea | 8 provinces and 6 cities | One special city, one special self-governing city and one special self-governing province |
| 1978 |  Spain
|
Constitutional monarchy | Autonomous communities of Spain (nationalities and regions of Spain) |
17 autonomous communities of which 2 have a special degree of tax raising autonomy | 2 autonomous cities (Ceuta and Melilla) |
| 1987 |  Sri Lanka
|
Republic | Provinces of Sri Lanka | 9 provinces | |
| 1992[27] |  Sweden
|
Constitutional monarchy | Regions of Sweden, Municipalities of Sweden | 21 regions and 290 municipalities[28][29] |
|
| 1950 |  Taiwan
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of Taiwan | 22 subdivisions |
|
| 1992 |  Tajikistan
|
Republic | Provinces of Tajikistan | 2 provinces, 1 autonomous province (Gorno-Badakhshan) and a zone of direct central rule (Districts of Republican Subordination). | 1 autonomous city |
| 1977 |  Tanzania
|
Republic | Regions of Tanzania | 30 regions | Zanzibar |
| 1976 |  Trinidad and Tobago
|
Republic | Regions and municipalities of Trinidad and Tobago | 9 regions and 5 municipalities | Tobago |
| 1996 |  Ukraine
|
Republic | Administrative divisions of Ukraine | 24 oblasts (provinces) and one autonomous republic | Crimea |
| 1998 [30] 1999 [31] |
 United Kingdom
|
Commonwealth realm | Countries of the United Kingdom (Home Nations) |
4 constituent countries, of which 3 have devolved governments | Overseas territories, Crown dependencies |
| 1991 |  Uzbekistan
|
Republic | Provinces of Uzbekistan | 9 provinces and one independent city | Qaraqalpaqstan |
See also
- Decentralization – Organizational theory
- Federalism – Political concept
- Federalism in China – Political philosophy
- Tiao-kuai – Quasi-federal administration in China.
- Home rule – Governance of a colony, dependent country, locality, or region by its own citizens
- Principle of conferral – EU acts at the behest of its members
- Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom) – UK enquiry 1969–1973
- Scotland Act 2012 – UK Act to increase Scottish devolution
- States and Territories of Australia – Overarching divisions of authority in Australia
- Subsidiarity – Principle of social organization
- Territories of the United States
- West Lothian question – UK constitutional anomaly
Notes
- Scotland and Wales.
External links
- Economic and Social Research Council Devolution and Constitutional Change research programme
- http://www.bbc.co.uk An Article from the BBC describing the transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to the Welsh Assembly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution
| Part of a series on |
| Libertarianism |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decentralization or decentralisation is the process by which the activities of an organization, particularly those regarding planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group and given to smaller factions within it.[1]
Concepts of decentralization have been applied to group dynamics and management science in private businesses and organizations, political science, law and public administration, technology, economics and money.
History
The word "centralisation" came into use in France in 1794 as the post-Revolution French Directory leadership created a new government structure. The word "décentralisation" came into usage in the 1820s.[2] "Centralization" entered written English in the first third of the 1800s;[3] mentions of decentralization also first appear during those years. In the mid-1800s Tocqueville would write that the French Revolution began with "a push towards decentralization...[but became,] in the end, an extension of centralization."[4] In 1863, retired French bureaucrat Maurice Block wrote an article called "Decentralization" for a French journal that reviewed the dynamics of government and bureaucratic centralization and recent French efforts at decentralization of government functions.[5]
Ideas of liberty and decentralization were carried to their logical conclusions during the 19th and 20th centuries by anti-state political activists calling themselves "anarchists", "libertarians", and even decentralists. Tocqueville was an advocate, writing: "Decentralization has, not only an administrative value but also a civic dimension since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will."[6] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865), influential anarchist theorist[7][8] wrote: "All my economic ideas as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political federation or decentralization."[9]
In the early 20th century, America's response to the centralization of economic wealth and political power was a decentralist movement. It blamed large-scale industrial production for destroying middle-class shop keepers and small manufacturers and promoted increased property ownership and a return to small scale living. The decentralist movement attracted Southern Agrarians like Robert Penn Warren, as well as journalist Herbert Agar.[10] New Left and libertarian individuals who identified with social, economic, and often political decentralism through the ensuing years included Ralph Borsodi, Wendell Berry, Paul Goodman, Carl Oglesby, Karl Hess, Donald Livingston, Kirkpatrick Sale (author of Human Scale),[11] Murray Bookchin,[12] Dorothy Day,[13] Senator Mark O. Hatfield,[14] Mildred J. Loomis[15] and Bill Kauffman.[16]
Leopold Kohr, author of the 1957 book The Breakdown of Nations – known for its statement "Whenever something is wrong, something is too big" – was a major influence on E. F. Schumacher, author of the 1973 bestseller Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered.[17][18] In the next few years a number of best-selling books promoted decentralization.
Daniel Bell's The Coming of Post-Industrial Society[4] discussed the need for decentralization and a "comprehensive overhaul of government structure to find the appropriate size and scope of units", as well as the need to detach functions from current state boundaries, creating regions based on functions like water, transport, education and economics which might have "different 'overlays' on the map."[19][20] Alvin Toffler published Future Shock (1970) and The Third Wave (1980). Discussing the books in a later interview, Toffler said that industrial-style, centralized, top-down bureaucratic planning would be replaced by a more open, democratic, decentralized style which he called "anticipatory democracy".[21] Futurist John Naisbitt's 1982 book "Megatrends" was on The New York Times Best Seller list for more than two years and sold 14 million copies.[22] Naisbitt's book outlines 10 "megatrends", the fifth of which is from centralization to decentralization.[23] In 1996 David Osborne and Ted Gaebler had a best selling book Reinventing Government proposing decentralist public administration theories which became labeled the "New Public Management".[24]
Stephen Cummings wrote that decentralization became a "revolutionary megatrend" in the 1980s.[25] In 1983 Diana Conyers asked if decentralization was the "latest fashion" in development administration.[26] Cornell University's project on Restructuring Local Government states that decentralization refers to the "global trend" of devolving responsibilities to regional or local governments.[27] Robert J. Bennett's Decentralization, Intergovernmental Relations and Markets: Towards a Post-Welfare Agenda describes how after World War II governments pursued a centralized "welfarist" policy of entitlements which now has become a "post-welfare" policy of intergovernmental and market-based decentralization.[27]
In 1983, "Decentralization" was identified as one of the "Ten Key Values" of the Green Movement in the United States.
According to a 1999 United Nations Development Programme report:
"... A large number of developing and transitional countries have embarked on some form of decentralization programmes. This trend is coupled with a growing interest in the role of civil society and the private sector as partners to governments in seeking new ways of service delivery...Decentralization of governance and the strengthening of local governing capacity is in part also a function of broader societal trends. These include, for example, the growing distrust of government generally, the spectacular demise of some of the most centralized regimes in the world (especially the Soviet Union) and the emerging separatist demands that seem to routinely pop up in one or another part of the world. The movement toward local accountability and greater control over one's destiny is, however, not solely the result of the negative attitude towards central government. Rather, these developments, as we have already noted, are principally being driven by a strong desire for greater participation of citizens and private sector organizations in governance."[28]
Overview
Systems approach
Those studying the goals and processes of implementing decentralization often use a systems theory approach, which according to the United Nations Development Programme report applies to the topic of decentralization "a whole systems perspective, including levels, spheres, sectors and functions and seeing the community level as the entry point at which holistic definitions of development goals are from the people themselves and where it is most practical to support them. It involves seeing multi-level frameworks and continuous, synergistic processes of interaction and iteration of cycles as critical for achieving wholeness in a decentralized system and for sustaining its development."[29]
However, it has been seen as part of a systems approach. Norman Johnson of Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote in a 1999 paper: "A decentralized system is where some decisions by the agents are made without centralized control or processing. An important property of agent systems is the degree of connectivity or connectedness between the agents, a measure global flow of information or influence. If each agent is connected (exchange states or influence) to all other agents, then the system is highly connected."[30]
University of California, Irvine's Institute for Software Research's "PACE" project is creating an "architectural style for trust management in decentralized applications." It adopted Rohit Khare's definition of decentralization: "A decentralized system is one which requires multiple parties to make their own independent decisions" and applies it to Peer-to-peer software creation, writing:
...In such a decentralized system, there is no single centralized authority that makes decisions on behalf of all the parties. Instead each party, also called a peer, makes local autonomous decisions towards its individual goals which may possibly conflict with those of other peers. Peers directly interact with each other and share information or provide service to other peers. An open decentralized system is one in which the entry of peers is not regulated. Any peer can enter or leave the system at any time...[31]
Goals
Decentralization in any area is a response to the problems of centralized systems. Decentralization in government, the topic most studied, has been seen as a solution to problems like economic decline, government inability to fund services and their general decline in performance of overloaded services, the demands of minorities for a greater say in local governance, the general weakening legitimacy of the public sector and global and international pressure on countries with inefficient, undemocratic, overly centralized systems.[32] The following four goals or objectives are frequently stated in various analyses of decentralization.
- Participation
In decentralization, the principle of subsidiarity is often invoked. It holds that the lowest or least centralized authority that is capable of addressing an issue effectively should do so. According to one definition: "Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels."[33]
Decentralization is often linked to concepts of participation in decision-making, democracy, equality and liberty from a higher authority.[34][35] Decentralization enhances the democratic voice.[27] Theorists believe that local representative authorities with actual discretionary powers are the basis of decentralization that can lead to local efficiency, equity and development."[36] Columbia University's Earth Institute identified one of three major trends relating to decentralization: "increased involvement of local jurisdictions and civil society in the management of their affairs, with new forms of participation, consultation, and partnerships."[6]
Decentralization has been described as a "counterpoint to globalization [which] removes decisions from the local and national stage to the global sphere of multi-national or non-national interests. Decentralization brings decision-making back to the sub-national levels". Decentralization strategies must account for the interrelations of global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels.[37]
- Diversity
Norman L. Johnson writes that diversity plays an important role in decentralized systems like ecosystems, social groups, large organizations, political systems. "Diversity is defined to be unique properties of entities, agents, or individuals that are not shared by the larger group, population, structure. Decentralized is defined as a property of a system where the agents have some ability to operate "locally." Both decentralization and diversity are necessary attributes to achieve the self-organizing properties of interest."[30]
Advocates of political decentralization hold that greater participation by better informed diverse interests in society will lead to more relevant decisions than those made only by authorities on the national level.[38] Decentralization has been described as a response to demands for diversity.[6][39]
- Efficiency
In business, decentralization leads to a management by results philosophy which focuses on definite objectives to be achieved by unit results.[40] Decentralization of government programs is said to increase efficiency – and effectiveness – due to reduction of congestion in communications, quicker reaction to unanticipated problems, improved ability to deliver services, improved information about local conditions, and more support from beneficiaries of programs.[41]
Firms may prefer decentralization because it ensures efficiency by making sure that managers closest to the local information make decisions and in a more timely fashion; that their taking responsibility frees upper management for long term strategics rather than day-to-day decision-making; that managers have hands on training to prepare them to move up the management hierarchy; that managers are motivated by having the freedom to exercise their own initiative and creativity; that managers and divisions are encouraged to prove that they are profitable, instead of allowing their failures to be masked by the overall profitability of the company.[42]
The same principles can be applied to the government. Decentralization promises to enhance efficiency through both inter-governmental competitions with market features and fiscal discipline which assigns tax and expenditure authority to the lowest level of government possible. It works best where members of the subnational government have strong traditions of democracy, accountability, and professionalism.[27]
- Conflict resolution
Economic and/or political decentralization can help prevent or reduce conflict because they reduce actual or perceived inequities between various regions or between a region and the central government.[43] Dawn Brancati finds that political decentralization reduces intrastate conflict unless politicians create political parties that mobilize minority and even extremist groups to demand more resources and power within national governments. However, the likelihood this will be done depends on factors like how democratic transitions happen and features like a regional party's proportion of legislative seats, a country's number of regional legislatures, elector procedures, and the order in which national and regional elections occur. Brancati holds that decentralization can promote peace if it encourages statewide parties to incorporate regional demands and limit the power of regional parties.[44]
Processes
- Initiation
The processes by which entities move from a more to a less centralized state vary. They can be initiated from the centers of authority ("top-down") or from individuals, localities or regions ("bottom-up"),[45] or from a "mutually desired" combination of authorities and localities working together.[46] Bottom-up decentralization usually stresses political values like local responsiveness and increased participation and tends to increase political stability. Top-down decentralization may be motivated by the desire to "shift deficits downwards" and find more resources to pay for services or pay off government debt.[45] Some hold that decentralization should not be imposed, but done in a respectful manner.[47]
- Appropriate size
Gauging the appropriate size or scale of decentralized units has been studied in relation to the size of sub-units of hospitals[48] and schools,[32] road networks,[49] administrative units in business[50] and public administration, and especially town and city governmental areas and decision-making bodies.[51][52]
In creating planned communities ("new towns"), it is important to determine the appropriate population and geographical size. While in earlier years small towns were considered appropriate, by the 1960s, 60,000 inhabitants was considered the size necessary to support a diversified job market and an adequate shopping center and array of services and entertainment. Appropriate size of governmental units for revenue raising also is a consideration.[53]
Even in bioregionalism, which seeks to reorder many functions and even the boundaries of governments according to physical and environmental features, including watershed boundaries and soil and terrain characteristics, appropriate size must be considered. The unit may be larger than many decentralist-bioregionalists prefer.[54]
- Inadvertent or silent
Decentralization ideally happens as a careful, rational, and orderly process, but it often takes place during times of economic and political crisis, the fall of a regime and the resultant power struggles. Even when it happens slowly, there is a need for experimentation, testing, adjusting, and replicating successful experiments in other contexts. There is no one blueprint for decentralization since it depends on the initial state of a country and the power and views of political interests and whether they support or oppose decentralization.[55]
Decentralization usually is a conscious process based on explicit policies. However, it may occur as "silent decentralization" in the absence of reforms as changes in networks, policy emphasize and resource availability lead inevitably to a more decentralized system.[56]
- Asymmetry
Decentralization may be uneven and "asymmetric" given any one country's population, political, ethnic and other forms of diversity. In many countries, political, economic and administrative responsibilities may be decentralized to the larger urban areas, while rural areas are administered by the central government. Decentralization of responsibilities to provinces may be limited only to those provinces or states which want or are capable of handling responsibility. Some privatization may be more appropriate to an urban than a rural area; some types of privatization may be more appropriate for some states and provinces but not others.[57]
- Measurement
Measuring the amount of decentralization, especially politically, is difficult because different studies of it use different definitions and measurements. An OECD study quotes Chanchal Kumar Sharma as stating:[58] "a true assessment of the degree of decentralization in a country can be made only if a comprehensive approach is adopted and rather than trying to simplify the syndrome of characteristics into the single dimension of autonomy, interrelationships of various dimensions of decentralization are taken into account."[59]
Determinants
The academic literature frequently mentions the following factors as determinants of decentralization:[60]
- "The number of major ethnic groups"
- "The degree of territorial concentration of those groups"
- "The existence of ethnic networks and communities across the border of the state"
- "The country's dependence on natural resources and the degree to which those resources are concentrated in the region's territory"
- "The country's per capita income relative to that in other regions"
- The presence of self-determination movements
Government decentralization
Historians have described the history of governments and empires in terms of centralization and decentralization. In his 1910 The History of Nations Henry Cabot Lodge wrote that Persian king Darius I (550–486 BC) was a master of organization and "for the first time in history centralization becomes a political fact." He also noted that this contrasted with the decentralization of Ancient Greece.[61] Since the 1980s a number of scholars have written about cycles of centralization and decentralization. Stephen K. Sanderson wrote that over the last 4000 years chiefdoms and actual states have gone through sequences of centralization and decentralization of economic, political and social power.[62] Yildiz Atasoy writes this process has been going on "since the Stone Age" through not just chiefdoms and states, but empires and today's "hegemonic core states".[63] Christopher K. Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall review other works that detail these cycles, including works which analyze the concept of core elites which compete with state accumulation of wealth and how their "intra-ruling-class competition accounts for the rise and fall of states" and their phases of centralization and decentralization.[64]
Rising government expenditures, poor economic performance and the rise of free market-influenced ideas have convinced governments to decentralize their operations, to induce competition within their services, to contract out to private firms operating in the market, and to privatize some functions and services entirely.[65]
Government decentralization has both political and administrative aspects. Its decentralization may be territorial, moving power from a central city to other localities, and it may be functional, moving decision-making from the top administrator of any branch of government to lower level officials, or divesting of the function entirely through privatization.[66] It has been called the "new public management" which has been described as decentralization, management by objectives, contracting out, competition within government and consumer orientation.[67]
Political
Political decentralization signifies a reduction in the authority of national governments over policy-making. This process is accomplished by the institution of reforms that either delegate a certain degree of meaningful decision-making autonomy to sub-national tiers of government,[68] or grant citizens the right to elect lower-level officials, like local or regional representatives.[69] Depending on the country, this may require constitutional or statutory reforms, the development of new political parties, increased power for legislatures, the creation of local political units, and encouragement of advocacy groups.[38]
A national government may decide to decentralize its authority and responsibilities for a variety of reasons. Decentralization reforms may occur for administrative reasons, when government officials decide that certain responsibilities and decisions would be handled best at the regional or local level. In democracies, traditionally conservative parties include political decentralization as a directive in their platforms because rightist parties tend to advocate for a decrease in the role of central government. There is also strong evidence to support the idea that government stability increases the probability of political decentralization, since instability brought on by gridlock between opposing parties in legislatures often impedes a government's overall ability to enact sweeping reforms.[68]
The rise of regional ethnic parties in the national politics of parliamentary democracies is also heavily associated with the implementation of decentralization reforms.[68] Ethnic parties may endeavor to transfer more autonomy to their respective regions, and as a partisan strategy, ruling parties within the central government may cooperate by establishing regional assemblies in order to curb the rise of ethnic parties in national elections.[68] This phenomenon famously occurred in 1999, when the United Kingdom's Labour Party appealed to Scottish constituents by creating a semi-autonomous Scottish Parliament in order to neutralize the threat from the increasingly popular Scottish National Party at the national level.[68]
In addition to increasing the administrative efficacy of government and endowing citizens with more power, there are many projected advantages to political decentralization. Individuals who take advantage of their right to elect local and regional authorities have been shown to have more positive attitudes toward politics,[70] and increased opportunities for civic decision-making through participatory democracy mechanisms like public consultations and participatory budgeting are believed to help legitimize government institutions in the eyes of marginalized groups.[71] Moreover, political decentralization is perceived as a valid means of protecting marginalized communities at a local level from the detrimental aspects of development and globalization driven by the state, like the degradation of local customs, codes, and beliefs.[72] In his 2013 book, Democracy and Political Ignorance, George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin argued that political decentralization in a federal democracy confronts the widespread issue of political ignorance by allowing citizens to engage in foot voting, or moving to other jurisdictions with more favorable laws.[73] He cites the mass migration of over one million southern-born African Americans to the North or the West to evade discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century and early 20th century.[73]
The European Union follows the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decision-making should be made by the most local competent authority. The EU should decide only on enumerated issues that a local or member state authority cannot address themselves. Furthermore, enforcement is exclusively the domain of member states. In Finland, the Centre Party explicitly supports decentralization. For example, government departments have been moved from the capital Helsinki to the provinces. The centre supports substantial subsidies that limit potential economic and political centralization to Helsinki.
Political decentralization does not come without its drawbacks. A study by Fan concludes that there is an increase in corruption and rent-seeking when there are more vertical tiers in the government, as well as when there are higher levels of subnational government employment.[74] Other studies warn of high-level politicians that may intentionally deprive regional and local authorities of power and resources when conflicts arise.[72] In order to combat these negative forces, experts believe that political decentralization should be supplemented with other conflict management mechanisms like power-sharing, particularly in regions with ethnic tensions.[71]
Administrative
Four major forms of administrative decentralization have been described.[75][76]
- Deconcentration, the weakest form of decentralization, shifts responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions[77] from officials of central governments to those in existing districts or, if necessary, new ones under direct control of the central government.
