“”In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.
The historian Flavius Josephus coined the word theocracy (Greek θεοκρατία) in the 1st century CE — he used the term to describe the Judaean regime, as opposed to the Romansecular regime.[3]
“”I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be… It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated.
Theocracies, by necessity, introduce a class of clergy that acts independently of the ruling class. You better beg that the rulers and clergy are on friendly terms, because otherwise, the clergy will recruit a mob of civilians to declare war against the king's soldiers.[note 1]
Freedom of speech is also stifled, as it's unhealthy for a theocracy for the people to know that alternative views exist. (Heck, one doesn't even have the right to remain silent!)
In many theocracies, people are ruled by threats of punishment or promises of rewards in the afterlife; such religiousbeliefs are easy to exploit to keep people in line ("Pie in the sky when you die"[5]).
By receiving authority from gods, the ruling priest class (or anyone charitable enough to make righteous contributions) is essentially unaccountable.
As holy books are (supposedly) unchanging, anything that can be quote mined from them (whether they are in line with the context/spirit of such holy books or not) can and will be easily institutionalized. In addition, policies that come from (potentially) inconsistent quote mines would be difficult to resolve because they are from the same book(s), and emphasizing one over the other would stir up schisms within the religion. This seems to have a bizarre habit of occurring with the Supreme Court of the United States and the US Constitution, suggesting that Clarence Thomas is at work the doctrine of originalism may be even more religious in character than previously believed.
Progress and change can be hampered by adherence to holy books (to be fair, one can implement progress and change by rewritingreinterpreting the holy books, but most people don't care or have the time).
While modern economic policies can be implemented, they must constantly make reference to those holy books whenever they advocate a policy. This can be disastrous at any period where those economics lead to a crisis situation and where suggesting a different policy than the one which the holy books seem to advocate could resolve it. Of course, since you adhere to God and how he wants you to implement the economy, the only possible outcome would be that no economic crises will ever happen, and everything bad will promptly be attributed as "tests of faith".
2024 Iranian presidential election results by county. Pezeshkian won by running on a reformist platform.[6]
"Theodemocracy" is an idea put forward by Joseph Smith for his planned Mormon paradise. In a theodemocracy, people supposedly have many of the traditional rights of liberal democracy within the framework of rule by a single god (or religion).
In a broad sense, one could consider present-day Iran a theodemocracy, as many of the important government positions are elected, and many of the others are selected from people who are elected. For example, the President is directly elected (in theory at least), with no guarantee he won't steal the election, and the Supreme Leader is selected by the Assembly of Experts, and half are themselves popularly elected. The other half are chosen by the Supreme Leader, while all of the candidates (for not only the Assembly but Parliament and the Presidency) require approval from the Guardian Council, headed by the Supreme Leader. In practice, the Assembly has never questioned or removed any of the Supreme Leaders. The Supreme Leader has a lifetime term, and there have been only two since 1979. The Guardian Council also routinely disqualifies candidates they deem as being too reform-minded. The Guardian Council must approve bills passed by Parliament — it frequently vetoes them. While the Parliament has to appoint members of the Guardian Council, its members are nominated by the Supreme Leader and the head of the courts (himself appointed by the Supreme Leader). It is also the constitutional court, with control over the interpretation of the laws. Therefore, real power rests in the hands of unelected leaders.
So, in reality, Iran is what you'd expect theocracy to be like — it's not pretty. "Theodemocracy" is a bit like the Trojan Horse or a wall crack hidden by a picture frame. It might look good on the surface (to some, anyway), but the gift is an ambush and that crack is still there.
Russia, which claims itself to be the leader of the worldwide Christian nationalist movement. Also a hellhole due to effectively being the personal fiefdom of a deranged lunatic.
Uganda, a staunch Christian nationalist country with harsh theocratic laws.
The Vatican City, whose head of state is the Pope.
Afghanistan under the Taliban (1996-2001, 2021-), or what happens when Islamist terrorists take over a country. Some Christofascists, despite being Islamophobic, actually advocate taking a leaf out of this government's book.
Iran, under the very confusing regime of an Islamic Republic.
The Twelve Tribes of Israel (before becoming the United Kingdom of Israel)[10](note these entities are more myth than history, known only through unreliable Bible accounts, and may not have existed at all).