- Delegation passes down responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation. It involves the creation of public-private enterprises or corporations, or of "authorities", special projects or service districts. All of them will have a great deal of decision-making discretion and they may be exempt from civil service requirements and may be permitted to charge users for services.
- Devolution transfers responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions to the sub-national level, such as a regional, local, or state government.
- Divestment, also called privatization, may mean merely contracting out services to private companies. Or it may mean relinquishing totally all responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of certain public functions. Facilities will be sold off, workers transferred or fired and private companies or non-for-profit organizations allowed to provide the services.[78] Many of these functions originally were done by private individuals, companies, or associations and later taken over by the government, either directly, or by regulating out of business entities which competed with newly created government programs.[79]
Fiscal
Fiscal decentralization means decentralizing revenue raising and/or expenditure of moneys to a lower level of government while maintaining financial responsibility.[75] While this process usually is called fiscal federalism, it may be relevant to unitary, federal, or confederal governments. Fiscal federalism also concerns the "vertical imbalances" where the central government gives too much or too little money to the lower levels. It actually can be a way of increasing central government control of lower levels of government, if it is not linked to other kinds of responsibilities and authority.[80][81][82]
Fiscal decentralization can be achieved through user fees, user participation through monetary or labor contributions, expansion of local property or sales taxes, intergovernmental transfers of central government tax monies to local governments through transfer payments or grants, and authorization of municipal borrowing with national government loan guarantees. Transfers of money may be given conditionally with instructions or unconditionally without them.[75][83]
Previous research suggested that fiscal decentralization affects environmental quality. It could indirectly affect CO2 emissions through various channels, such as institutions and human capital. The relationship between fiscal decentralization and environmental quality is strengthened by improvements in the quality of institutions and the development of human capital.[84]
Market
Market decentralization can be done through privatization of public owned functions and businesses, as described briefly above. But it also is done through deregulation, the abolition of restrictions on businesses competing with government services, for example, postal services, schools, garbage collection. Even as private companies and corporations have worked to have such services contracted out to or privatized by them, others have worked to have these turned over to non-profit organizations or associations.[75]
Since the 1970s there has been deregulation of some industries, like banking, trucking, airlines and telecommunications which resulted generally in more competition and lower prices.[85] According to Cato Institute, an American libertarian think-tank, in some cases deregulation in some aspects of an industry were offset by increased regulation in other aspects, the electricity industry being a prime example.[86] For example, in banking, Cato Institute believes some deregulation allowed banks to compete across state lines, increasing consumer choice, while an actual increase in regulators and regulations forced banks to do business the way central government regulators commanded, including making loans to individuals incapable of repaying them, leading eventually to the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[87][unreliable source?]
One example of economic decentralization, which is based on a libertarian socialist model, is decentralized economic planning. Decentralized planning is a type of economic system in which decision-making is distributed amongst various economic agents or localized within production agents. An example of this method in practice is in Kerala, India which experimented in 1996 with the People's Plan campaign.[88]
Some argue that government standardisation in areas from commodity market, inspection and testing procurement bidding, building codes, professional and vocational education, trade certification, safety, etc. are necessary.[citation needed] Emmanuelle Auriol and Michel Benaim write about the "comparative benefits" of decentralization versus government regulation in the setting of standards. They find that while there may be a need for public regulation if public safety is at stake, private creation of standards usually is better because "regulators or 'experts' might misrepresent consumers' tastes and needs." As long as companies are averse to incompatible standards, standards will be created that satisfy needs of a modern economy.[89]
Environmental
Central governments themselves may own large tracts of land and control the forest, water, mineral, wildlife and other resources they contain. They may manage them through government operations or leasing them to private businesses; or they may neglect them to be exploited by individuals or groups who defy non-enforced laws against exploitation. It also may control most private land through land-use, zoning, environmental and other regulations.[90] Selling off or leasing lands can be profitable for governments willing to relinquish control, but such programs can face public scrutiny because of fear of a loss of heritage or of environmental damage. Devolution of control to regional or local governments has been found to be an effective way of dealing with these concerns.[91][92] Such decentralization has happened in India[93] and other developing nations.[94]
Ideological decentralization
Libertarian socialism
Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy that promotes a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods.[96] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the various social relations of capitalism, such as wage slavery.[97] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism,[98][99] and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[100][101][102]
Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised".[103] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, or workers' councils.[104] Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism.[105] Adherents propose achieving this through decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale private property and enterprise (while retaining respect for personal property). Libertarian socialism tends to deny the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, viewing capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom.[106][107]
Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarcho-communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[108] social anarchism and mutualism)[109] as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, libertarian Marxist philosophies such as council communism and Luxemburgism,[110] and some versions of utopian socialism[111] and individualist anarchism.[112][113][114] For Murray Bookchin "In the modern world, anarchism first appeared as a movement of the peasantry and yeomanry against declining feudal institutions. In Germany its foremost spokesman during the Peasant Wars was Thomas Muenzer; in England, Gerrard Winstanley, a leading participant in the Digger movement. The concepts held by Muenzer and Winstanley were superbly attuned to the needs of their time – a historical period when the majority of the population lived in the countryside and when the most militant revolutionary forces came from an agrarian world. It would be painfully academic to argue whether Muenzer and Winstanley could have achieved their ideals. What is of real importance is that they spoke to their time; their anarchist concepts followed naturally from the rural society that furnished the bands of the peasant armies in Germany and the New Model in England."[115] The term "anarchist" first entered the English language in 1642, during the English Civil War, as a term of abuse, used by Royalists against their Roundhead opponents.[116] By the time of the French Revolution some, such as the Enragés, began to use the term positively,[117] in opposition to Jacobin centralisation of power, seeing "revolutionary government" as oxymoronic.[116] By the turn of the 19th century, the English word "anarchism" had lost its initial negative connotation.[116]
For Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, mutualism involved creating "industrial democracy", a system where workplaces would be "handed over to democratically organised workers' associations . . . We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social Republic."[118] He urged "workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism." This would result in "Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed."[119] Workers would no longer sell their labour to a capitalist but rather work for themselves in co-operatives. Anarcho-communism calls for a confederal form in relationships of mutual aid and free association between communes as an alternative to the centralism of the nation-state. Peter Kropotkin thus suggested that "Representative government has accomplished its historical mission; it has given a mortal blow to court-rule; and by its debates it has awakened public interest in public questions. But to see in it the government of the future socialist society is to commit a gross error. Each economic phase of life implies its own political phase; and it is impossible to touch the very basis of the present economic life-private property – without a corresponding change in the very basis of the political organization. Life already shows in which direction the change will be made. Not in increasing the powers of the State, but in resorting to free organization and free federation in all those branches which are now considered as attributes of the State."[120] When the First Spanish Republic was established in 1873 after the abdication of King Amadeo, the first president, Estanislao Figueras, named Francesc Pi i Margall Minister of the Interior. His acquaintance with Proudhon enabled Pi to warm relations between the Republicans and the socialists in Spain. Pi i Margall became the principal translator of Proudhon's works into Spanish[121] and later briefly became president of Spain in 1873 while being the leader of the Democratic Republican Federal Party. According to George Woodcock "These translations were to have a profound and lasting effect on the development of Spanish anarchism after 1870, but before that time Proudhonian ideas, as interpreted by Pi, already provided much of the inspiration for the federalist movement which sprang up in the early 1860s."[122] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica "During the Spanish revolution of 1873, Pi y Margall attempted to establish a decentralized, cantonalist political system on Proudhonian lines."[123]
To date, the best-known examples of an anarchist communist society (i.e., established around the ideas as they exist today and achieving worldwide attention and knowledge in the historical canon), are the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution[124] and the Makhnovshchina during the Russian Revolution. Through the efforts and influence of the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 anarchist communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia, as well as in the stronghold of Anarchist Catalonia before being crushed by the combined forces of the regime that won the war, Hitler, Mussolini, Spanish Communist Party repression (backed by the USSR) as well as economic and armaments blockades from the capitalist countries and the Second Spanish Republic itself.[125] During the Russian Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend – through the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine – anarchist communism in Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921. Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky among others, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism (see libertarian Marxism) such as the council communism of Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky's Notes on Anarchism,[126] he suggests the possibility "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a 'vanguard' party, or a State bureaucracy."[126]
Economic decentralization
Is concerned with the location of economic decision
Organizational structure of a firm
In managerial economics, the principal-agent problem is a challenge faced by every firm.[127] In response to these incentive and information conflicts, a firm can either centralize their organizational structure by concentrating decision-making to upper management, or decentralize their organizational structure by delegating authority throughout the organization.[128] The delegation of authority comes with a basic trade-off: while it can increase efficiency and information flow, the central authority consequentially suffers a loss of control.[129] However, through creating an environment of trust and allocating authority formally in the firm, coupled with a stronger rule of law in the geographical location of the firm, the negative consequences of the trade-off can be minimized.[130]
In having a decentralized organizational structure, a firm can remain agile to external shocks and competing trends. Decision-making in a centralized organization can face information flow inefficiencies and barriers to effective communication which decreases the speed and accuracy in which decisions are made. A decentralized firm is said to hold greater flexibility given the efficiency in which it can analyze information and implement relevant outcomes.[131] Additionally, having decision-making power spread across different areas allows for local knowledge to inform decisions, increasing their relevancy and implementational effectiveness.[132] In the process of developing new products or services, the decentralization enable the firm gain advantages of closely meet particular division's needs.[133]
Decentralization also impacts human resource management. The high level of individual agency that workers experience within a decentralized firm can create job enrichment. Studies have shown this enhances the development of new ideas and innovations given the sense of involvement that comes from responsibility.[134] The impacts of decentralization on innovation are furthered by the ease of information flow that comes from this organizational structure. With increased knowledge sharing, workers are more able to use relevant information to inform decision-making.[135] These benefits are enhanced in firms with skill-intensive environments. Skilled workers are more able to analyze information, they pose less risk of information duplication given increased communication abilities, and the productivity cost of multi-tasking is lower. These outcomes of decentralizion make it a particularly effective organizational structure for entrepreneurial and competitive firm environments, such as start-up companies. The flexibility, efficiency of information flow and higher worker autonomy complement the rapid growth and innovation seen in successful start up companies.[136]
Free market
Free market ideas popular in the 19th century such as those of Adam Smith returned to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. Austrian School economist Friedrich von Hayek argued that free markets themselves are decentralized systems where outcomes are produced without explicit agreement or coordination by individuals who use prices as their guide.[137] Eleanor Doyle writes that "[e]conomic decision-making in free markets is decentralized across all the individuals dispersed in each market and is synchronized or coordinated by the price system," and holds that an individual right to property is part of this decentralized system.[138] Criticizing central government control, Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom:
There would be no difficulty about efficient control or planning were conditions so simple that a single person or board could effectively survey all the relevant facts. It is only as the factors which have to be taken into account become so numerous that it is impossible to gain a synoptic view of them that decentralization becomes imperative.[139]
According to Bruce M. Owen, this does not mean that all firms themselves have to be equally decentralized. He writes: "markets allocate resources through arms-length transactions among decentralized actors. Much of the time, markets work very efficiently, but there is a variety of conditions under which firms do better. Hence, goods and services are produced and sold by firms with various degrees of horizontal and vertical integration." Additionally, he writes that the "economic incentive to expand horizontally or vertically is usually, but not always, compatible with the social interest in maximizing long-run consumer welfare."[140]
It is often claimed that free markets and private property generate centralized monopolies and other ills; free market advocates counter with the argument that government is the source of monopoly.[141] Historian Gabriel Kolko in his book The Triumph of Conservatism argued that in the first decade of the 20th century businesses were highly decentralized and competitive, with new businesses constantly entering existing industries. In his view, there was no trend towards concentration and monopolization. While there were a wave of mergers of companies trying to corner markets, they found there was too much competition to do so. According to Kolko, this was also true in banking and finance, which saw decentralization as leading to instability as state and local banks competed with the big New York City firms. He argues that, as a result, the largest firms turned to the power of the state and worked with leaders like United States Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft and Woodrow Wilson to pass as "progressive reforms" centralizing laws like The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that gave control of the monetary system to the wealthiest bankers; the formation of monopoly "public utilities" that made competition with those monopolies illegal; federal inspection of meat packers biased against small companies; extending Interstate Commerce Commission to regulating telephone companies and keeping rates high to benefit AT&T; and using the Sherman Antitrust Act against companies which might combine to threaten larger or monopoly companies.[142][143] D. T. Armentano, writing for the Cato Institute, argues that when government licensing, franchises, and other legal restrictions create monopoly and protect companies from open competition, deregulation is the solution.[144]
Author and activist Jane Jacobs's influential 1961 book The Death and Life of American Cities criticized large-scale redevelopment projects which were part of government-planned decentralization of population and businesses to suburbs. She believed it destroyed cities' economies and impoverished remaining residents.[145] Her 1980 book The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty supported secession of Quebec from Canada.[146] Her 1984 book Cities and the Wealth of Nations proposed a solution to the problems faced by cities whose economies were being ruined by centralized national governments: decentralization through the "multiplication of sovereignties", meaning an acceptance of the right of cities to secede from the larger nation states that were greatly limiting their ability to produce wealth.[147][148]
Technological decentralization
Technological decentralization can be defined as a shift from concentrated to distributed modes of production and consumption of goods and services.[149] Generally, such shifts are accompanied by transformations in technology and different technologies are applied for either system. Technology includes tools, materials, skills, techniques and processes by which goals are accomplished in the public and private spheres. Concepts of decentralization of technology are used throughout all types of technology, including especially information technology and appropriate technology.
Technologies often mentioned as best implemented in a decentralized manner, include: water purification, delivery and waste water disposal,[150][151] agricultural technology[152] and energy technology.[153][154] Advancing technology may allow decentralized, privatized and free market solutions for what have been public services, such utilities producing and/or delivering power, water, mail, telecommunications and services like consumer product safety, money and banking, medical licensing and detection and metering technologies for highways, parking, and auto emissions.[155][clarification needed] However, in terms of technology, a clear distinction between fully centralized or decentralized technical solutions is often not possible and therefore finding an optimal degree of centralization difficult from an infrastructure planning perspective.[156]
Information technology
Information technology encompasses computers and computer networks, as well as information distribution technologies such as television and telephones. The whole computer industry of computer hardware, software, electronics, internet, telecommunications equipment, e-commerce and computer services are included.[157]
Executives and managers face a constant tension between centralizing and decentralizing information technology for their organizations. They must find the right balance of centralizing which lowers costs and allows more control by upper management, and decentralizing which allows sub-units and users more control. This will depend on analysis of the specific situation. Decentralization is particularly applicable to business or management units which have a high level of independence, complicated products and customers, and technology less relevant to other units.[158]
Information technology applied to government communications with citizens, often called e-Government, is supposed to support decentralization and democratization. Various forms have been instituted in most nations worldwide.[159]
The internet is an example of an extremely decentralized network, having no owners at all (although some have argued that this is less the case in recent years[160]). "No one is in charge of internet, and everyone is." As long as they follow a certain minimal number of rules, anyone can be a service provider or a user. Voluntary boards establish protocols, but cannot stop anyone from developing new ones.[161] Other examples of open source or decentralized movements are Wikis which allow users to add, modify, or delete content via the internet.[162] Wikipedia has been described as decentralized.[163] Smartphones have greatly increased the role of decentralized social network services in daily lives worldwide.[164]
Decentralization continues throughout the industry, for example as the decentralized architecture of wireless routers installed in homes and offices supplement and even replace phone companies' relatively centralized long-range cell towers.[165]
Inspired by system and cybernetics theorists like Norbert Wiener, Marshall McLuhan and Buckminster Fuller, in the 1960s Stewart Brand started the Whole Earth Catalog and later computer networking efforts to bring Silicon Valley computer technologists and entrepreneurs together with countercultural ideas. This resulted in ideas like personal computing, virtual communities and the vision of an "electronic frontier" which would be a more decentralized, egalitarian and free-market libertarian society. Related ideas coming out of Silicon Valley included the free software and creative commons movements which produced visions of a "networked information economy".[166]
Because human interactions in cyberspace transcend physical geography, there is a necessity for new theories in legal and other rule-making systems to deal with decentralized decision-making processes in such systems. For example, what rules should apply to conduct on the global digital network and who should set them? The laws of which nations govern issues of internet transactions (like seller disclosure requirements or definitions of "fraud"), copyright and trademark?[167]
Centralization and re-decentralization of the Internet
The New Yorker reports that although the Internet was originally decentralized, by 2013 it had become less so: "a staggering percentage of communications flow through a small set of corporations – and thus, under the profound influence of those companies and other institutions [...] One solution, espoused by some programmers, is to make the Internet more like it used to be – less centralized and more distributed."[160]
Examples of projects that attempt to contribute to the re-decentralization of the Internet include ArkOS, Diaspora, FreedomBox, IndieWeb, Namecoin, SAFE Network, twtxt and ZeroNet as well as advocacy group Redecentralize.org, which provides support for projects that aim to make the Web less centralized.[160]
In an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live one of the co-founders of Redecentralize.org explained that:
"As we've gone on there's been more and more internet traffic focused through particular nodes such as Google or Facebook. [...] Centralised services that hold all the user data and host it themselves have become increasingly popular because that business model has worked. As the Internet has become more mass market, people are not necessarily willing or knowledgable to host it themselves, so where that hosting is outsourced it's become the default, which allows a centralization of power and a centralization of data that I think is worrying."[168]
Blockchain technology
In blockchain, decentralization refers to the transfer of control and decision-making from a centralized entity (individual, organization, or group thereof) to a distributed network. Decentralized networks strive to reduce the level of trust that participants must place in one another, and deter their ability to exert authority or control over one another in ways that degrade the functionality of the network.[169]
Cryptocurrencies use cryptographic proofs such as proof-of-work or proof of stake as a means of establishing decentralized consensus. Bitcoin is one prominent example.[citation needed]
Decentralized protocols, applications, and ledgers (used in Web3[170][171]) could be more difficult for governments to regulate, similar to difficulties regulating BitTorrent (which is not a blockchain technology).[172][173]
Appropriate technology
"Appropriate technology", originally described as "intermediate technology" by economist E. F. Schumacher in Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered, is generally recognized as encompassing technologies that are small-scale, decentralized, labor-intensive, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and locally controlled.[174][better source needed]
Criticism
Factors hindering decentralization include weak local administrative or technical capacity, which may result in inefficient or ineffective services; inadequate financial resources available to perform new local responsibilities, especially in the start-up phase when they are most needed; or inequitable distribution of resources.[175] Decentralization can make national policy coordination too complex; it may allow local elites to capture functions; local cooperation may be undermined by any distrust between private and public sectors; decentralization may result in higher enforcement costs and conflict for resources if there is no higher level of authority.[176] Additionally, decentralization may not be as efficient for standardized, routine, network-based services, as opposed to those that need more complicated inputs. If there is a loss of economies of scale in procurement of labor or resources, the expense of decentralization can rise, even as central governments lose control over financial resources.[75]
Other challenges, and even dangers, include the possibility that corrupt local elites can capture regional or local power centers, while constituents lose representation; patronage politics will become rampant and civil servants feel compromised; further necessary decentralization can be stymied; incomplete information and hidden decision-making can occur up and down the hierarchies; centralized power centers can find reasons to frustrate decentralization and bring power back to themselves.[citation needed]
It has been noted that while decentralization may increase "productive efficiency" it may undermine "allocative efficiency" by making redistribution of wealth more difficult. Decentralization will cause greater disparities between rich and poor regions, especially during times of crisis when the national government may not be able to help regions needing it.[177]
Solutions
The literature identifies the following eight essential preconditions that must be ensured while implementing decentralization in order to avert the "dangers of decentralization":[178]
- Social Preparedness and Mechanisms to Prevent Elite Capture
- Strong Administrative and Technical Capacity at the Higher Levels
- Strong Political Commitment at the Higher Levels
- Sustained Initiatives for Capacity-Building at the Local Level
- Strong Legal Framework for Transparency and Accountability
- Transformation of Local Government Organizations into High Performing Organizations
- Appropriate Reasons to Decentralize: Intentions Matter
- Effective Judicial System, Citizens' Oversight and Anti-corruption Bodies to prevent Decentralization of Corruption
See also
References
- Tibor R. Machan, editor, The Libertarian Alternative, Nelson-Hall, 1974 included Yale Brozen's, "Is Government the source of monopoly? and other essays", Cato Institute, 1980; and Roy Childs' "Big Business and the Rise of American Statism", 1971, Reason.
- "Sharma, Chanchal Kumar (2014, Nov.12). Governance, Governmentality and Governability: Constraints and Possibilities of Decentralization in South Asia. Keynote Address, International Conference on Local Representation of Power in South Asia, Organized by Department of Political Science, GC University, Lahore (Pakistan), Nov.12–14" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 February 2015.
Further reading
- Aucoin, Peter, and Herman Bakvis. The Centralization-Decentralization Conundrum: Organization and Management in the Canadian Government (IRPP, 1988), ISBN 978-0886450700
- Campbell, Tim. Quiet Revolution: Decentralization and the Rise of Political Participation in Latin American Cities (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003), ISBN 978-0822957966.
- Faguet, Jean-Paul. Decentralization and Popular Democracy: Governance from Below in Bolivia, (University of Michigan Press, 2012), ISBN 978-0472118199.
- Fisman, Raymond and Roberta Gatti (2000). Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence Across Countries, Journal of Public Economics, Vol.83, No.3, pp. 325–45.
- Frischmann, Eva. Decentralization and Corruption. A Cross-Country Analysis, (Grin Verlag, 2010), ISBN 978-3640710959.
- Miller, Michelle Ann, ed. Autonomy and Armed Separatism in South and Southeast Asia (Singapore: ISEAS, 2012).
- Miller, Michelle Ann. Rebellion and Reform in Indonesia. Jakarta's Security and Autonomy Policies in Aceh (London and New York: Routledge, 2009).
- Rosen, Harvey S., ed.. Fiscal Federalism: Quantitative Studies National Bureau of Economic Research Project Report, NBER-Project Report, (University of Chicago Press, 2008), ISBN 978-0226726236.
- Taylor, Jeff. Politics on a Human Scale: The American Tradition of Decentralism (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2013), ISBN 978-0739186749.
- Richard M. Burton, Børge Obel, Design Models for Hierarchical Organizations: Computation, Information, and Decentralization, Springer, 1995, ISBN 978-0792396093
- Dubois, H.F.W.; Fattore, G. (2009). "Definitions and typologies in public administration research: the case of decentralization". International Journal of Public Administration. 32 (8): 704–27. doi:10.1080/01900690902908760. S2CID 154709846.
- Faguet, Jean-Paul (2014). ""Decentralization and Governance." Special Issue of". World Development. 53: 1–112. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.08.001.
- Merilee Serrill Grindle, Going Local: Decentralization, Democratization, And The Promise of Good Governance, Princeton University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0691129075
- Furniss, Norman (1974). "The Practical Significance of Decentralization". The Journal of Politics. 36 (4): 958–82. doi:10.2307/2129402. JSTOR 2129402. S2CID 154029605.
- Daniel Treisman, The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0521872294
- Miller, Michelle Ann; Bunnell, Tim (2012). "guest editors. 'Asian Cities in an Era of Decentralisation'". Space and Polity. 16: 1. doi:10.1080/13562576.2012.698125. S2CID 143938564.
- Schrape, Jan-Felix (2019). "The Promise of Technological Decentralization. A Brief Reconstruction". Society. 56: 31–37. doi:10.1007/s12115-018-00321-w. S2CID 149861490.
- Sharma, Chanchal Kumar (2006). "Decentralization Dilemma: Measuring the Degree and Evaluating the Outcomes". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 67 (1): 49–64. SSRN 955113.
- Sharma, Chanchal Kumar (2008). "Emerging Dimensions of Decentralization Debate in the Age of Globalization". Indian Journal of Federal Studies. 19 (1): 47–65. SSRN 1369943.
- Sharma, Chanchal Kumar(2014, Nov.12). Governance, Governmentality and Governability: Constraints and Possibilities of Decentralization in South Asia. Keynote Address, International Conference on Local Representation of Power in South Asia, Organized by Department of Political Science, GC University, Lahore (Pakistan) Nov. 12–14.
- Schakel, Arjan H. (2008), Validation of the Regional Authority Index, Regional and Federal Studies, Routledge, Vol. 18 (2).
- Decentralization, article at the "Restructuring local government project" of Dr. Mildred Warner, Cornell University includes a number of articles on decentralization trends and theories.
- Robert J. Bennett, ed., Decentralization, Intergovernmental Relations and Markets: Towards a Post-Welfare Agenda, Clarendon, 1990, pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-0198286875
External links
Quotations related to Decentralization at Wikiquote- Media related to Decentralization at Wikimedia Commons
| Authority control: National |
|---|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
| Part of the Politics series |
| Basic forms of government |
|---|
| List of forms of government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics portal |
An isocracy is a form of government where all citizens have equal political power. The term derives from Greek ἴσος meaning "equal" and κρατεῖν meaning "to have power", or "to rule".
The first recorded use of the term was by the Reverend Sydney Smith in 1845, where opposition was expressed to the idea of equal rule for "all units of society"; Smith noted that the young should not have the same authority as the old and challenged isocrats to support voting and political rights for women, which was considered an extremist position at the time.[1] An early recorded use of the word by a political organisation was by Grant Allen in the formation of the Independent Labour Party, arguing for equal rights for citizens. The history of the ILP incorporates liberalism, market socialism and co-operative societies:
- "We believe in the strength and the rule of the people; in government of the People, by the People and for the People. Equality is the literal meaning of the word Isocracy" [2]
As an incorporated association in Australia, the Isocracy Network Inc., has continued this tradition of libertarian and co-operative socialism as a member of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left.[3]
Finally, the Greek Cypriot Chris Neophytou offers a more conservative perspective through isokratia which argues for an extension of liberal democracy with mass electronic voting.[4]
See also
References
- "Isokratia". Chris Neo Direct Publishing. 2006. Retrieved 2011-07-27.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isocracy
Holacracy is a method of decentralized management and organizational governance, which claims to distribute authority and decision-making through a holarchy of self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy.[1][2] Holacracy has been adopted by for-profit and non-profit organizations in several countries.[3] This can be seen as a greater movement within organisational design to cope with increasing complex social environments, that promises a greater degree of transparency, effectiveness and agility.[4]
The New York Times wrote in 2015 that "The goal of Holacracy is to create a dynamic workplace where everyone has a voice and bureaucracy doesn’t stifle innovation."[5] The Wall Street Journal had already asked in 2007 "Can a Company Be Run as a Democracy?" (and conceded that it "sounds like a recipe for anarchy").[6] The answer reported came when 18 percent of the employees at an online seller which had adopted this "radical self-management system" quit.[7]
Origins
The term is found printed for the first time in the adjectival form holocratic in a book from the Collège de 'Pataphysique in May 1957.[8]
The Holacracy system was developed at Ternary Software in Exton, Pennsylvania.[6] Ternary founder Brian Robertson distilled the company's best practices into an organizational system that became known as Holacracy in 2007. Robertson later developed the "Holacracy Constitution" which lays out the core principles and practices of the system. In 2011, he released a Manifesto 16 of Holacracy which was later developed in June 2015, as the book Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World, that details and explains his practices.[2] He claims that it resembles Scaled Agile Framework, Sociocracy and Nexus.[9] Robertson claims that the term holacracy is derived from the term holarchy; the latter was coined by Arthur Koestler in his 1967 book The Ghost in the Machine.[10]
Koestler wrote that a holarchy is composed of holons (Greek: ὅλον, holon neuter form of ὅλος, holos "whole") or units that are autonomous and self-reliant, but also dependent on the greater whole of which they are part.[11] Thus a holarchy is a hierarchy of self-regulating holons that function both as autonomous wholes and as dependent parts.[11]
Influences and comparable systems
Holacracy, which is an alternative to command-and-control,[12] is one of several systems of flat organization. It has been compared to sociocracy, a system of governance developed in the second half of the 20th century.[13][14]
Essential elements
- Roles instead of job descriptions: The building blocks of Holacracy's organizational structure are roles. Holacracy distinguishes between roles and the people who fill them, as one individual can hold multiple roles at any given time. A role is not a job description; its definition follows a clear format including a name, a purpose, optional "domains" to control, and accountabilities, which are ongoing activities to perform. Roles are defined by each circle—or team—via a collective governance process, and are updated regularly in order to adapt to the ever-evolving needs of the organization.[2]
- Circle structure: Holacracy structures the various roles in an organization in a system of self-organizing (but not self-directed) circles. Circles are organized hierarchically, and each circle is assigned a clear purpose and accountabilities by its broader circle. However, each circle has the authority to self-organize internally to best achieve its goals. Circles conduct their own governance meetings, assign members to fill roles, and take responsibility for carrying out work within their domain of authority. Circles are connected by two roles known as "lead link" and "rep link", which sit in the meetings of both their circle and the broader circle to ensure alignment with the broader organization's mission and strategy.
- Governance process: Each circle uses a defined governance process to create and regularly update its own roles and policies. Holacracy specifies a structured process known as "integrative decision making" for proposing changes in governance and amending or objecting to proposals. This is not a consensus-based system, not even a consent-based system, but one that integrates relevant input from all parties and ensures that the proposed changes and objections to those changes are anchored in the roles' needs (and through them, the organization's needs), rather than people's preferences or ego.
- Operational process: Holacracy specifies processes for aligning teams according to operational needs, and requires that each member of a circle fulfill certain duties in order to work efficiently and effectively together.[15] There are also key roles to help organise the process and workflow of each circle including Facilitator, Secretary, Lead Link, and Rep Link.[2]
In contrast to the governance process, which is collective and integrative, each member filling a role has a lot of autonomy and authority to make decisions on how to best achieve his or her goals. Some have described the authority paradigm in Holacracy as completely opposite to the one of the traditional management hierarchy; instead of needing permission to act or innovate, Holacracy gives blanket authority to take any action needed to perform the work of the roles, unless it is restricted via policies in governance or it involves spending some assets of the organization (money, intellectual property, etc.)[16] Holacracy is highly biased toward action and innovation: it defaults to autonomy and freedom, then uses internal processes to limit that autonomy when its use in a specific way turns out to be detrimental.
Holacracy specifies a tactical meeting process that every circle goes through, usually on a weekly basis. A particular feature of this last phase, known as "triage", is to focus discussions on the concrete next steps needed by the individual who added the agenda item to address his or her issue.[17] The intention is to avoid large, unproductive discussions dominated by the louder voices.[18]
Its developer was described by The New York Times as "a computer programmer with no training in human resources, let alone occupational psychology" and The Wall Street Journal identified the requirement for "every decision must be unanimous" as detrimental.[5][6] They also reported that "Fifteen percent of an organization’s time is spent in" ($27 billion of them "unproductive") meetings and made mention of Robertson's book.[19][20]
Contemporary practice
In the U.S., for-profit and not-for-profit organizations have adopted and practiced Holacracy. Examples include Zappos.[5][21] Medium used Holacracy for several years before abandoning it in 2016.[22] A small number of research projects have reported the use of this style of management within the area of software development who promote its benefits for the search for greater innovation but raise concerns such as lack of usual structures and cultural habits around organising work, but more research is needed.[2][9][4]
Claimed advantages
Various claims have been made in respect of Holacracy. It is said to increase agility, efficiency, transparency, innovation and accountability within an organization,[23] and to encourage individual team members to take initiative and gives them a process in which their concerns or ideas can be addressed.[6] Further that the system of distributed authority reduces the burden on leaders to make every decision and can speed up communications and decision making processes (but this can introduce its own challenges).[4] According to Zappos's CEO Tony Hsieh, Holacracy makes individuals more responsible for their own thoughts and actions.[5]
Criticisms
Steve Denning warned against viewing Holacracy as a panacea, claiming that instead of removing hierarchy, decisions are funneled down from circle to circle in a clear hierarchy, with each subsequent circle knowing less about the big picture than the one above.[24] He also claimed that the rules and procedures are very detailed and focused on "administrivia."[24] Lastly, Denning added that the voice of the customer was missing from the Holacracy model, concluding that for agile and customer-focused companies such as Zappos, Holacracy is a way to add administrative rigor, but that Holacracy would not necessarily work well in an organization that did not already have agility and passion for the customer.[24] HolacracyOne partner Olivier Compagne replied to those criticisms on the company's blog, claiming that Denning's criticisms misunderstand Holacracy.[25]
Problems occur when transitioning to this system, particularly if older systems of management are allowed to become a hidden structure and system of power, in addition to this, individuals' space can become lost within the constant connectedness.[4]
In moving away from Holacracy, Andy Doyle of Medium noted that "for larger initiatives, which require coordination across functions, it can be time-consuming and divisive to gain alignment" and that Medium believed that "the act of codifying responsibilities in explicit detail hindered a proactive attitude and sense of communal ownership". They also noted that the inaccurate media coverage of Holacracy created a challenge for recruitment.[22]
At Zappos, about 14% of the company left voluntarily in 2015 in a deliberate attempt by Zappos to only retain employees who believed in holacracy.[26]
Other criticisms include a "one-size-fits-all" approach,[27] layers of bureaucracy and more psychological weight.[28]
See also
- Collaborative e-democracy
- Dee Hock (in particular re chaordic)
- Holistic management
- Industrial democracy
- Open source governance
- Robert’s Rules of Order
- Sociocracy
- Waterfall model
- Workers' self-management
References
- Groth, Aimee (December 21, 2016). "Zappos is struggling with Holacracy because humans aren't designed to operate like software". Quartz. Retrieved December 30, 2016.
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holacracy
Isonomia (ἰσονομία "equality of political rights,"[1][2] from the Greek ἴσος isos, "equal," and νόμος nomos, "usage, custom, law,"[1]) was a word used by ancient Greek writers such as Herodotus[3] and Thucydides[4] to refer to some kind of popular government. It was subsequently eclipsed until brought back into English as isonomy ("equality of law"). Economist Friedrich Hayek attempted to popularize the term in his book The Constitution of Liberty and argued that a better understanding of isonomy, as used by the Greeks, defines the term to mean "the equal application of the laws to all."[5]
Ancient usage
Mogens Herman Hansen has argued that, although often translated as "equality of law," isonomia was in fact something else.[2] Along with isonomia, the Athenians used several terms for equality[2] all compounds beginning with iso-: isegoria[6] (equal right to address the political assemblies), isopsephos polis[7] (one man one vote) and isokratia[8] (equality of power).
When Herodotus invents a debate among the Persians over what sort of government they should have, he has Otanes speak in favor of isonomia when, based on his description of it, we might expect him to call the form of government he favors "democracy."
The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality (isonomia), and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public.[3]
Thucydides used isonomia as an alternative to dynastic oligarchy[9] and moderate aristocracy.[10] In time the word ceased to refer to a particular political regime; Plato uses it to refer to simply equal rights[11] and Aristotle does not use the word at all.[12]
Medical usage
'Isonomia' was also used in Hellenic times by Pythagorean physicians, such as Alkmaeon, who used it to refer to the balance or equality of those opposite pairs of hot/cold, wet/dry and bitterness/sweetness that maintained the health of the body. Thus:
Alkmaeon said that the equality (isonomia) of the powers (wet, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, etc.) maintains health, but that monarchy [one overruling] among them produces disease.[13]
Later use
According to economist and political theorist Friedrich Hayek, isonomia was championed by the Roman Cicero[14] and "rediscovered" in the eleventh century AD by the law students of Bologna whom he says are credited with founding much of the Western legal tradition.
Isonomia was imported into England at the end of the sixteenth century as a word meaning "equality of laws to all manner of persons".[14] Soon after, it was used by the translator of Livy in the form "Isonomy"[14] (although not a direct translation of isonomia) to describe a state of equal laws for all and responsibility of the magistrates. During the seventeenth century it was gradually replaced by the phrases "equality before the law", "rule of law" and "government of law".[14]
Political theorist Hannah Arendt argued that isonomy was equated with political freedom at least from the time of Herodotus. The word essentially denoted a state of no-rule, in which there was no distinction between rulers and ruled. It was "the equality of those who form a body of peers." Isonomy was unique among the forms of government in the ancient lexicon in that it lacked the suffixes "-archy" and "-cracy" which denote a notion of rule in words like "monarchy" and "democracy." Arendt goes on to argue that the Greek polis was therefore conceived not as a democracy but as an isonomy. "Democracy" was the term used by opponents of isonomy who claimed that "what you say is 'no-rule' is in fact only another kind of rulership...rule by the demos," or majority.[15]
The public administration theorist, Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, reserved for isonomy a central role in his model of human organization. He was particularly concerned with distinguishing the space of the isonomy from that of the economy. Following Arendt, Guerreiro Ramos argued that individuals should have the opportunity to engage with others in settings that are unaffected by economizing considerations. The isonomy constitutes such a setting; its function is to "enhance the good life of the whole."[16]
See also
Notes
Ancient Greek philosophy linked to isonomía with isegoría (prior equality in determining principles of law) and isocratía (equality in subsequent governance or application of law)[17]
References
Further reading
- Costa, V. (2004). "Osservazioni sul concetto di isonomia". In D’Atena, A.; Lanzillotta, E. (eds.). Da Omero alla costituzione europea. Tivoli (Roma): Edizioni Tored. pp. 33–56.
- Ehrenberg, V. (1950). "Origins of Democracy". Historia. 1: 515–548.
- Karatani, Kōjin (2017). Isonomia and the origins of philosophy. Durham. ISBN 978-0-8223-6885-4.
- Lévy, E. (2005). "Isonomia". In Bultrighini, U. (ed.). Democrazia e antidemocrazia nel mondo Greco, Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Chieti, 9 – 11 aprile 2003. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso. pp. 119–137.
- Lombardini, John (2013). "Isonomia and the public sphere in democratic Athens". History of Political Thought. 34 (3): 393–420.
- Schubert, Charlotte (2021). Isonomia. Entwicklung und Geschichte. Berlin; Boston. ISBN 9783110723663.
- Vlastos, Gregory (1953). "Isonomia". American Journal of Philology. 74 (4): 337–366.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isonomia#Isonomy
Category:Direct democracy
Subcategories
This category has the following 7 subcategories, out of 7 total.
- Direct democracy movement (6 C, 5 P)
B
- Ballot measures (3 C, 6 P)
E
- E-democracy (1 C, 28 P)
I
- Initiatives (3 C, 26 P)
P
- Participatory democracy (4 C, 20 P)
R
- Referendums (13 C, 10 P)
Pages in category "Direct democracy"
The following 40 pages are in this category, out of 40 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
D
P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Direct_democracy
The Landsgemeinde ("cantonal assembly"; German: [ˈlantsɡəˌmaɪndə], plural Landsgemeinden) is a public, non-secret ballot voting system operating by majority rule, which constitutes one of the oldest forms of direct democracy. Still at use – in a few places – at the subnational political level in Switzerland, it was formerly practiced in eight cantons. For practical reasons, the Landsgemeinde has been abolished at the cantonal level in all but two cantons where it still holds the highest political authority: Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus. The Landsgemeinde is also convened in some districts of Appenzell Innerrhoden, Grisons and Schwyz to vote on local questions.