Unfortunately, there are fewer than one would think, with Wikipedia's list actually larger than the one on TV Tropes.[14] If books are your thing, Margaret Atwood didn't write The Handmaid's Tale for nothing.[note 2] In video games, check out the Covenant in Halo,[note 3] the anti-papal goodness of Final Fantasy X, Father Comstock's Columbia in BioShock Infinite,[note 4] the Holy Sacred Empire of Abel in Anima: Beyond Fantasy,[note 5] Eden's Gate in Far Cry 5,[note 6] Unitology in Dead Space,[note 7] and the Imperium of Man in Warhammer 40K.[note 8] The series His Dark Materials acts in part as a critique of theocracy. The 2020 fantasy cartoon The Owl House has the Boiling Isles function similar to a theocracy in that the ruler, Emperor Belos [note 9] claims to be acting under the "will of the Titan."
Islamofascism refers to the idea of supporting the establishment of either a Middle East-wide or a worldwide caliphate. This is somewhat related to the (actual) ideologies of Islamism and jihadism, although "Islamofascism" includes some purely fantastic elements. Islamists and fascists do have some things in common, among them their hatred of (((Them))).
The sectarian character of Islam, which kept many of the so-called "Islamofascists" from ever coming together in the first place (and actually has opened avenues of cooperation between the U.S. and some of the so-called "Islamofascists").
To say that this ignorance has been counter-productive for progress in the region is an understatement.[15]
The concept's relations to Islam and fascism are both tenuous since Islam and fascism historically had little to do with each other (Amin al-Husseini notwithstanding); however, the more extreme strains of Islamism can be seen as analogous to the form of authoritarian conservatism sometimes known as "clerical Fascism" — a variant of theocracy. Some states that might fit this pattern in the Middle East and North Africa are/were also receiving large sums of money in the form of foreign aid from the United States.[note 10]
Christopher Hitchens also questioned the term, preferring the less syncretic description "fascism with an Islamic face" where relevant (such as in the case of DAESH).
The threat of Islamofascism can be treated much the same as Christofascism — while genuine authoritarian Muslim ideologues are most common, genuine movements blending Islam and fascism can exist. A few examples are:
Erdogan’s regime in Turkey. His rule and tactics have been noted by scholars and educators on fascism to be a unique and indigenous version of Turkish fascism.
Ebrahim Raisi is another example, this time of Islamic fascism in Iran. Like his equally fascist predecessor Ahmadinejad, he employs massive antisemitism and Holocaust denial in his rhetoric.
Ba'athism could also be considered a loose example of Islamic fascism (with many of its members being culturally Muslim), though the movement and ideology itself is more so secular than Islamic.
The observation that in the West (particularly in the United States), there are demagogues who seek to replace the established secular governments with theocracies built on their version of Christianity. For example, dominionism.
Some examples that approach genuine Christofascism include:
Ann Coulter calling for the invasion of Israel Muslim countries and the forced conversion of their populations to Christianity.
Mike Huckabee, a US presidential candidate in 2008 and 2016, wishing to change the Constitution to conform to God's standards. i.e., to create a theocracy. He even tried to make a hero out of Kim Davis for her oh-so-very brave stance against homogays getting hitched and declared that it's totally OK to ignore laws that don't adhere to (his version of) "God's law".
New Force, a whole political party that advocates this.
However, Christofascism is often overblown (much like Islamofascism). Merely advocating Christianity or "Christian values" in the public sphere is not fascism — it is only when Christianity is forced onto non-Christians that it is Christofascism.
↑On Stories And Other Essays on Literature by C. S. Lewis (2017) HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 9780062565563. Page 116-117. "A Reply to Professor Haldane".
↑Compare: Perry-Jenkins, Danell (2011). "3: The Kingdom of our God". Faces of Religion: The Unveiling of The Children of God. Bloomington, Indiana: WestBow Press. p. 47. ISBN9781449717230. Retrieved 2017-08-13. The United Kingdom of Israel was first a theocracy (with God as King), but afterward a monarchy with Saul the first King in 1 Samuel 9.
↑Davidson, Ronald M. (2004). "Tibet". In Buswell Jr., Robert E. (ed.). Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Macmillan Reference. pp. 851–59. ISBN 978-0-02-865910-7.
↑P. Newton Singh (2015). "Ideas, Institutions and Social Change in Sikkim". In Singh, N.William; Malsawmdawngliana; Saichampuii Sailo (eds.). Becoming Something Else: Society and Change in India's North East. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 63. ISBN9781443886338. Retrieved 2017-08-13. Sikkim was once a theocratic state with institutions like a monarchy, feudalism ans Lamaism. Sikkim underwent change when liberal democracy, with principles of liberty, equality and citizenship, started penetrating the society during the 1960s. [...]Ultimately, the old institutions of theocracy collapsed and gave way to the introduction of new kinds of institutions, which are democratic elements in Sikkim.