The German term Landsgemeinde itself is attested from at least the 16th century, in the 1561 dictionary of Pictorius. It is a compound from Land "land, canton; rural canton" and Gemeinde "community, commune".
Eligible citizens of the canton or district meet on a certain day in the open air to decide on specific issues. Voting is accomplished by those in favor of a motion raising their hands. Historically, the only proof of citizenship necessary for men to enter the voting area was to show their ceremonial sword or Swiss military sidearm (bayonet); this gave proof that they were a freeman allowed to bear arms and to vote. While voting cards have been introduced, in Appenzell presenting a side arm is still valid for men instead of the voting card.
The Landsgemeinde has been the sovereign institution of the Swiss rural cantons since the later Middle Ages, while in the city-cantons such as Lucerne, Schaffhausen, or Bern, a general assembly of all citizens was never established.
Similar assemblies in dependent territories were known under terms such as Talgemeinde (for Talschaften, used in Ursern, Hasli, Obersimmental), Teding (Engelberg), Parlamento (Leventina), Zendgemeinden (for the Zenden or districts of Valais), but also as Landsgemeinde in Toggenburg and in parts of Grisons.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsgemeinde
One Single Tariff (official name "Single Communication Tariff Act") is a European Citizens' Initiative against roaming in Europe. One Single Tariff's precise objective is to erase all barriers to phone calls within the EU by ending all roaming fees. It is the second European Citizens' Initiative to have been registered, on May 10, 2012, just one day after the initiative Fraternité 2020, which was presented by the European Commission on Europe Day. To be successful, it had to collect 1 million signatures before December 3, 2013, but it failed.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Single_Tariff
The term Hollow State is used to describe a set of governmental practices in which states contract with third parties (private companies) in order to distribute government services. In a hollow state there are many degrees of separation between the source of taxpayer funds and the final distribution of taxpayer-funded products or services. Services paid for by the state are produced by a vast network of providers and the task of the government is not to manage provision, but to negotiate contracts with providers. There is no "command and control" relationship between government and contractors. Contracts are managed by countless agencies and even more providers, there is no means of central record keeping or data management.[1][2] A Hollow State has all the standard edifices of governance although most are under the influence of third-party organizations, either for-profit or non-profit entities.[3][4]
History
The history of government contracting goes back thousands of years to when Mercenary bands were utilized by the ancient Greeks, Persians, and Romans. In the United States, the history of government contracting is rooted in the history of English civil service. Throughout the 1600s, educated Englishmen could make a career out of negotiating the procurement of goods for local government, especially for the English military. This system was how much of the English military procurement was carried out, and was brought to the colonies by English settlers. The English military in the colonies was expected to obtain their own supplies locally. To this end, most military outfits employed a commissary general to obtain food and related supplies, and a quartermaster general to obtain supplies for construction, transportation, and weaponry. These officers had the authority to contract with local farmers and merchants. A version of this system was implemented by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution.[5] This trend continued through the American Civil War and has grown and evolved into the modern system of government procurement. The United States government increasingly implements policy through a complicated network of providers. The system relies on the collaboration of multiple levels of government, for-profit, and non-profit entities.[6][7][8]
The history of the term "Hollow State" is shorter than the history of the practice, as capitalism emerged as a dominant social force, so did the influence of private contractors on government leaders. Brinton Milward, Director of the School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona, uses the term Hollow State as a metaphor to describe the process and consequences of excessive government contracting.[1][9]
Examples of modern Hollow State iterations include:
- China, though often in rural areas as opposed to on a national scale[10]
- South Africa has been trending toward a Hollow State for years with moves empowering business over people [11][12]
- Zimbabwe is an example of current Hollow State.[13]
Infrastructure
The primary purpose of the hollow state is to function as a multi-organizational structure through which policy is designed and executed. The metaphor "Hollow State" is meant to be understood as a system consisting of units of government separated from their outputs but still linked by negotiation or contract. When nonprofit organizations receive contracts or grants to deliver public goods or services, the delegating agency assumes a sufficient level of capacity to implement the project or deliver the service. However, if the nonprofit community-based organizations are too limited in capacity to carry out their grants or contracts, then a disconnect occurs in the hollow state.[14]
One of the primary reasons privatization occurs is because of the severe capacity that limitations force the government to contract for services it does not have the ability to provide.[15] Usually this would involve a private development network supported by a public administration like the Chamber of Commerce and several private businesses. There are 2 types of networks that exist in the hollow state: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal networks consist of 3 types, policy making, resource exchange, and project based, all of which are between governments and non-governmental organizations. Vertical networks are the collaborations that occur between federal, state, and local governments.
The purpose of this collaboration is to devise strategy for business retention, expansion, or recruitment. The reason city economics developers reach out to surrounding organizations and become multiple networks is due to the fact economic policy is designed and implemented under ambiguity and uncertainty. As complexities increase, grassroots initiatives become more sought after. Most nonprofit organizations are started with passion and enthusiasm for resolving a particular issue. Many of these are the small grassroots or community-based nonprofits that meet important human service needs for a specific geographic area or population.[16] Furthermore, the need for more nongovernmental actors to deliver local services hence more actors equates to more hollowing of the state. In fact publicly funded social services are an increasingly important component of social provision spending and accounft for approximately one-fifth to today's welfare state expenditures.[17] Substituting from a stable, linear government for complex networks may raise questions of allocation deliberations being solely prompted by cost/ efficiency not taking into account taxpayers other values.
Contracting
The Hollow State refers to the extent to which governments are directly involved in providing services.[4] Contracting out is when government allows a non-government institution to operate under the governments name to provide a public service. Hollowing out of government by allocating services to private organizations has three imperatives: the need to attract investment to compensate for lost revenues and meet the political imperatives set by the country and provincial governments; the need to receive inspection teams from higher levels of government; and "soft centralization" of township bureaus, which are placed under country or provincial government control.[10]
Advocates of privatization often make the point that government can provide or arrange for citizens to receive a service without the government actually providing it,[5] by contracting out. A government intent on privatization would decide what it wanted done and then contract with the private sector to provide the good or the service.[5] The federal government has always relied on state and local governments to distribute and provide services with money funded by the federal level. However, community-based development organizations have problems with accountability, responsiveness, and sometimes lose their connections with municipalities. This can lead to experiencing disparities in fundraising, fiscal and human resource management practices, and even skills in building and maintaining partnerships and gaining political support.[18]
Contracting out or privatization also redirects the funds that would otherwise go to the state and local government to private organizations. It can be said that there is a negative relationship between the neighborhoods where the central offices of those organizations are located, and neighborhood disadvantage, largely because so many distributive organization headquarters are located in downtown, higher-income areas. Government funding of nonprofit agencies in the United States of America increased during the grant-in-aid explosion of the 1960s and 1970s and continued during the Reagan and Bush administrations under the banners of privatization, limited budgets, and getting government off the backs of those it regulates.[5] Not all states who adopt the Hollow State find it successful and more often than not those states fail and lose their political goods.[19]
Criticism
There are several outspoken criticisms of government contracting practices. Critics claim the hollow state can be inefficient, dangerous, and may violate human rights. The hollow state can effectively destroy a society's interests in humanities as money leads to a monopoly and/or oligarchy. A hollow state can be unreliable. When a government sector contracts out, there can be many problems. The hollow state is exemplified by increased reliance on third-party producers, which may result in a lack of oversight expertise in government.[20] Contracting private organizations for warfare can lead to unethical methods and the hollow state can effectively destroy a society's interests in humanities as money leads to a monopoly and/or oligarchy.[20][21][22][23]
The problems of managing non-governmental, contracted organizations are extensive and severe. The number of degrees of separation between the source of funds and the implementation of those funds creates diminishing quality of returns with each new layer. Managers at every level are forced to deal with an uncertain budget cycle, long waits for payment for services rendered, financial crises, billing problems, frequently changing and contradictory rules and much more. Another thing to consider is the existence of the "principal-agent" issue, wherein the "principal" (the person giving the contract) can never have as much information about the requirements of the job than the "agent" (the one being contracted). This information disparity causes the principal to have unrealistic expectations and allows the agent to mislead the principle as to aspects such as cost, time, and human resources.[15]
Administrations that already exist within a country moving toward a Hollow State begin to be parsed in seemingly innocent fashion. In the name of "efficiency" government interests are delegated to private contractor, who will then often subcontract to other groups. For example, contractors hired to patch roofs with blue tarp for FEMA after Katrina received payment of "between $149 and $175 per (10ftx10ft square)." This price was comparable to installing entirely new roofs at the time. However; through a long string of subcontractors, the firms performing the final installations of the tarps "earned as little as $2 per 10ftx10ft square.[24] Taxpayers end up paying exorbitantly as business interests takes complete control over the process of procurement.[25][26]
See also
References
- Wang, Tae Kyu (2013). "The Impacts of the Hollow State on Organizational Practices and Individual Attitudes in the Federal Government" (PDF). Florida State University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_state
A stratocracy (from Ancient Greek στρατός (stratós) 'army', and κράτος (krátos) 'dominion, power'),[2] also called stratiocracy,[3][4][5] is a form of government headed by military chiefs.[6] The branches of government are administered by military forces, the government is legal under the laws of the jurisdiction at issue, and is usually carried out by military workers.[7]
Description of stratocracy
The word stratocracy first appeared in 1652 from the political theorist Robert Filmer, being preceded in 1649 by stratokratia used by Claudius Salmasius in reference to the newly declared Commonwealth of England.[1][8] John Bouvier and Daniel Gleason describe a stratocracy as one where citizens with mandatory or voluntary military service, or veterans who have been honorably discharged, have the right to elect or govern. The military's administrative, judicial, and/or legislative powers are supported by law, the constitution, and the society.[6] It does not necessarily need to be autocratic or oligarchic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule. The political scientist Samuel Finer distinguished between stratocracy which was rule by the army and military regimes where the army did not rule but enforced the rule of the civil leaders.[9] Peter Lyon wrote that through history stratocracies have been relatively rare, and that in the latter half of the twentieth century there has been a noticeable increase in the number of stratocratic states due to the "rapid collapse of the West European thalassocracies".[8]
Notable examples of stratocracies
Modern stratocracies
The closest modern equivalent to a stratocracy, the State Peace and Development Council of Myanmar (Burma), which ruled from 1997 to 2011,[10] arguably differed from most other military dictatorships in that it completely abolished the civilian constitution and legislature.[11][12] A new constitution that came into effect in 2010 cemented the Tatmadaw's hold on power through mechanisms such as reserving 25% of the seats in the legislature for military personnel.[13] The civilian constitutional government was dissolved again in the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, with power being transferred back to the Tatmadaw through the State Administration Council.[14]
The United Kingdom overseas territory, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on the island of Cyprus, provides another example of a stratocracy: British Forces Cyprus governs the territory, with Air vice-marshal Peter J. M. Squires serving as administrator from 2022.[15] The territory is subject to unique laws different from both those of the United Kingdom and those of Cyprus.[16]
Historical stratocracies
Sparta
The Diarchy of Sparta was a stratocratic kingdom.[17] From a young age, male Spartans were put through the agoge, necessary for full-citizenship, which was a rigorous education and training program to prepare them to be warriors.[18] Aristotle describes the kingship at Sparta as "a kind of unlimited and perpetual generalship" (Pol. iii. 1285a), while Isocrates refers to the Spartans as "subject to an oligarchy at home, to a kingship on campaign" (iii. 24).[19]
Rome
One of the most distinguished and, perhaps, long-lived examples of a stratocratic state, is Ancient Rome, though the stratocratic system developed over time.[20] Following the disposition of the last Roman king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, Rome became an oligarchic Republic.[21][22] However, with the gradual expansion of the empire and conflicts with its rival Carthage which eventually led to the Punic wars, the Roman political and military system experienced drastic changes.[23] Following the Marian reforms, de facto political power became concentrated under military leadership, as the loyalty of the legionaries shifted from the Senate to its generals.[24][25]
Through the First Triumvirate[26] this led to, following a series of civil wars, the formation of the Roman Empire, the head of which was acclaimed as "Imperator", previously an honorary title for distinguished military commanders.[25] Following the formation of the Empire, the Roman Army either approved of or acquiesced in the accession of an emperor, with the Praetorian Guard having a decisive role in the succession until Emperor Constantine abolished it.[27] Militarization of the Empire increased over time and emperors were increasingly beholden to their armies and fleets, yet how active emperors were in actually commanding in the field in military campaigns varied from emperor to emperor, even from dynasty to dynasty. The vital political importance of the army persisted up until the destruction of the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.[28]
Goryeo
From 1170 to 1270, the kingdom of Goryeo was under effective military rule, with puppet kings on the throne serving mainly as figureheads.[29] The majority of this period was spent under the rule of the Choe family who set up a parallel system of private administrative systems from their military forces.[30]
Cossacks
Cossacks were predominantly East Slavic people who became known as members of democratic, semi-military and semi-naval communities, predominantly located in Ukraine and in Southern Russia.[31] They inhabited sparsely populated areas and islands in the lower Dnieper,[32] Don, Terek, and Ural river basins, and played an important role in the historical and cultural development of both Russia and Ukraine.[33] The Zaporozhian Sich[34] was a Cossack semi-autonomous polity and proto-state[35] that existed between the 16th to 18th centuries, and existed as an independent stratocratic state as the Cossack Hetmanate for over a hundred years.[36][37][38]
Military frontier of the Habsburg monarchy
The Military Frontier was a borderland of the Habsburg monarchy (which became the Austrian Empire and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire).[39][40] The military frontier acted as the cordon sanitaire against incursions from the Ottoman Empire. Located in the southern part of Hungarian crown land, the frontier was separated from local jurisdiction and was under direct Viennese central military administration from the 1500s to 1872. Unlike the rest of the Catholic dominated territory of the empire, the frontier area had relatively freer religious laws in order to attract settlement into the area.[41][42][43]
States argued to be stratocratic
USA
The political scientist Harold Lasswell wrote in 1941 of his concerns that the world was moving towards "a world of 'garrison states'" with the United States of America being one of the countries moving in that direction.[17] This was supported by the historian Richard Kohn in 1975 commenting on the US's creation of a military state during its early independence, and the political scientist Samuel Fitch in 1985.[17] The historian Eric Hobsbawm has used the existence and power of the military-industrial complex in the US as evidence of it being a stratocratic state.[17] The expansion and prioritisation of the military during the administrations of Reagan and H. W. Bush have also been described as signs of stratocracy in the US.[44] The futurist Paul Saffo[45] and the researcher Robert Marzec[46] have argued that the post 9/11 projection of the United States was trending towards stratocracy.
USSR
The philosopher and economist Cornelius Castoriadis wrote in his 1980 text, Facing the War, that Russia had become the primary world military power. To sustain this, in the context of the visible economic inferiority of the Soviet Union in the civilian sector, he proposed that the society may no longer be dominated by the one-party state bureaucracy of the Communist Party but by a "stratocracy"[47][48][49] describing it as a separate and dominant military sector with expansionist designs on the world.[50][51] He further argued that this meant there was no internal class dynamic which could lead to social revolution within Russian society and that change could only occur through foreign intervention. Timothy Luke agreed that under the secretaryship of Mikhail Gorbachev this was the USSR moving towards a stratocratic state.[52]
African states
Various countries in post-colonial Africa have been described as stratocracies.[53] The Republic of Egypt under the leadership of Nasser was described by the political theorist P. J. Vatikiotis as a stratocratic state.[54] The recent Egyptian governments since the Arab Spring,[55][56] including that of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, have also been called stratocratic.[57] George commented in a 1988 paper that the military dictatorship of Idi Amin in Uganda and the apartheid regime in South Africa should be considered stratocracies.[58] Various previous Nigerian governments have been described as stratocratic in research, including the government under Olusegun Obasanjo, and the Armed Forces Ruling Council lead by Ibrahim Babangida.[59] Under the 1978 constitution of eSwatini Sobhuza II appointed the Swazi army commander as the country's prime minister, and the second-in-command of the army as the head of the civil service board. This fusing of military and civil power continued in subsequent appointments, with many of the appointees viewing their civil roles as secondary to their military positions.[60] Ghana under Jerry Rawlings has also been described as being stratocratic in nature.[44] Karl Marx's term of barracks socialism was retermed by the political scientist Michel Martin in their description of socialist stratocracies in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa, including specifically the People's Republic of Benin.[61][62] Martin also believes the praetorianism of francophone African republics can be called stratocratic, including the Côte d'Ivoire and the Central African Republic.[63]
Other
The French historian François Raguenet wrote in 1691 of the stratocracy of Oliver Cromwell in the Protectorate, and commented that he believed William III of England was seeking to revive the stratocracy in England.[64]
The Prussian military writer Georg Henirich von Berenhorst wrote in hindsight that ever since the reign of the soldier king, Prussia always remained "not a country with an army, but an army with a country" (a quote often misattributed to Voltaire and Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau).[65] It has been argued the subsequent dominance of the Kingdom of Prussia in the North German Confederation and German Empire and the expansive militarism in their administrations and policies, saw a continuance of the stratocratic Prussian government.[66]
British commentators such as Sir Richard Burton described the pre-Tanzimat Ottoman Empire as a stratocratic state.[67]
The Warlord Era of China is viewed as period of stratocratic struggles[68] with the researcher Peng Xiuliang pointing to the actions and policies of Wang Shizhen, a general and politician of the Republic of China, as an example of the stratocratic forces within the Chinese government of the time.[69]
Occupied Poland in World War I was put under the General-Militärgouvernementen (general military governments) of Germany and Austria-Hungary. This government was a stratocratic system where the military was responsible for the political administration of Poland.[70]
Various military juntas of central and south America have also been described as stratocracies.[71]
Since 1967, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem (both taken from Jordan), Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip (taken from Egypt) and the Golan Heights (taken from Syria) after the Six-Day War can be argued to have been under stratocratic rule.[72] While the West Bank and Gaza were governed by the Israeli Military Governorate and Civil Administration[73] which was later given to the Palestinian National Authority that governs the Palestinian territories, only East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were annexed into Israeli territory from 1980 which is still internationally unrecognized and once referred to these territories by the United Nations as occupied Arab territories.[74][75]
Fictional stratocracies
Stratocratic forms of government have been popular in fictional stories.[76]
- The country of Amestris in the Fullmetal Alchemist manga and anime series is a nominal parliamentary republic without elections,[77] where parliament has been used as a façade to distract from the authoritarian regime,[77] as the government is almost completely centralized by the military, and the majority of government positions are occupied by military personnel.[76]
- Bowser from the Super Mario video game franchise is the supreme leader of a stratocratic empire in which he has many other generals working under his militaristic rules such as Kamek, Private Goomp, Sergeant Guy, Corporal Paraplonk and many others.
- The Cardassian Union of the Star Trek universe can be described as a stratocracy, with a constitutionally and socially sanctioned, as well as a politically dominant military that nonetheless has immense totalitarian characteristics.[76]
- In Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino's Avatar: The Last Airbender, the Earth Kingdom is very divided and during the Hundred Year War relies on an unofficial confederal stratocratic rule of small towns to maintain control from the Fire Nation's military, without the Earth Monarch's assistance.[76]
- Both Eldia and Marley from the Japanese manga and anime series Attack On Titan are stratocratic nations ruled by military governments. After a coup d'état, the government of Eldia was displaced in favor of a military-led system with a puppet monarchy as its public front.[78]
- The Galactic Empire from the original Star Wars trilogy can be described as a stratocracy. Although ruled by Emperor Palpatine, the functioning of the entire government was controlled by the military and explicitly sanctioned by its leaders. All sectors were controlled by a Moff or Grand Moff who were also high-ranking military officers.[76]
- The Global Defense Initiative from the Command & Conquer franchise is another example: initially being a United Nations task force to combat the Brotherhood of Nod and research the alien substance Tiberium, later expanding to a worldwide government led by military leaders[79] after the collapse of society due to Tiberium's devastating effects on Earth.[80]
- Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft features an antagonistic group of Orcish clans, which joined in the formation of The Iron Horde, a militaristic clan governed by warlords.
- In Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers, the Terran Federation was set up by a group of military veterans in Aberdeen, Scotland when governments collapsed following a world war.[81] While national service is voluntary, earning citizenship in the Federation requires civilians to "enroll in the Federal Service of the Terran Federation for a term of not less than two years and as much longer as may be required by the needs of the Service."[82][83] While Federal Service is not exclusively military service, that appears to be the dominant form. It is believed that only those willing to sacrifice their lives on the state's behalf are fit to govern. While the government is a representative democracy, the franchise is only granted to people who have completed service, mostly in the military, due to this law (active military can neither vote nor serve in political/non-military offices).[76]
- The Turian Hierarchy of Mass Effect is another example of a fictional stratocracy, where the civilian and military populations cannot be distinguished, and the government and the military are the same, and strongly meritocratic, with designated responsibilities for everyone.[84][85]
- The five members of Greater Turkiye in the manga and anime Altair: A Record of Battles are called stratocracies, with them being based on the Ottoman Empire.[86]
See also
References
The Gabinian and Manilian Laws had rehearsed the stratocracy of the first Triumvirate; and after the renewed convulsions which followed Caesar's murder the world gladly found refuge in Octavians ordered despotism.
The Habsburg government in this way came to relatively cheap military force using the South Slavic (Croatian, Vlach, Serbian) grencers
'If the Levy Committee is pushing the government to determine that Israel's presence in the West Bank does not violate international law, Israel is in a dangerous position facing the rest of the world,' said Sasson this morning to Haaretz. ... 'For 45 years, different compositions of the High Court of Justice stated again and again that international law applies to the West Bank, which is clearly opposed to Levy's findings. This is a colossal turnaround, which I do not think is within his authority. He can tell the government that he recommends changing legal status, and that's all,' said Sasson.
- Kotono, Kato (2017). Altair: A Record of Battles. Vol. 1. ISBN 9784063731125.
Bibliography
- Akpeninor, James Ohwofasa (28 February 2013). Merger Politics of Nigeria and Surge of Sectarian Violence. AuthorHouse. ISBN 9781467881715.
- Anthony, David J. (June 1980). Political Culture and the Nature of Political Participation in Egypt (PDF) (MA). Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
- Bangura, Yusuf (March 1991). Authoritarian Rule and Democracy in Africa: A Theoretical Discourse (PDF) (Report). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
- Barfi, Barak, ed. (September 2018). "Shaping an Elite". Egypt's New Realism: Challenges Under Sisi. The Washington Institute.
- Christie, Ross (November 2004). 'Britain's Crisis of Confidence': How Whitehall Planned Britain's Retreat from the extra-European World, 1959-1968 (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of Stirling. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
- George, David (1988). "Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism". The Review of Politics. Cambridge University Press. 50 (3): 390–419. doi:10.1017/S0034670500036317. JSTOR 1407906. S2CID 146523905. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
- de Grazia, Alfred (1970). "The Perennial Stratocrats". Kalos: What is to be done with our World?. Archived from the original on 25 May 2021. Retrieved 25 May 2021.
- Jaywant, Sameer (4 April 2014). Military Rule & Economic Growth in Post-Independence Uganda: A Synthetic Counterfactual Approach (PhD). New York University.</ref>
- Olson, Matthew A. (5 July 2020). "Worldbuilding: 36 Types of Government (Part 2)". Chatoicanwriter. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
- Ogunjimi, Bayo (1992). "The Herd Instinct and Class Literature in Nigeria Today". Issue: A Journal of Opinion. Cambridge University Press. 20 (2): 12–16. doi:10.2307/1166986. JSTOR 1166986.
- Ujomu, Philip Ogochukwu (19 May 2020). "Africa's Crisis of Social and Political Order and the Significance of Ubuntu Human Values for Peace and Development". Culture and Dialogue. Brill Publishers. 8 (1): 97–115. doi:10.1163/24683949-12340077. S2CID 219772170. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
- Vatikiotis, Panayiotis Jerasimof (1968). "Some Political Consequences of the 1952 Revolution in Egypt". In Holt, Peter M. (ed.). Political and Social Change in Modern Egypt. London: Oxford University Press. p. 370.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy
Adhocracy is a flexible, adaptable and informal form of organization that is defined by a lack of formal structure that employs specialized multidisciplinary teams grouped by functions. It operates in an opposite fashion to a bureaucracy.[1] The term was coined by Warren Bennis in his 1968 book The Temporary Society,[2] later popularized in 1970 by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock, and has since become often used in the theory of management of organizations (particularly online organizations[3]). The concept has been further developed by academics such as Henry Mintzberg.
Adhocracy is characterized by an adaptive, creative and flexible integrative behavior based on non-permanence and spontaneity. It is believed that these characteristics allow adhocracy to respond faster than traditional bureaucratic organizations while being more open to new ideas.[4]
Overview
Robert H. Waterman, Jr. defined adhocracy as "any form of organization that cuts across normal bureaucratic lines to capture opportunities, solve problems, and get results".[5] For Henry Mintzberg, an adhocracy is a complex and dynamic organizational form.[6] It is different from bureaucracy; like Toffler, Mintzberg considers bureaucracy a thing of the past, and adhocracy one of the future.[7] When done well, adhocracy can be very good at problem solving and innovations[7] and thrives in a diverse environment.[6] It requires sophisticated and often automated technical systems to develop and thrive.[7]
Characteristics
Some characteristics of Mintzberg's definition include:
- highly organic structure[6]
- little formalization of behavior[6][7]
- job specialization not necessarily based on formal training
- a tendency to group the specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to deploy them in small, market-based project teams to do their work[6]
- a reliance on liaison devices to encourage mutual adjustment within and between these teams[6][7]
- low or no standardization of procedures[7]
- roles not clearly defined[7]
- selective decentralization[7]
- work organization rests on specialized teams[7]
- power-shifts to specialized teams
- horizontal job specialization[7]
- high cost of communication[7]
- culture based on non-bureaucratic work[7]
All members of an organization have the authority within their areas of specialization, and in coordination with other members, to make decisions and to take actions affecting the future of the organization. There is an absence of hierarchy.
According to Robert H. Waterman, Jr., "Teams should be big enough to represent all parts of the bureaucracy that will be affected by their work, yet small enough to get the job done efficiently."[5]
Types
- administrative – "feature an autonomous operating core; usually in an institutionalized bureaucracy like a government department or standing agency"[8]
- operational – solves problems on behalf of its clients[8]
Alvin Toffler claimed in his book Future Shock that adhocracies will get more common and are likely to replace bureaucracy. He also wrote that they will most often come in form of a temporary structure, formed to resolve a given problem and dissolved afterwards. An example are cross-department task forces.
Issues
Downsides of adhocracies can include "half-baked actions", personnel problems stemming from organization's temporary nature, extremism in suggested or undertaken actions, and threats to democracy and legality rising from adhocracy's often low-key profile.[7] To address those problems, researchers in adhocracy suggest a model merging adhocracy and bureaucracy, the bureau-adhocracy.[7]
Etymology
The word is a portmanteau of the Latin ad hoc, meaning "for the purpose", and the suffix -cracy, from the ancient Greek kratein (κρατεῖν), meaning "to govern",[7] and is thus a heteroclite.
Use in fiction
The term is also used to describe the form of government used in the science fiction novels Voyage from Yesteryear by James P. Hogan and Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, by Cory Doctorow.
In the radio play Das Unternehmen Der Wega (The Mission of the Vega) by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, the human inhabitants of Venus, all banished there from various regions of Earth for civil and political offenses, form and live under a peaceful adhocracy, to the frustration of delegates from an Earth faction who hope to gain their cooperation in a war brewing on Earth.
In the Metrozone series of novels by Simon Morden, The novel The Curve of the Earth features "ad-hoc" meetings conducted virtually, by which all decisions governing the Freezone collective are taken. The ad-hocs are administered by an artificial intelligence and polled from suitably qualified individuals who are judged by the AI to have sufficient experience. Failure to arrive at a decision results in the polling of a new ad-hoc, whose members are not told of previous ad-hocs before hearing the decision which must be made.[9]
The asura in the fictional world of Tyria within the Guild Wars universe present this form of government, although the term is only used in out-of-game lore writings.
See also
- Anarchy
- Bureaucracy (considered the opposite of adhocracy)
- Crowdsourcing
- Commons-based peer production
- Free association
- Here Comes Everybody
- Jugaad – Indian term describing a creative hack or kludge
- Libertarianism
- Self-management
- Social peer-to-peer processes
- Socialism
- Sociocracy
- Spontaneous order
- Workplace democracy
- The Tyranny of Structurelessness
- Holacracy
References
- "An Extract from The Curve of the Earth: A Samuil Petrovitch novel « Simon Morden". www.simonmorden.com. Archived from the original on 2016-03-26. Retrieved 2016-02-10.
Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhocracy
A triumvirate (Latin: triumvirātus) or a triarchy is a political institution ruled or dominated by three individuals, known as triumvirs (Latin: triumviri). The arrangement can be formal or informal. Though the three leaders in a triumvirate are notionally equal, the actual distribution of power may vary. The term can also be used to describe a state with three different military leaders who all claim to be the sole leader.
Pre-Modern triumvirates
Biblical
In the Bible triumvirates occurred at some notable events in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the Book of Exodus Moses, his brother Aaron and, according to some views their nephew or brother-in-law, Hur acted this way during the Battle of Rephidim against the Amalekites.[Exodus 17:10][1] Later, when Moses was away on Mount Sinai Aaron and Hur were left in charge of all the Israelites.[Exodus 24:14] In the Gospels as a leading trio among the Twelve Apostles at three particular occasions during public ministry of Jesus acted Peter, James, son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were the only apostles present at the Raising of Jairus' daughter[Mark 5:37], Transfiguration of Jesus [Matthew 17:1] and Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane[Matthew 26:37]. Later, at the time of the Early Christian Church this triumvirate of the leading apostles changed slightly after the former James's death, as it became composed of Peter, John and James, brother of Jesus, known collectively also as the Pillars of the Church.[Galatians 2:9][2]
Moses (in the centre) along with Aaron and Hur at the Battle of Rephidim.
Peter (sitting in the centre) along with John and his brother James, son of Zebedee (sitting L-R) at the Transfiguration of Jesus.
Ancient China
During the Han Dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE), statesmen Huo Guang (d. 68 BCE), Jin Midi (d. 86 BCE), and Shangguan Jie 上官桀 (d. 80 BCE) formed a triumvirate following the death of Emperor Wu of Han (r. 141–87 BCE) and the installation of the child emperor Zhao.
Despite the Three Excellencies—including the Chancellor, Imperial Secretary, and irregularly the Grand Commandant—representing the most senior ministerial positions of state, this triumvirate was supported by the economic technocrat and Imperial Secretary Sang Hongyang (d. 80 BCE), their political lackey. The acting Chancellor Tian Qianqiu was also easily swayed by the decisions of the triumvirate.[3]
The Three Excellencies existed in Western Han (202 BCE – 9 CE) as the Chancellor, Imperial Secretary, and Grand Commandant, but the Chancellor was viewed as senior to the Imperial Secretary while the post of Grand Commandant was vacant for most of the dynasty. After Emperor Guangwu established the Eastern Han (25–220 CE), the Grand Commandant was made a permanent official while the Minister over the Masses replaced the Chancellor and the Minister of Works replaced the Imperial Secretary. Unlike the three high officials in Western Han when the Chancellor was senior to all, these new three senior officials had equal censorial and advisory powers. When a young or weak-minded emperor ascended to the throne, these Three Excellencies could dominate the affairs of state. There were also other types of triumvirates during the Eastern Han; for example, at the onset of the reign of Emperor Ling of Han (r. 168–189), the General-in-Chief Dou Wu (d. 168), the Grand Tutor Chen Fan (d. 168), and another prominent statesman Hu Guang (91–172) formed a triumvirate nominally in charge of the Privy Secretariat, when in fact it was a regent triumvirate that was overseeing the affairs of state and Emperor Ling.[4]
Hinduism
In Hinduism, the gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva form the triumvirate Trimurti, where they each represent the balancing forces of creation, preservation, and destruction, respectively.[5] Their female counterparts and consorts, the goddesses Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati, make up the parallel Tridevi.
Pagaruyuang
Triumvirates during the Pagaruyuang era in the Minangkabau Highlands were known as Rajo Tigo Selo, or "the three reigning kings." The Rajo Tigo Selo was descended from the same line in the same dynasty and ruled at the same reigning time. It consisted of three kings, the Rajo Alam who ruled the government and diplomatic affairs, the Rajo Adaik who ruled the customs and the Rajo Ibadaik who acted as a Grand Mufti.[6]
Rome
During the Roman Republic, triumviri (or tresviri) were special commissions of three men appointed for specific administrative tasks apart from the regular duties of Roman magistrates.
- The triumviri capitales oversaw prisons and executions, along with other functions that, as Andrew Lintott notes, show them to have been "a mixture of police superintendents and justices of the peace."[7] The capitales were first established around 290 to 287 BC.[8] They were supervised by the praetor urbanus. These triumviri, or the tresviri nocturni,[9] may also have taken some responsibility for fire control.[10] They went the rounds by night to maintain order, and among other things they assisted the aediles in burning forbidden books. It is possible that they were entrusted by the praetor with the settlement of certain civil processes of a semi-criminal nature, in which private citizens acted as prosecutors. They also had to collect the sacramenta (deposits forfeited by the losing party in a suit) and examined the plea of exemption put forward by those who refused to act as jurymen. Julius Caesar increased their number to four, but Augustus reverted to three. In imperial times most of their functions passed into the hands of the Vigiles.[11]
- The triumviri monetalis ("triumviri of the temple of Juno the Advisor" or "monetary triumvirs") supervised the issuing of Roman coins. Their number was increased by Julius Caesar to four, but again reduced by Augustus. As they acted for the senate they only coined copper money under the empire, the gold and silver coinage being under the exclusive control of the emperor.[11]
- Tresviri epulones, a priestly body, assisted at public banquets. Their number was subsequently increased to seven, and by Caesar to ten, although they continued to be called septemviri, a name which was still in use at the end of the 4th century. They were first created in 196 BC to superintend the Epulum Jovis feast on the Capitol, but their services were also requisitioned on the occasion of triumphs, imperial birthdays, the dedication of temples, games given by private individuals, and so forth, when entertainments were provided for the people, while the senate dined on the Capitol.[11] Their number was later increased to seven (septemviri epulones).[12]
- Three-man commissions were also appointed for purposes such as establishing colonies (triumviri coloniae deducendae) or distributing land.[13] Triumviri mensarii served as public bankers;[14] the full range of their financial functions in 216 BC, when the commission included two men of consular rank, has been the subject of debate.[15]
The term triumvirate is most commonly used by historians to refer to two political alliances which occurred in the period of the crisis of the Roman Republic:
- The First Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, formed in 60 BC or 59 BC as an informal alliance among three prominent politicians and lasted until the death of Crassus in the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC.
- The Second Triumvirate (the Tresviri reipublicae constituendae) of Octavianus (later Caesar Augustus), Mark Antony, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, formed in 43 BC as an official, legally established institution, formally recognized by the Roman Senate in the Lex Titia and lasted de facto until the fall of Lepidus in 36 BC, de jure until 32 BC.
Tamil
Tamil Triumvirate refers to the triumvirate of Chola, Chera, and Pandya who dominated the politics of the ancient Tamil country. Sivaperuman, Murugan and Agathiyar are considered triumvirate of Tamil Language and Sangam Literature.
Modern triumvirates
The title was revived a few times for (short-lived) three-headed political 'magistratures' in post-feudal times.
Ottoman Empire
The Three Pashas also known as Ottoman Triumvirate effectively ruled the Ottoman Empire during World War I: Mehmed Talaat Pasha (1874–1921), the Grand Vizier (prime minister) and Minister of the Interior; Ismail Enver Pasha (1881–1922), the Minister of War; and Ahmed Djemal Pasha (1872–1922), the Minister of the Navy.
Modern Bosnia and Herzegovina
Post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina is ruled by a three-member Presidency.
Early-modern and modern France
While French Huguenots had derisively bestowed the name Triumvirate on the alliance formed in 1561 between Catholic Francis, Duke of Guise, Anne de Montmorency, and Jacques d'Albon during the French Wars of Religion, in later years the term would be used to describe other arrangements within France.
At the end of the 1700s, when the French revolutionaries turned to several Roman magistrature names for their newly created institutions, the three-headed collective head of state was named the Consulat (1799-1804), a term in use for two-headed magistratures since Antiquity; furthermore it included an office of First Consul who was not an equal, but the de facto solo head of state and government – a position Napoleon Bonaparte chose to convert openly into the First French Empire in 1804.
Prior to Napoleon and during the Terror from 1793 to 1794 Maximilien Robespierre, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, and Georges Couthon, as members of the governing Committee of Public Safety, were accused by their political opponents of forming an unofficial triumvirate, pointing out the first triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus which led to the end of the Roman Republic. Although officially all members of the committee shared equal power the three men's friendship and close ideological base led their detractors to declaim them as triumvirs which was used against them in the coup of 9 Thermidor (27 July 1794).[16]
Pre-Independent India
In the early days of the national struggle and before Gandhi, the Indian National Congress was known to be under Lal-Bal-Pal i.e. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, often dubbed Lokmanya Tilak.
Czechoslovakia
The Czechoslovak National Council, an organization founded in Paris in 1916 by Czech and Slovak émigrés during World War I to liberate their homeland from Austria-Hungary, consisted of the triumvirate[17] of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk as a chairman, Edvard Beneš, who joined Masaryk in exile in 1915, as the organization’s general secretary, and Milan Rastislav Štefánik, a Slovak who was an aviator in the French Army, designating to represent Slovak interests in the national council. During the closing weeks of the war, the Czechoslovak National Council was formally upgraded to a provisional government and its members were designated to hold top offices in the First Czechoslovak Republic.
Indonesia
According to the Article 8 paragraph (3) from the Constitution of Indonesia, there are three head of government institutions that can act as a "temporary" triumvirate only if there are vacancies in the position of president and vice president at the same time (e.g. both president and vice president were assassinated, sick, not doing their duties, passed away, or resigned). They are Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Home Affairs, and Minister of Defense. Those three ministers can act for president and vice president together for maximum 30 days.
After that, during the term of the triumvirate, the House of Representatives through the political parties or the coalition of political parties will elect a new President and Vice President and propose it to the People's Consultative Assembly. The newly elected President and Vice President which holds first and second of the most votes in the parliament will continue the remaining office position of former President and Vice President that were elected from previous general election, not five years.
Modern Israel
- 2008–2009: Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni were sometimes referred to as a triumvirate.[18][19][20]
- 2012: The leadership of Shas, the ultra-orthodox Sepharadi political party of Israel, was given by its spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and the Council of Torah Sages, to a triumvirate formed by the convicted Aryeh Deri, who decided to return to politics after a thirteen-year hiatus, the former party leader Eli Yishai and Ariel Atias.
People's Republic of China
Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and Liu Shaoqi are regarded as the three most influential members of the first generation of the Chinese communist leaders. Mao and Zhou managed to remain at the highest levels of power until their deaths in 1976. Unlike them Liu, who served as the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (1954-1959) and later as the President of the People's Republic of China, nominal de jure head of state (1959-1968), was purged in the cultural revolution in 1968. He died in prison in 1969.
Instead of Liu Shaoqi, Zhu De is sometimes regarded as a member of the triumvirate of the leading Chinese politicians alongside Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai. The three had the biggest contribution to the victory in the Chinese Civil War and the foundation of the People's Republic of China in 1949[21] and are now collectively venerated as the three founding heroes.[22] Mao, Zhou and Zhu were the only three original members of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party who remained in the Politburo from 1945 until their deaths in 1976 (though Zhu temporarily lost his membership between 1969-1973) and died while holding the highest party and state offices Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (Mao), Premier of the State Council (Zhou) and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the nominal head of state (Zhu).
Benin
- 13 April 1970 until 26 October 1972: After the contentious 1970 presidential elections, the country of Benin (then known as the Republic of Dahomey) adopted a Presidential Council which included the three main political figures in the country: Hubert Maga, Justin Ahomadégbé-Tomêtin, and Sourou-Migan Apithy. In addition, the formal office of President would rotate between the three of them beginning with Hubert Maga. After one successful change of leadership, military leader Mathieu Kérékou staged a coup and overthrew the Presidential Council becoming the leader of the country until 1991.[23]
Soviet Union
- See also List of Troikas in the Soviet Union
In the context of the Soviet Union, the term troika (Russian: for "group of three") is used for "triumvirate".[24]
- May 1922 – April 1925: When Vladimir Lenin suffered his first stroke in May 1922, a Troika was established to govern the country in his place, although Lenin briefly returned to the leadership from 2 October 1922 until a severe stroke on 9 March 1923 ended Lenin's political career. The Troika consisted of Joseph Stalin, Lev Kamenev, and Grigory Zinoviev. The Troika broke up in April 1925, when Kamenev and Zinoviev found themselves in a minority over their belief that socialism could only be achieved internationally. Zinoviev and Kamenev joined forces with Leon Trotsky's Left Opposition in early 1926.[25] Later, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky would all be murdered on Stalin's orders.
- 13 March – 26 June 1953: After the death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953, power was shared between Georgy Malenkov, Lavrenty Beria, and Vyacheslav Molotov.
- 14 October 1964 – 16 June 1977: After the removal of Nikita Khrushchev in October 1964, the Soviet Union went through a period of collective leadership. Power was initially shared between General Secretary (until 1966 First Secretary) Leonid Brezhnev, Premier Alexei Kosygin, and Chairman of the Presidium Anastas Mikoyan. Mikoyan was replaced by Nikolai Podgorny in 1965.
Modern Italy
In the Roman Republic (1849), the title of two sets of three joint chiefs of state in the year 1849:
- 29 March – 1 July 1849: Carlo Armellini (b. 1777 – d. 1863), Giuseppe Mazzini (b. 1805 – d. 1872), and Conte Aurelio Saffi (b. 1819 – d. 1890)
- 1–4 July 1849: Aurelio Saffi (again), Alessandro Calandrelli (b. 1805 – d. 1888), and Livio Mariani (1793 - 1855)
Almost immediately following the Roman Republic, the Red Triumvirate governed the restored Papal States from 1849 to 1850:[26][27]
- 1 August 1849 – 12 April 1850: Cardinals Gabriele della Genga Sermattei (b. 1801 – d. 1861), Lodovico Altieri (b. 1805 – d. 1867), and Luigi Vannicelli Casoni (b. 1801 – d. 1877)
Modern Greece
- After the downfall of the first King of Greece, the Bavarian Otto, on 23 October 1862, and Dimitrios Voulgaris' unsuccessful term (23 October 1862 – 30 January 1863) as president of the Provisional Government, a Triumvirate (30 January – 30 October 1863) was established consisting of the same Dimitrios Voulgaris, the renowned Admiral Konstantinos Kanaris and Benizelos Roufos, which acted as a regency until the arrival of the new monarch, the first "King of the Hellenes", George I.
- A triumvirate was established to head the Theriso revolt of 1905 in autonomous Crete, consisting of Eleftherios Venizelos (later Prime Minister of Greece) in charge of organisational matters, Konstantinos Foumis in charge of finances and Konstantinos Manos, the former mayor of Chania, in charge of military affairs.
- A triumvirate was set up during the First World War in September 1916, to head the "Provisional Government of National Defence" in Thessaloniki. It consisted of the popular liberal statesman Eleftherios Venizelos, General Panagiotis Danglis and Admiral Pavlos Koundouriotis. This "Triumvirate of National Defence" functioned as a collective head of government, although effective control was in Venizelos' hands. With the abdication of King Constantine I in June 1917 and the reunification of the country under Venizelos, the triumvirate was dissolved. The Triandria municipality in Thessaloniki is named after this triumvirate.
- A triumvirate was set up on 13 September 1922 to lead the military revolt against the royalist government in Athens in the aftermath of the Asia Minor Disaster. It was composed of Colonels Nikolaos Plastiras and Stylianos Gonatas, and Commander Dimitrios Fokas. The triumvirate assumed the government of Greece on 15 September, and would control the country until it laid down its powers on 2 January 1924. Plastiras however quickly became the dominant figure among the triumvirate, and was eventually labelled as the "Chief of the Revolution".
- A de facto triumvirate existed during the early years of the Greek military junta of 1967–1974, when the junta's three main leaders were Colonel Georgios Papadopoulos, Brigadier Stylianos Pattakos and Colonel Nikolaos Makarezos. With the increasing predominance of Papadopoulos from 1970 on, this triumvirate ceased to function.
- The Greek People's Liberation Army, active during the Axis Occupation of Greece, had a triadic leadership structure, consisting of the kapetánios ("captain", the unit's leader), the stratiotikós (the military specialist, usually a former Army officer) and the politikós (the political representative of the National Liberation Front).
Argentina
- First Triumvirate (23 September 1811 – 8 October 1812):
- Feliciano Chiclana.
- Manuel de Sarratea.
- Juan José Paso, replaced by Juan Martín de Pueyrredón on 23 March 1812.
- Second Triumvirate (8 October 1812 – 31 January 1814):
- Nicolás Rodríguez Peña.
- Antonio Álvarez Jonte, replaced by Gervasio Antonio de Posadas on 19 August 1813.
- Juan José Paso, replaced by José Julián Pérez on 20 February 1813, and replaced by Juan Larrea on 5 November 1813.
- Third Triumvirate (18 April 1815 - 20 April 1815):
- Military Junta (28 June 1966 - 29 June 1966):
- Junta of Commanders of the Armed Forces (8 June 1970 - 18 June 1970):
- Junta of Commanders of the Armed Forces (23 March 1971 - 26 March 1971):
- Military Junta (24 March 1976 - 29 March 1976):
Brazil
The Empire of Brazil had two triumvirates during a period known as the Regency period:
- Provisional Triumviral Regency (7 April 1831 – 3 May 1831)
- Permanent Triumviral Regency (17 June 1831 – 12 October 1835)
- Francisco de Lima e Silva
- The Marquis of Monte Alegre (from 18 June)
- João Bráulio Muniz (from 18 June)
Republican Brazil had two military juntas:
- The Military Junta of 1930, after the fall of the First Brazilian Republic (24 October 1930 – 3 November 1930)
- General Augusto Tasso Fragoso (Army)
- Admiral Isaías de Noronha (Navy)
- General João de Deus Mena Barreto (Army)
- The Military Junta of 1969, during the military dictatorship (31 August 1969 – 30 October 1969)
- General Aurélio de Lira Tavares (Army)
- General Márcio Melo (Air Force)
- Admiral Augusto Rademaker (Navy)
- The Military Junta of 1930, after the fall of the First Brazilian Republic (24 October 1930 – 3 November 1930)
The Americas
Venezuela: by decree of the Caracas Junta and ratified in the Federal Constitution of 1811 the executive power was vested in "three individuals" (1810–12)
The Eastern State of Uruguay had one triumvirate in 1853.
The United Provinces of New Granada, now Colombia, and Panama, were headed by two triumvirates in the period known as the "Patria Boba" or Foolish Fatherland
- Interim Triumvirate, 5 October – 23 November 1814
- Triumvirate of the United Provinces of New Granada, 23 November 1814 – October 1815
- Custodio García Rovira
- Antonio Villavicencio, replaced Rovira during his second term as he could not preside over
- José Manuel Restrepo, was never sworn in.
- José Miguel Pey de Andrade, replaced Restrepo as he declined. 28 July 1815
- Manuel Rodríguez Torices
- Custodio García Rovira
The Dominican Republic had two triumvirates, which were essentially three-member juntas:
- 29 May – 22 August 1866 – 1st Triumvirate (in rebellion against Buenaventura Báez from 1 May 1866):
- Pedro Antonio Pimentel (b. 1830 – d. 1874; formerly one of three "Generals-in-Chief" 23–24 January 1865)
- Gregorio Luperón (b. 1839 – d. 1897) PA
- Federico de Jesús García
- 26 September 1963 – 25 April 1965 – 2nd Triumvirate:
- Emilio de los Santos (b. 1903 – 22 December 1963) (chairman from 29 December 1963, succeeded by Donald Reid Cabral, b. 1923, UCN, new chairman)
- Manuel Enrique Tavares Espaillat (b. 1924 - d. 1984)
- Ramón Tapia Espinal (b. 1926 – d. 2002)
- 29 May – 22 August 1866 – 1st Triumvirate (in rebellion against Buenaventura Báez from 1 May 1866):
New York: the political arrangement of "three men in a room", consisting of the Governor, Speaker of the New York State Assembly, and the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate[28]- Nicaragua (1972–74) Liberal-Conservative Junta of Roberto Martínez, Alfonso Lovo Cordero (liberals) and Fernando Agüero (conservative). Agüero resigned in 1973 and Edmundo Paguada was successor.
Mexico (1823–24) Guadalupe Victoria, Nicolás Bravo and Celestino Negrete.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Other triumvirates
The word has been used as a term of convenience, though not an official title, for other groups of three in a similar position:
- Great Triumvirate (19th-century American politics – Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun)
- Bourbon Triumvirate (19th-century American politics – Joseph E. Brown, Alfred H. Colquitt, and John Brown Gordon)
- After the Lisbon Treaty came into force from 1 December 2009:
- Great Triumvirate (Early 20th-century golf – Harry Vardon, James Braid, and J.H. Taylor)
- Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google has referred to himself, along with founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin as part of a triumvirate, stating, "This triumvirate has made an informal deal to stick together for at least 20 years".[29][needs update]
See also
- Constitution of the Roman Republic
- Council of Three (disambiguation)
- Decemvirate
- Diarchy
- Duumviri
- European troika
- Monarchy
- Septemvir
- Tetrarchy
Notes
- Tim Weber (2008-09-04), A decade on: Google's internet economy, BBC News, retrieved February 10, 2013
References
- Beck, Mansvelt. (1986). "The Fall of Han," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-24327-0.
- Flood, Gavin, ed. (2003). The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-4051-3251-5.
- Loewe, Michael. (1986). "The Former Han Dynasty," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 103–222. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-24327-0.
- Etymology on line
- World Statesmen here Greece - see under each present country
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumvirate
A dictatorship is a form of government controlled by a dictator. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by the dictator and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. The dictator maintains control by influencing and appeasing the inner circle and repressing any opposition, which may include rival political parties, armed resistance, or disloyal members of the dictator's inner circle. Dictatorships can be formed by a military coup that overthrows the previous government through force or they can be formed by a self-coup in which elected leaders make their rule permanent. Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies.
The use of the term dictatorship originated in the Roman Republic. The earliest military dictatorships developed in the post-classical era, particularly in Shogun-era Japan and in England under Cromwell. Modern dictatorships first developed in the 19th century, which included Bonapartism in Europe and caudillos in Latin America. The 20th century saw the rise of fascist and communist dictatorships in Europe; fascism was eradicated in the aftermath of World War II in 1945, while communism spread to other continents, maintaining prominence until the end of the Cold War in 1991. The 20th century also saw the rise of personalist dictatorships in Africa and military dictatorships in Latin America, both of which became prominent in the 1960s and 1970s. Several dictatorships have persisted into the 21st century, particularly in Africa and Asia.
Dictatorships frequently hold elections in order to establish their legitimacy or provide incentives to members of the ruling party, but these elections are not competitive for the opposition. Stability in a dictatorship is maintained through coercion and political repression, which involves the restriction of access to information, the tracking of the political opposition, and acts of violence. Dictatorships that fail to repress the opposition are susceptible to collapse through a coup or a revolution.
Structure
The power structures of dictatorships vary, and different definitions of dictatorship consider different elements of this structure. Political scientists such as Juan José Linz and Samuel P. Huntington identify key attributes that define the power structure of a dictatorship, including a single leader or a small group of leaders, the exercise of power with few limitations, limited political pluralism, and limited mass mobilization.[1]
The dictator exercises most or total power over the government and society, but sometimes elites are necessary to carry out the dictator's rule. They form an inner circle, making up a class of elites that hold a degree of power within the dictatorship and receive benefits in exchange for their support. They may be military officers, party members, or friends or family of the dictator. Elites are also the primary political threats of a dictator, as they can leverage their power to influence or overthrow the dictatorship.[2] The inner circle's support is necessary for a dictator's orders to be carried out, causing elites to serve as a check on the dictator's power. To enact policy, a dictator must either appease the regime's elites or attempt to replace them.[3] Elites must also compete to wield more power than one another, but the amount of power held by elites also depends on their unity. Factions or divisions among the elites will mitigate their ability to bargain with the dictator, resulting in the dictator having more unrestrained power.[4] A unified inner circle has the capacity to overthrow a dictator, and the dictator must make greater concessions to the inner circle to stay in power.[5] This is particularly true when the inner circle is made up of military officers that have the resources to carry out a military coup.[6]
The opposition to a dictatorship represents all of the factions that are not part of the dictatorship and anyone that does not support the regime. Organized opposition is a threat to the stability of a dictatorship, as it seeks to undermine public support for the dictator and calls for regime change. A dictator may address the opposition by repressing it through force, modifying laws to restrict its power, or appeasing it with limited benefits.[7] The opposition can be an external group, or it can also include current and former members of the dictator's inner circle.[8]
Totalitarianism is a variation of dictatorship characterized by the presence of a single political party and more specifically, by a powerful leader who imposes personal and political prominence. Power is enforced through a steadfast collaboration between the government and a highly developed ideology. A totalitarian government has "total control of mass communications and social and economic organizations".[9] Political philosopher Hannah Arendt describes totalitarianism as a new and extreme form of dictatorship composed of "atomized, isolated individuals" in which ideology plays a leading role in defining how the entire society should be organized.[10] Political scientist Juan José Linz identifies a spectrum of political systems with democracies and totalitarian regimes separated by authoritarian regimes with varied classifications of hybrid systems.[11][12] He describes totalitarian regimes as exercising control over politics and political mobilization rather than merely suppressing it.[11]
Formation
.jpg)
A dictatorship is formed when a specific group seizes power, with the composition of this group affecting how power is seized and how the eventual dictatorship will rule. The group may be military or political, it may be organized or disorganized, and it may disproportionately represent a certain demographic.[13] After power is seized, the group must determine what positions its members will hold in the new government and how this government will operate, sometimes resulting in disagreements that split the group. Members of the group will typically make up the elites in a dictator's inner circle at the beginning of a new dictatorship, though the dictator may remove them as a means to gain additional power.[14]
Unless they have undertaken a self-coup, those seizing power typically have little governmental experience and do not have a detailed policy plan in advance.[15] If the dictator has not seized power through a political party, then a party may be formed as a mechanism to reward supporters and to concentrate power in the hands of political allies instead of militant allies. Parties formed after the seizure of power often have little influence and only exist to serve the dictator.[16]
Most dictatorships are formed through military means or through a political party. Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government.[17] Between 1946 and 2010, 42% of dictatorships began by overthrowing a different dictatorship, and 26% began after achieving independence from a foreign government. Many others developed following a period of warlordism.[18]
Types of dictatorships
A classification of dictatorships, which began with political scientist Barbara Geddes in 1999, focuses on where power lies. Under this system, there are three types of dictatorships. Military dictatorships are controlled by military officers, one-party dictatorships are controlled by the leadership of a political party, and personalist dictatorships are controlled by a single individual. In some circumstances, monarchies are also considered dictatorships if the monarchs hold a significant amount of political power. Hybrid dictatorships are regimes that have a combination of these classifications.[19]
Military
Military dictatorships are regimes in which military officers hold power, determine who will lead the country, and exercise influence over policy.[20][21] They are most common in developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. They are often unstable, and the average duration of a military dictatorship is only five years, but they are often followed by additional military coups and military dictatorships. While common in the 20th century, the prominence of military dictatorships declined in the 1970s and 1980s.[22]
Military dictatorships are typically formed by a military coup in which senior officers use the military to overthrow the government. In democracies, the threat of a military coup is associated with the period immediately after a democracy's creation but prior to large-scale military reforms. In oligarchies, the threat of a military coup comes from the strength of the military weighed against the concessions made to the military. Other factors associated with military coups include extensive natural resources, limited use of the military internationally, and use of the military as an oppressive force domestically.[23] Military coups do not necessarily result in military dictatorships, as power may then be passed to an individual or the military may allow democratic elections to take place.[24]
Military dictatorships often have traits in common due to the shared background of military dictators. These dictators may view themselves as impartial in their oversight of a country due to their nonpartisan status, and they may view themselves as "guardians of the state". The predominance of violent force in military training manifests in an acceptance of violence as a political tool and the ability to organize violence on a large scale. Military dictators may also be less trusting or diplomatic and underestimate the use of bargaining and compromise in politics.[25]
One-party
One-party dictatorships are governments in which a single political party dominates politics. Single-party dictatorships are one-party states in which only the party in power is legalized and all opposition parties are banned. Dominant-party dictatorships or electoral authoritarian dictatorships are one-party dictatorships in which opposition parties are nominally legal but cannot meaningfully influence government. Single-party dictatorships were most common during the Cold War, with dominant-party dictatorships becoming more common after the fall of the Soviet Union.[26] Ruling parties in one-party dictatorships are distinct from political parties that were created to serve a dictator in that the ruling party in a one-party dictatorship permeates every level of society.[27]
One-party dictatorships are more stable than other forms of authoritarian rule, as they are less susceptible to insurgency and see higher economic growth. Ruling parties allow a dictatorship to more broadly influence the populace and facilitate political agreement between party elites. Between 1950 and 2016, one-party dictatorships made up 57% of authoritarian regimes in the world,[26] and one-party dictatorships have continued to expand more quickly than other forms of dictatorship in the latter half of the 20th century.[28] Due to the structure of their leadership, one-party dictatorships are significantly less likely to face civil conflict, insurgency, or terrorism than other forms of dictatorship.[29][30] The use of ruling parties also provides more legitimacy to its leadership and elites than other forms of dictatorship[31] and facilitates a peaceful transfer of power at the end of a dictator's rule.[32]
One-party dictatorships became prominent in Asia and Eastern Europe during the Cold War as communist governments were installed in several countries.[27] One-party rule also developed in several countries in Africa during decolonization in the 1960s and 1970s, some of which produced authoritarian regimes.[33] A ruling party in a one-party dictatorship may rule under any ideology or it may have no guiding ideology. Marxist one-party states are sometimes distinguished from other one-party states, but they function similarly.[34] When a one-party dictatorship develops gradually through legal means, in can result in conflict between the party organization and the state apparatus and civil service, as the party rules in parallel and increasingly appoints its own members to positions of power. Parties that take power through violence are often able to implement larger changes in a shorter period of time.[31]
Personalist
.jpg)
Personalist dictatorships are regimes in which all of the power lies in the hands of a single individual. They differ from other forms of dictatorships in that the dictator has greater access to key political positions and the government's treasury, and they are more commonly subject to the discretion of the dictator. Personalist dictators may be members of the military or leaders of a political party, but neither the military nor the party exercises power independently from the dictator. In personalist dictatorships, the elite corps are usually made up of close friends or family members of the dictator, who typically handpicks these individuals to serve their posts.[35][36] These dictatorships often emerge either from loosely organized seizures of power, giving the leader opportunity to consolidate power, or from democratically elected leaders in countries with weak institutions, giving the leader opportunity to change the constitution. Personalist dictatorships are more common in Sub-Saharan Africa due to less established institutions in the region.[37]
Personalist dictators typically favor loyalty over competence in their governments and have a general distrust of intelligentsia. Elites in personalist dictatorships often do not have a professional political career and are unqualified for positions they are given. A personalist dictator will manage these appointees by segmenting the government so that they cannot collaborate. The result is that such regimes have no internal checks and balances, and are thus unrestrained when exerting repression on their people, making radical shifts in foreign policy, or starting wars with other countries.[38] Due to the lack of accountability and the smaller group of elites, personalist dictatorships are more prone to corruption than other forms of dictatorship,[39] and they are more repressive than other forms of dictatorship.[40] Personalist dictatorships often collapse with the death of the dictator. They are more likely to end in violence and less likely to democratize than other forms of dictatorship.[41]
Personalist dictatorships fit the exact classic stereotype of authoritarian rule.[42] Within a personalist regime an issue called "The dictator’s dilemma" arises.[43] This idea references the heavy reliance on repression of the public in order to stay in power, which creates incentives for all constituents to falsify their preferences, which does not allow for the dictator to know the genuine popular beliefs or his realistic measure of societal support.[44] As a result of authoritarian politics, a series of major issues may ensue. Preference falsification, Internal politics, data scarcity, and restriction of media are just a few examples of the dangers of a personalistic authoritarian regime.[45] Although, when it comes to polling and elections a dictator could use his power to override private preferences. Many personalist regimes will install open ballots to protect their regimes and implement heavy security measures and censorship for those whose personal preferences do not align with the values of the leader.[46]
The shift in the power relation between the dictator and their inner circle has severe consequences for the behavior of such regimes as a whole. Personalist regimes diverge from other regimes when it comes to their longevity, methods of breakdown, levels of corruption, and proneness to conflicts. On average, they last twice as long as military dictatorships, but not as long as one-party dictatorships.[47] Personalist dictatorships also experience growth differently, as they often lack the institutions or qualified leadership to sustain an economy.[48]
Absolute monarchy
An absolute monarchy is a monarchy in which the monarch rules without legal limitations. This makes it distinct from constitutional monarchy and ceremonial monarchy.[49] In an absolute monarchy, power is limited to the royal family, and legitimacy is established by historical factors. Monarchies may be dynastic, in which the royal family serves as a ruling institution similar to a political party in a one-party state, or they may be non-dynastic, in which the monarch rules independently of the royal family as a personalist dictator.[50] Monarchies allow for strict rules of succession that produce a peaceful transfer of power on the monarch's death, but this can also result in succession disputes if multiple members of the royal family claim a right to succeed.[51] In the modern era, absolute monarchies are most common in the Middle East.[52]
History
Early dictatorships
Dictatorship is historically associated with the Ancient Greek concept of tyranny, and several ancient Greek rulers have been described as "tyrants" that are comparable to modern dictators.[54][55] The concept of "dictator" was first developed during the Roman Republic. A Roman dictator was a special magistrate that was temporarily appointed by the consul during times of crisis and granted total executive authority. The role of dictator was created for instances when a single leader was needed to command and restore stability.[56] At least 85 such dictators were chosen over the course of the Roman Republic, the last of which was chosen to wage the Second Punic War. The dictatorship was revived 120 years later by Sulla after his crushing of a populist movement, and 33 years after that by Julius Caesar.[56] Caesar subverted the tradition of temporary dictatorships when he was made dictator perpetuo, or a dictator for life, which led to the creation of the Roman Empire.[57] The rule of a dictator was not necessarily considered tyrannical in Ancient Rome, though it has been described in some accounts as a "temporary tyranny" or an "elective tyranny".[54]
Asia saw several military dictatorships during the post-classical era. Korea experienced military dictatorships under the rule of Yeon Gaesomun in the 7th century[58] and under the rule of the Goryeo military regime in the 12th and 13th centuries.[59] Shoguns were de facto military dictators in Japan beginning in 1185 and continuing for over six hundred years.[60] During the Lê dynasty of Vietnam between the 16th and 18th centuries, the country was under de facto military rule by two rival military families: the Trịnh lords in the north and the Nguyễn lords in the south.[61] In Europe, the Commonwealth of England under Oliver Cromwell, formed in 1649 after the Second English Civil War, has been described as a military dictatorship by its contemporary opponents and by some modern academics.[62][63][64] Maximilien Robespierre has been similarly described as a dictator while he controlled the National Convention in France and carried out the Reign of Terror in 1793 and 1794.[64][65][66]
Dictatorship developed as a major form of government in the 19th century, though the concept was not universally seen pejoratively at the time, with both a tyrannical concept and a quasi-constitutional concept of dictatorship understood to exist.[67] In Europe it was often thought of in terms of Bonapartism and Caesarism, with the former describing the military rule of Napoleon and the latter describing the imperial rule of Napoleon III in the vein of Julius Caesar.[68] The Spanish American wars of independence took place in the early-19th century, creating many new Latin American governments. Many of these governments fell under the control of caudillos, or personalist dictators. Most caudillos came from a military background, and their rule was typically associated with pageantry and glamor. Caudillos were often nominally constrained by a constitution, but the caudillo had the power to draft a new constitution as he wished. Many are noted for their cruelty, while others are honored as national heroes.[69]
Interwar dictatorships and World War II
Europe
In the time between World War I and World War II, several dictatorships were established in Europe through coups which were carried out by far-left and far-right movements.[71] The aftermath of World War I resulted in a major shift in European politics, establishing new governments, facilitating internal change in older governments, and redrawing the boundaries between countries, allowing opportunities for these movements to seize power.[72] The societal upheaval caused by World War I and the unstable peace it produced further contributed to instability that benefited extremist movements and rallied support for their causes. Far-left and far-right dictatorships used similar methods to maintain power, including cult of personality, concentration camps, forced labour, mass murder, and genocide.[73]
The first communist state was created by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks with the establishment of Soviet Russia during the Russian Revolution in 1917. The government was described as a dictatorship of the proletariat in which power was exercised by soviets.[74] The Bolsheviks consolidated power by 1922, forming the Soviet Union.[75] Lenin was followed by Joseph Stalin in 1924, who consolidated total power and implemented totalitarian rule by 1929.[76][77] The Russian Revolution inspired a wave of left-wing revolutionary movements in Europe between 1917 and 1923, but none saw the same level of success.[78]
At the same time, nationalist movements grew throughout Europe. These movements were a response to what they perceived as decadence and societal decay due to the changing social norms and race relations brought about by liberalism.[79] Fascism developed in Europe as a rejection of liberalism, socialism, and modernism, and the first fascist political parties formed in the 1920s.[80] Italian dictator Benito Mussolini seized power in 1922, and began implementing reforms in 1925 to create the first fascist dictatorship.[81] These reforms incorporated totalitarianism, fealty to the state, expansionism, corporatism, and anti-communism.[82]
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party created a second fascist dictatorship in Germany in 1933,[83] obtaining absolute power through a combination of electoral victory, violence, and emergency powers.[84] Other nationalist movements in Europe established dictatorships based on the fascist model.[73] During World War II, Italy and Germany occupied several countries in Europe, imposing fascist puppet states upon many of the countries that they invaded.[85] After being defeated in World War II, the far-right dictatorships of Europe collapsed, with the exceptions of Spain and Portugal. The Soviet Union occupied nationalist dictatorships in the east and replaced them with communist dictatorships, while others established liberal democratic governments in the Western Bloc.[73]
Latin America
Dictatorships in Latin America persisted into the 20th century, and further military coups established new regimes, often in the name of nationalism.[86] After a brief period of democratization, Latin America underwent a rapid transition toward dictatorship in the 1930s.[87] Populist movements were strengthened following the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, producing populist dictatorships in several Latin American countries.[88] European fascism was imported to Latin America as well, and the Vargas Era of Brazil was heavily influenced by the corporatism practiced in fascist Italy.[87]
Cold War dictatorships
Africa
The decolonisation of Africa prompted the creation of new governments, many of which became dictatorships in the 1960s and 1970s. Early African dictatorships were primarily personalist socialist dictatorships, in which a single socialist would take power instead of a ruling party. As the Cold War went on, the Soviet Union increased its influence in Africa, and Marxist–Leninist dictatorships developed in several African countries.[89] Military coups were also a common occurrence after decolonisation, with 14 African countries experiencing at least three successful military coups between 1959 and 2001.[90] These new African governments were marked by severe instability, which provided opportunities for regime change and made fair elections a rare occurrence on the continent. This instability in turn required rulers to become increasingly authoritarian to stay in power, further propagating dictatorship in Africa.[91]
Asia
The Chinese Civil War ended in 1949, splitting the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek and the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong. Mao established the People's Republic of China as a one-party communist state under his governing ideology of Maoism. While the People's Republic of China was initially aligned with the Soviet Union, relations between the two countries deteriorated as the Soviet Union underwent de-Stalinization in the late-1950s. Mao consolidated his control of the People's Republic of China with the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, which involved the destruction of all elements of capitalism and traditionalism in China.[92] Deng Xiaoping took power as the de facto leader of China after Mao's death and implemented reforms to restore stability following the Cultural Revolution and reestablish free market economics.[93] Chiang Kai-shek continued to rule as dictator of the National government's rump state in Taiwan until his death in 1975.[94]
Marxist and nationalist movements became popular in Southeast Asia as a response to colonial control and the subsequent Japanese occupation of Southeast Asia, with both ideologies facilitating the creation of dictatorships after World War II. Communist dictatorships in the region aligned with China following the latter's establishment as a communist state.[95] A similar phenomenon took place in Korea, where Kim Il Sung created a Soviet-backed communist dictatorship in North Korea[96] and Syngman Rhee created a US-backed nationalist dictatorship in South Korea.[97]
The Middle East was decolonized during the Cold War, and many nationalist movements gained strength post-independence. These nationalist movements supported non-alignment, keeping most Middle Eastern dictatorships out of the American and Soviet spheres of influence. These movements supported pan-Arab Nasserism during most of the Cold War, but they were largely replaced by Islamic nationalism by the 1980s.[98] Several Middle Eastern countries were the subject of military coups in the 1950s and 1960s, including Iraq, Syria, North Yemen, and South Yemen.[99] A 1953 coup overseen by the American and British governments restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the absolute monarch of Iran, who in turn was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that established Ruhollah Khomeini as the Supreme Leader of Iran under an Islamist government.[98]
Europe
During World War II, many countries of Central and Eastern Europe had been occupied by the Soviet Union. When the war ended, these countries were incorporated into the Soviet sphere of influence, and the Soviet Union exercised control over their governments.[100] Josip Broz Tito declared a communist government in Yugoslavia during World War II, which was initially aligned with the Soviet Union. The relations between the countries were strained by Soviet attempts to influence Yugoslavia, leading to the Tito–Stalin split in 1948.[101] Albania was established as a communist dictatorship under Enver Hoxha in 1944. It was initially aligned with Yugoslavia, but its alignment shifted throughout the Cold War between Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and China.[102] The stability of the Soviet Union weakened in the 1980s. The Soviet economy became unsustainable, and communist governments lost the support of intellectuals. In 1989, the Soviet Union was dissolved, and communism was abandoned by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through a series of revolutions.[103]
Latin America
Military dictatorships remained prominent in Latin America during the Cold War, though the number of coups declined starting in the 1980s. Between 1967 and 1991, 12 Latin American countries underwent at least one military coup, with Haiti and Honduras experiencing three and Bolivia experiencing eight.[104] A one-party communist dictatorship was formed in Cuba when a US-backed dictatorship was overthrown in the Cuban Revolution, creating the only Soviet-backed dictatorship in the western hemisphere.[105] To maintain power, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet organized Operation Condor with other South American dictators to facilitate cooperation between their respective intelligence agencies and secret police organizations.[106]
21st century dictatorships
The nature of dictatorship changed in much of the world at the onset of the 21st century. Between the 1990s and the 2000s, most dictators moved away from being "larger-than-life figures" that controlled the populace through terror and isolated themselves from the global community. This was replaced by a trend of developing a positive public image to maintain support among the populace and moderating rhetoric to integrate with the global community.[107] The development of the internet and digital communication in the 21st century have prompted dictatorships to shift from traditional means of control to digital ones, including the use of artificial intelligence to analyze mass communications, internet censorship to restrict the flow of information, and troll farms to manipulate public opinion.[108]
Dictatorship in Europe largely ended after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the liberalization of most communist states.[103] Belarus under the rule of Alexander Lukashenko has been described as "the last European dictatorship",[109][110] though the rule of Vladimir Putin in Russia has also been described as a dictatorship.[111][112][113] Latin America saw a period of liberalization similar to that of Europe at the end of the Cold War, with Cuba being the only Latin American country that did not experience any degree of liberalization between 1992 and 2010.[114] The countries of Central Asia did not liberalize after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead forming as dictatorships led by former elites of the Communist Party and then later by successive dictators. These countries maintain parliaments and human rights organizations, but these remain under the control of the countries' respective dictators.[115]
The Middle East and Northern Africa did not undergo liberalization during the third wave of democratisation, and most countries in this region remain dictatorships in the 21st century. Dictatorships in the Middle East and Northern Africa are either illiberal republics in which a president holds power through unfair elections, or they are absolute monarchies in which power is inherited. Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine are the only democratic nations in the region, with Israel being the only nation in this region that affords broad political liberties to its citizens.[116]
Measurement
| Full democracies 9.01–10.00 8.01–9.00 | Flawed democracies 7.01–8.00 6.01–7.00 | Hybrid regimes 5.01–6.00 4.01–5.00 | Authoritarian regimes 3.01–4.00 2.01–3.00 1.01–2.00 0.00–1.00 |
One of the tasks in political science is to measure and classify regimes as either democracies or dictatorship (authoritarian) countries. Freedom House, the Polity data series, and the Democracy-Dictatorship Index are three of the most used data series by political scientists.[117] Generally, two research approaches exist: the minimalist approach, which focuses on whether a country has continued elections that are competitive, and the substantive approach, which expands the concept of democracy to include human rights, freedom of the press, and the rule of law. The Democracy-Dictatorship Index is seen as an example of the minimalist approach, whereas the Polity data series is more substantive.[118][119][120][121]
Economics
Most dictatorships exist in countries with high levels of poverty. Poverty has a destabilizing effect on government, causing democracy to fail and regimes to fall more often.[122] The form of government does not correlate with the amount of economic growth, and dictatorships on average grow at the same rate as democracies, though dictatorships have been found to have larger fluctuations. Dictators are more likely to implement long-term investments into the country's economy if they feel secure in their power. Exceptions to the pattern of poverty in dictatorships include oil-rich Middle Eastern dictatorships and the East Asian Tigers during their periods of dictatorship.[123]
The type of economy in a dictatorship can affect how it functions. Economies based on natural resources allow dictators more power, as they can easily extract rents without strengthening or cooperating with other institutions. More complex economies require additional cooperation between the dictator and other groups. The economic focus of a dictatorship often depends on the strength of the opposition, as a weaker opposition allows a dictator to extract additional wealth from the economy through corruption.[124]
Legitimacy and stability
Several factors determine the stability of a dictatorship, and they must maintain some degree of popular support to prevent resistance groups from growing. This may be ensured through incentives, such as distribution of financial resources or promises of security, or it may be through repression, in which failing to support the regime is punished. Stability can be weakened when opposition groups grow and unify or when elites are not loyal to the regime.[125] One-party dictatorships are generally more stable and last longer than military or personalist dictatorships.[26]
A dictatorship may fall because of a military coup, foreign intervention, negotiation, or popular revolution.[126] A military coup is often carried out when a regime is threatening the country's stability or during periods of societal unrest.[127] Foreign intervention takes place when another country seeks to topple a regime by invading the country or supporting the opposition.[128] A dictator may negotiate the end of a regime if it has lost legitimacy or if a violent removal seems likely.[129] Revolution takes place when the opposition group grows large enough that elites in the regime cannot suppress it or choose not to.[130] Negotiated removals are more likely to end in democracy, while removals by force are more likely to result in a new dictatorial regime. A dictator that has concentrated significant power is more likely to be exiled, imprisoned, or killed after ouster, and accordingly they are more likely to refuse negotiation and cling to power.[131]
Dictatorships are typically more aggressive than democracy when in conflict with other nations, as dictators do not have to fear electoral costs of war. Military dictatorships are more prone to conflict due to the inherent military strength associated with such a regime, and personalist dictatorships are more prone to conflict due to the weaker institutions to check the dictator's power.[132] In the 21st century, dictatorships have moved toward greater integration with the global community and increasingly attempt to present themselves as democratic.[107] Dictatorships are often recipients of foreign aid on the condition that they make advances toward democratization.[133] A study found that dictatorships that engage in oil drilling are more likely to remain in power, with 70.63% of the dictators who engage in oil drilling still being in power after 5 years of dictatorship, while only 59.92% of the non-oil producing dictators survive the first 5 years.[134]
Elections
Most dictatorships hold elections to maintain legitimacy and stability, but these elections are typically uncompetitive and the opposition is not permitted to win. Elections allow a dictatorship to exercise some control over the opposition by setting the terms under which the opposition challenges the regime.[135] Elections are also used to control elites within the dictatorship by requiring them to compete with one another and incentivizing them to build support with the populace, allowing the most popular and most competent elites to be promoted in the regime. Elections also support the legitimacy of a dictatorship by presenting the image of a democracy, establishing plausible deniability of its status as a dictatorship for both the populace and foreign governments.[136] Should a dictatorship fail, elections also permit dictators and elites to accept defeat without fearing violent recourse.[137] Dictatorships may influence the results of an election through electoral fraud, intimidation or bribing of candidates and voters, use of state resources such as media control, manipulation of electoral laws, restricting who may run as a candidate, or disenfranchising demographics that may oppose the dictatorship.[138]
In the 20th century, most dictatorships held elections in which voters could only choose to support the dictatorship, with only one-quarter of partisan dictatorships permitting opposition candidates to participate.[139] Since the end of the Cold War, more dictatorships have established "semi-competitive" elections in which opposition is allowed to participate in elections but is not allowed to win, with approximately two-thirds of dictatorships permitting opposition candidates in 2018.[140] Opposition parties in dictatorships may be restricted by preventing them from campaigning, banning more popular opposition parties, preventing opposition members from forming a party, or requiring that candidates be a member of the ruling party.[140] Dictatorships may hold semi-competitive elections to qualify for foreign aid, to demonstrate a dictator's control over the government, or to incentivize the party to expand its information-gathering capacity, particularly at the local level. Semi-competitive elections also have the effect of incentivizing members of the ruling party to provide better treatment of citizens so they will be chosen as party nominees due to their popularity.[141]
Violence
In a dictatorship, violence is used to coerce or repress all opposition to the dictator's rule, and the strength of a dictatorship depends on its use of violence. This violence is frequently exercised through institutions such as military or police forces.[142] The use of violence by a dictator is frequently most severe during the first few years of a dictatorship, because the regime has not yet solidified its rule and more detailed information for targeted coercion is not yet available. As the dictatorship becomes more established, it moves away from violence by resorting to the use of other coercive measures, such as restricting people's access to information and tracking the political opposition. Dictators are incentivized to avoid the use of violence once a reputation of violence is established, as it damages the dictatorship's other institutions and poses a threat to the dictator's rule should government forces become disloyal.[143]
Institutions that coerce the opposition through the use of violence may serve different roles or they may be used to counterbalance one another in order to prevent one institution from becoming too powerful. Secret police are used to gather information about specific political opponents and carry out targeted acts of violence against them, paramilitary forces defend the regime from coups, and formal militaries defend the dictatorship during foreign invasions and major civil conflicts.[143]
Terrorism is less common in dictatorships. Allowing the opposition to have representation in the regime, such as through a legislature, further reduces the likelihood of terrorist attacks in a dictatorship.[30] Military and one-party dictatorships are more likely to experience terrorism than personalist dictatorships, as these regimes are under more pressure to undergo institutional change in response to terrorism.[144]
See also
- Benevolent dictatorship
- Communism
- Constitutional dictatorship
- Despotism
- Elective dictatorship
- Generalissimo
- Hoxhaism
- Juche
- Leninism
- List of cults of personality
- List of titles used by dictators
- List of totalitarian regimes
- Maximum Leader
- Mobutism
- Nazism
- People's democratic dictatorship
- Putinism
- Ruscism
- Selectorate theory
- Stalinism
- Strongman
- Supreme leader
References
It would forever attach the label–however unjustified–of 'military dictator' to Cromwell's reputation.
- Conrad, Courtenay R.; Conrad, Justin; Young, Joseph K. (2014). "Tyrants and Terrorism: Why Some Autocrats are Terrorized While Others are Not". International Studies Quarterly. 58 (3): 539–549. doi:10.1111/isqu.12120.
Bibliography
- Ezrow, Natasha M.; Frantz, Erica (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. Bloomsbury. ISBN 9781441196828.
- Galván, Javier A. (21 December 2012). Latin American Dictators of the 20th Century: The Lives and Regimes of 15 Rulers. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-6691-7.
- Geddes, Barbara; Wright, Joseph; Frantz, Erica (2018). How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107115828.
- Lee, Stephen J. (2016). European Dictatorships 1918-1945 (4th ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9781315646176.
- Staar, Richard F. (1982). Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe (4th ed.). Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 9780817976934.
Further reading
- Behrends, Jan C. (14 March 2017). "Dictatorship: Modern Tyranny Between Leviathan and Behemoth (Version 2.0) (english version)". Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte. doi:10.14765/zzf.dok.2.790.v2.
- Dikötter, Frank (3 December 2019). How to Be a Dictator: The Cult of Personality in the Twentieth Century. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-63557-380-0.
- scholarly analysis of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, as well as Kim Il Sung of North Korea; François Duvalier, or Papa Doc, of Haiti; Nicolae Ceaușescu of Romania; and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia. online review; also excerpt
- Dobson, William J. (2013). The Dictator's Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy. Anchor. ISBN 978-0-307-47755-2.
- Fraenkel, Ernst; Meierhenrich, Jens (13 April 2017). The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716204.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-102533-4.
- Friedrich, Carl J.; Brzezinski, Zbigniew K. (1965). Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2nd ed.). Praeger.
- Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce; Smith, Alastair (2011). The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics. Random House. p. 272. ISBN 978-1-61039-044-6. OCLC 701015473.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
| Political corruption |
|---|
| Concepts |
| Corruption by country |
In politics, a mafia state is a state system where the government is tied with organized crime to the degree when government officials, the police, and/or military became a part of the criminal enterprise.[1][2] According to US diplomats, the expression "mafia state" was coined by Alexander Litvinenko.[3]
Particular applications of the concept
Mafia in Italy and Yakuza in Japan
 | This section provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. (January 2022) |
In a critical review of Moisés Naím's essay in Foreign Affairs, Peter Andreas pointed to the long existence of Italian mafia and Japanese Yakuza, writing that there were close relationships between those illicit organisations and respective governments.[2] According to Andreas, these examples speak against incidences of mafia states as a historically new threat.[2]
In Italy, there are three main mafia organisations that originated in the 19th century: the Cosa Nostra originating from the region of Sicily, the Camorra originating from the region of Campania, and the 'Ndrangheta originating from the region of Calabria.[4]
Former Prime Minister of Italy, Giulio Andreotti, had legal action against him, with a trial for mafia association on 27 March 1993 in the city of Palermo.[5][6] The prosecution accused the former prime minister of "[making] available to the mafia association named Cosa Nostra for the defense of its interests and attainment of its criminal goals, the influence and power coming from his position as the leader of a political faction".[6] Prosecutors said in return for electoral support of Salvo Lima and assassination of Andreotti's enemies, he had agreed to protect the Mafia, which had expected him to fix the Maxi Trial. Andreotti's defense was predicated on character attacks against the prosecution's key witnesses who were themselves involved with the mafia.[6] Andreotti was eventually acquitted on 23 October 1999.[5] However, together with the greater series of corruption cases of Mani pulite, Andreotti's trials marked the purging and renewal of Italy's political system.[5]
The Camorra Casalesi clan rose in the 1980s, gaining control of large areas of the local economy "partly by manipulating politicians and intimidating judges".[7] The clan was heavily involved in the Naples waste management crisis that dumped toxic waste around Campania in the 1990s and 2000s; the boss of the clan, Gaetano Vassallo, admitted to systematically working for 20 years to bribe local politicians and officials to gain their acquiescence to dumping toxic waste.[8][9]
Countries described as Mafia states
Republics, mobs and territories of the former Yugoslavia
_(cropped).jpg)
Kosovo, a partially recognised independent state formerly part of Serbia, was called a "mafia state" by Italian MEP Pino Arlacchi in 2011,[11] and also by Moisés Naím in his 2012 essay "Mafia States" in the Foreign Affairs. Naím pointed out that Prime Minister of Kosovo Hashim Thaçi is allegedly connected to the heroin trade. Many other crime allegations have been made, and investigated by several countries, against Thaçi.[citation needed]
Naím also labeled Montenegro as a "mafia state" in the same essay,[12] describing it as a hub for cigarette smuggling.[2]
Transnistria
Transnistria, an unrecognised break-away state from Moldova, has long been described by journalists, researchers, politicians and diplomats as a quasi-state whose economy is dependent on contraband[13] and gunrunning,[14][15][16] with some having directly referred to Transnistria as a mafia state.[17][18]
For instance, in 2002, Moldova's president, Vladimir Voronin, called Transnistria a "residence of international mafia", "smuggling stronghold" and "outpost of Islamic combatants". The allegations were followed by attempts of customs blockade. Reacting to the allegations, Russian state-run RTR aired an investigative program revealing that Transnistrian firms were conducting industrial-level manufacturing of small arms purposely for subsequent illegal trafficking via the Ukrainian port of Odessa. According to the program, the trade was controlled by and benefited from Transnistria's founder and then-ruler Igor Smirnov.[19]
However, more recent investigations and monitoring missions did not prove continuity in arms trafficking concerns. According to regular reports of the European Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM), there have been no signs of significant weapons smuggling from Transnistria.[citation needed] During the press-conference on 30 November 2006 head of EUBAM Ferenc Banfi officially stated that organised smuggling of weapons in Transnistria did not exist.[20] In 2013, Ukrainian Foreign Minister and acting chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Leonid Kozhara gave an interview to El País, commenting on situation in Transnistria and results of work of the EUBAM mission. According to Kozhara, there have been no cases of arms traffic found.[21]
Some experts from Russia and Transnistria state that allegations of Transnistria being a "mafia state", "black hole of Europe", "heaven for arms trafficking", etc. are a carefully planned defamation campaign paid by the Moldovan government and aimed at producing negative image of Transnistria.[22] Officials from the European Union and the OSCE, say they have no evidence that the Tiraspol regime has ever trafficked arms or nuclear material. Much of the alarm is attributed to efforts by the Moldovan government to increase pressure on Transnistria.[23]
Russia
The term has been used by slain Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko and media to describe the political system in Russia under Vladimir Putin's rule.[24][25][26] This characterization came to prominence following the United States diplomatic cables leak, which revealed that US diplomats viewed Russia as "a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a 'virtual mafia state.'"[27] In his book titled Mafia State, journalist and author Luke Harding argues that Putin has "created a state peopled by ex-KGB and FSB officers, like himself, [who are] bent on making money above all."[28] In the estimation of American diplomats, "the government [of Russia] effectively [is] the mafia."[29][30][31] Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen has also described Russia as a "mafia state".[32]
According to the New Statesman, "the term had entered the lexicon of expert discussion" several years before the cables leak, "and not as a frivolous metaphor. Those most familiar with the country had come to see it as a kleptocracy with Vladimir Putin in the role of capo di tutti capi, dividing the spoils and preventing turf wars between rival clans of an essentially criminal elite."[33] In 2008, Stephen Blank noted that Russia under Putin is "a state that European officials privately call a Mafia state" that "naturally gravitates toward Mafia-like behavior."[34]
Nikolay Petrov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Centre, said "it's pretty hard to damage the Russian image in the world because it's already not very good".[35]
Syria
For more than half a century, Syria has been under the tight grip of Assad dynasty and its ruling system has been described as a mafia state.[36] Due to the Syrian economy being dominated by businessmen tied to Assad family, control of various services like electricity by loyalist warlords, etc. more than 90% of Syrians are stricken by poverty. The regime also profits from a multi-billion dollar captagon industry, made of a network consisting of over 35 manufacturing centres and factories, known as the "Syndicate" (Niqabeh).[37] Assad's wife Asma stripped the assets of pro-Assad billionaire Rami Makhlouf and subsequently took control of all foreign charities and UN aid money; enabling the Assads to directly own revenue money. The fall of Rami Makhlouf led to widespread characterisations of Assad acting as a crime boss presiding over "a crime syndicate simply designed to enrich himself and his family", deploying violence to advance the interests of his mafia.[38] Businessman Ribal al-Assad, a cousin of Bashar al-Assad who lives in exile outlines the situation:
"When it’s all boiled down, the family is still in charge.. They are very sensitive to internal issues and they know how to manage them. They have a saying: ‘You may not have to listen to your cousins, but you do need to listen to their mothers.”[39]
Various academics compare Assad's reign to tribal rule; with Assad as the tribal chieftain glorified by the system and extolled as its saviour. Syrian-French Professor of Sociology Burhan Ghalioun asserts that Bashar al-Assad doesnt see Syrians as an independent people, but rather as guests in his family property. Hence, Assad's dictatorship is akin to the colonial project of an invading empire, according to Ghalioun.[40][41] Syrian historian Rana Kabbani designates Assad's dynastic rule as "internal colonialism" owing to the deep disconnect of the regime's post-colonial ruling classes from its native population and their blatant disregard for Syrian wealth and lives.[42][43] Describing how neo-Ba'athist ideologues and Assadist security apparatus constructed a totalitarian state built around cult of personality to the Assad dynasty, Rana Kabbani writes:
"When Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, came to power through yet another violent army squabble leading to his coup of 1970, an alarming cult of the leader was systematically formed around him, modelled on Ceausescu. The Romanian dictator was Assad's political ally, strategic adviser in matters of popular repression, and close personal and family friend...In the government school I attended in Damascus between 1971 and 1974, a process of wholesale brainwashing had begun. It was designed to create a population with no political personality or affiliation – other than to the head of what would become, in my children's generation, a vindictive family mafia, monopolising business and power with the crudest of propaganda machines and the most lethal of security services."[44]
Mexico
![[icon]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2020) |
The scholar of Law and Economics Edgardo Buscaglia describes the political system of Mexico as a "Mafiacracy". Buscaglia characterises the condition between the state, the economy and organized crime in Mexico as a mutual interweaving,[45] Mexico has also been labeled as a Narco-state (a political and economic term applied to countries where all legitimate institutions become penetrated by the power and wealth of the illegal drug trade).[46]
Other
Venezuela under President Hugo Chávez has also been evaluated as creating the conditions for President Nicolás Maduro to consolidate a "mafia state", according to political scientists in Policy Studies in 2021.[47] Moisés Naím, Venezuelan writer and the author of Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats Are Hijacking the Global Economy, wrote in an article for the American magazine Foreign Policy: "In mafia states such as Bulgaria, Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Venezuela, the national interest and the interests of organised crime are now inextricably intertwined."[48]
During the 1990s, Aruba, an overseas constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, was alleged to be a mafia state under then Prime Minister Henny Eman. The Sicilian Cuntrera-Caruana Mafia clan was said to "own" over 60% of the island through investments in hotels, casinos, and donations towards Eman's election-campaign. These claims later turned out to be exaggerated, however.[49][50]
According to journalist Masha Gessen in 2016, sociologist Bálint Magyar had popularized the term "mafia state" to describe the administration of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Magyar argued that Orbán's method of taking power in Hungary, removing rivals and politicizing institutions for personal power created a kind of regime known as a "mafia state". Magyar said that besides Hungary, other such states included Azerbaijan, Russia, and Kazakhstan as of 2016.[32]
In 2010, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had labelled Switzerland as a mafia state, stating that "Switzerland is behaving like a criminal organisation and it is involved in money laundering, assassinations and terrorism."[51]
Jonathan Benton, the former head of a United Kingdom anti-corruption agency, described Malta as a "mafia state" where money laundering transactions of hundreds of millions of euros are made every year without any problem. He made this statement while speaking on BBC radio following the murder of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.[52]
See also
Related concepts
- Mafia Raj
- Counterintelligence state
- Police state
- Narco-state
- Failed state
- Terrorist state
- North Korea's illicit activities
- Kleptocracy
References
- Ltd, Allied Newspapers. "Ex-British anti-corruption boss dubs Malta 'mafia state'". Times of Malta. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
Further reading
- Luke Harding (2012). Mafia State: How One Reporter Became an Enemy of the Brutal New Russia. Guardian Books. ISBN 978-0-85265-249-7.
- Naím, M. (2012). "Mafia states: Organized crime takes office." Foreign Affairs, 91, 100.
- Wang, P. & Blancke, S. (2014). "Mafia State: The Evolving Threat of North Korean Narcotics Trafficking." The RUSI Journal. 159 (5). 52–59.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_state
The regimiento, cabildo de regidores or concejo cerrado ("closed council") was a system of local government established from the 14h century onwards in the Crown of Castile.[1] A feature of the progressive oligarchization of the form of government in the cities, the change from the overruled concejo abierto system entailed a reduction of the government to a relatively small number of regidores.[2] Urban oligarchies intended to fully capture the nomination of the regidores (appointed by the monarch in the case of realengo) since the beginning.[2] The bulk of the establishment of the new regime chiefly took place between 1345 and the later years of the reign of Alfonso XI of Castile.[3]
See also
References
- Citations
- Monsalvo Antón 1990, pp. 259–260.
- Bibliography
- Jara Fuente, José Antonio (2007). "Estructuras formales de poder y de organización de las clases dominantes urbanas en Castilla el regimiento: una crisis del siglo XIV en el siglo XV" (PDF). Edad Media: Revista de Historia (8): 225–241. ISSN 1138-9621.
- López Villalba, José Miguel (1992). "Concejo abierto, regimiento y corregimiento en Guadalajara (1346-1546)" (PDF). Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie III, Historia Medieval. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. 5: 65–84. ISSN 0214-9745.
- Maser, Matthias (2019). "Conquered Cities: Continuity and Transformation of Urban Structures in the Castilian 'Reconquista' Territories (11th–14th Centuries)—Toledo and Seville". In Panzram, Sabine (ed.). The Power of Cities: The Iberian Peninsula from Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period. Leiden & Boston: BRILL. pp. 201–246. ISBN 9789004399693.
- Monsalvo Antón, José María (1990). "La sociedad política en los concejos castellanos de la Meseta durante la época del Regimiento medieval. La distribución social del poder" (PDF). Concejos y ciudades en la Edad Media hispánica (II Congreso de la Fundación Sánchez-Albornoz, León, 1989). pp. 359–413.
  | This Spanish history–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regimiento
A business oligarch is generally a business magnate who controls sufficient resources to influence national politics.[1][2] A business leader can be considered an oligarch if the following conditions are satisfied:
- uses monopolistic tactics to dominate an industry;
- possesses sufficient political power to promote their own interests;
- controls multiple businesses, which intensively coordinate their activities.[2]
More generally, an oligarch (from Ancient Greek ὀλίγος (oligos) 'few', and ἄρχειν (archein) 'rule') is a "member of an oligarchy; a person who is part of a small group holding power in a state".[3]
See also
References
- "oligarch". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
 | This business-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_oligarch
Category:Social groups
| Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories. |
Subcategories
This category has the following 34 subcategories, out of 34 total.
- Social groups by country (9 C)
A
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_groups
- Artist groups and collectives (16 C, 29 P)
C
- Cults (16 C, 117 P)
E
- Évolués (12 P)
G
- Grouping (22 C, 14 P)
I
- Inca society (1 C, 8 P)
M
- Movements (8 C, 2 P)
N
- Nobility (32 C, 36 P)
O
- Organized crime (18 C, 30 P)
P
- Group processes (17 C, 163 P)
S
- Subcultures (42 C, 108 P)
T
- Teams (4 C, 19 P)
U
- User groups (3 C, 31 P)
Pages in category "Social groups"
The following 84 pages are in this category, out of 84 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
*
C
M
P
S
T
W
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_groups
Elitism is the belief or notion that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people perceived as having an intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, power, notability, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.[1] The term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. Beliefs that are in opposition to elitism include egalitarianism, anti-intellectualism, populism, and the political theory of pluralism.
Elite theory is the sociological or political science analysis of elite influence in society: elite theorists regard pluralism as a utopian ideal.
Elitism, closely related to social class and what sociologists term "social stratification". In modern Western societies, social stratification is typically defined in terms of three distinct social classes: the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class.[2]
Some synonyms for "elite" might be "upper-class" or "aristocratic", indicating that the individual in question has a relatively large degree of control over a society's means of production. This includes those who gain this position due to socioeconomic means and not personal achievement. However, these terms are misleading when discussing elitism as a political theory, because they are often associated with negative "class" connotations and fail to appreciate a more unbiased exploration of the philosophy.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Characteristics
Attributes that identify an elite vary; personal achievement may not be essential. Elite status can be based on personal achievement, such as degrees from top-rate universities or impressive internships and job offers, as well as on lineage or passed-on fame from parents or grandparents.[citation needed]
As a term, "elite" usually describes a person or group of people who are members of the uppermost class of society, and wealth can contribute to that class determination. Personal attributes commonly purported by elitist theorists to be characteristic of the elite include: rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline (e.g., medicine or law) or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field; a high degree of physical discipline.[citation needed]
Elitists tend to favor social systems such as meritocracy, technocracy and plutocracy as opposed to political egalitarianism and populism. Elitists believe only a few "movers and shakers" truly change society, rather than the majority of people who only vote and elect the elites into power.[4]
Elitism can not be entirely defined in one nature. Its interpretations broaden over time and communities or groups can create their own interpretations of elitism. The common characteristic among all these forms of elitism is that it shows some form of heavy inferiority-superiority.
See also
References
- "Elite (elitist) theory". auburn.edu. Auburn University. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
External links
- Deresiewicz, William (June 2008). The Disadvantages of an Elite Education. "Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers." The American Scholar. Review of William Deresiewicz's book Excellent Sheep (April 2015), Foreign Affairs
| Authority control: National |
|---|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Category:Post-Soviet states
- Republic of Artsakh (20 C, 21 P)
C
- Communist parties in the former Soviet Union (12 C, 8 P)
D
- Derussification (1 C, 11 P)
H
N
- Neo-Sovietism (4 C, 43 P)
P
- Post-Soviet conflicts (12 C, 31 P)
Pages in category "Post-Soviet states"
The following 48 pages are in this category, out of 48 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
A
C
L
R
S
U
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-Soviet_states
In economics, shock therapy is a group of policies intended to be implemented simultaneously in order to liberalize the economy, including liberalization of all prices, privatization, trade liberalization, and stabilization via tight monetary policies and fiscal policies. In the case of post-Communist states, it was implemented in order to transition from a command economy to a market economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)
Category:Privatization
Subcategories
This category has the following 12 subcategories, out of 12 total.
- Privatization by continent (6 C)
C
- Privatization controversies (13 P)
F
- Privatization funds (4 P)
P
- Public–private partnership (4 C, 31 P)
R
- Privatisation referendums (10 P)
S
- Security companies (7 C, 14 P)
W
- Water privatization (2 C, 11 P)
Pages in category "Privatization"
The following 20 pages are in this category, out of 20 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
69.6%
.svg)
77.7%
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_2.png)
.jpg)
![Turkmenistan Serdar Berdimuhamedow President of Turkmenistan[44]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serdar_Berdimuhamedow_(2022-06-10).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
No comments:
Post a Comment