This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details.

This article is part of the Politics series

Forms of government

List of government types

Anarchy Aristocracy Authoritarianism Autocracy Communist state Confederation Corporatocracy Consociationalism Demarchy Democracy Direct Representative Consensus Despotism Dictatorship Military/Military junta Epistemocracy Ethnic democracy Ethnocracy Exilarchy Fascism Federation Feudalism Gerontocracy Kleptocracy Kratocracy Kritocracy/Kritarchy Logocracy Meritocracy Geniocracy Minarchism/Night Watchman Monarchy Absolute Constitutional/Limited Diarchy/Co-Kingship Noocracy Ochlocracy/Mobocracy Oligarchy Panarchism Plutocracy Puppet state Republic Crowned Capitalist Constitutional Federal Parliamentary Federal Socialist state Sociocracy Technocracy Cyberocracy Netocracy Thalassocracy Theocracy Islamic state Theodemocracy Timocracy Totalitarianism Tribal Chiefdom Tyranny

Politics portal

v • d • e

Ethnocracy is a form of government where representatives of a particular ethnic group hold a number of government posts disproportionately large to the percentage of the total population that the particular ethnic group(s) represents and use them to advance the position of their particular ethnic group(s) to the detriment of others.

The minority ethnic groups are systematically discriminated against by the state and may face repressions or violations of human rights at the hands of state organs. Ethnocracy can also be a political regime which is instituted on the basis of qualified rights to citizenship, and with ethnic affiliation (defined in terms of race, descent, religion, or language) as the distinguishing principle.

Generally, the raison d'être of an ethnographic government is to secure the most important instruments of state power in the hands of a specific ethnic collectivity. All other considerations concerning the distribution of power are ultimately subordinated to this basic intention. Ethnocracies are generally considered to be non-democratic in nature.°

Ethnocracies are characterised by their control system – the legal, institutional, and physical instruments of power deemed necessary to secure ethnic dominance. The degree of system discrimination will tend to vary greatly from case to case and from situation to situation. If the dominant group (whose interests the system is meant to serve and whose identity it is meant to represent) constitutes a small minority (20% or less) of the population within the state territory, extreme degrees of institutionalised suppression will probably be necessary to sustain the status quo.

The other side of the coin might well be a system of full-fletched democracy (inclusive and competitive in Robert Dahl's terminology) for the privileged population, making up what Pierre van den Berghe (1981) calls "Herrenvolk democracy" (with reference to apartheid South Africa). This is a system of ethnocracy which offers democratic participation to the dominant group only.

Contents 1 Israel 2 South Africa 3 Uganda 4 Estonia 5 Latvia 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit] Israel

In his book Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine, Israeli geographer Oren Yiftachel refers to a strategy of "Judaization" as the primary manifestation of ethnocracy in Israel/Palestine. ^[1]. Similar references have also been made to the Palestinian Territories^[2].

[edit] South Africa

Ethnocracy indicates a specific principle of power-distribution in a society. In his book Power-Sharing in South Africa ^[3], Arend Lijphart classifies contemporary constitutional proposals for a solution to the conflict in South Africa into four categories:

• majoritarian (one man, one vote)
• non-democratic (varieties of white domination)
• partitionist (creating new political entities)
• consociational (power-sharing by proportional representation and elite accommodation) (1985:5)

Not surprisingly, Lijphart argues strongly in favour of the consociational model and his categories illustrates that, on the constitutional level, state power can be distributed along two dimensions: Legal-institutional and territorial.

Along the legal-institutional dimension we can distinguish between singularism (power centralised according to membership in a specific group), pluralism (power-distribution among defined groups according to relative numerical strength), and universalism (power-distribution without any group-specific qualifications). The three main alternatives on the territorial dimension are the unitary state, "intermediate restructuring" (within one formal sovereignty), and partition (creating separate political entities). Ethnocracy indicates a specific principle of power-distribution in a society.

[edit] Uganda

Uganda under dictator Idi Amin Dada has also been described as an ethnocracy favouring certain indigenous groups over others, as well as for the ethnic cleansing of Indians in Uganda by Amin.^[4]

[edit] Estonia

There is a spectrum of opinion among authors as to the classification of Estonia, spanning from Liberal or Civic Democracy ^[5][6] through Ethnic democracy^[7] to Ethnocracy. Will Kymlicka regards Estonia as a democracy, stressing the peculiar status of Russian-speakers, stemming from being at once partly transients, partly immigrants and partly natives.^[8] British researcher Neil Melvin concludes that Estonia is moving towards a genuinely pluralist democratic society through its liberalization of citizenship and actively drawing of leaders of the Russian settler communities into the political process.^[9] Israeli researchers Oren Yiftachel and As’ad Ghanem consider Estonia as an ethnocracy^[10][11]. Israeli sociologist Sammy Smooha, of the University of Haifa, disagrees with Yiftachel, contending that the ethnocratic model developed by Yiftachel does not fit the case of Estonia; it is not a settler society as its core ethnic group is indigenous, nor did it expand territorially or have a diaspora intervening in its internal affairs as in the case of Israel for which Yiftachel originally developed his model.^[12]

James Hughes, in the United Nations Development Programme's Development and Transition, criticizes Estonia, described by unstated sources as a case of ‘ethnic democracy’ where the state has been captured by the titular ethnic group and then used to promote ‘nationalising’ policies and discrimination against Russophone minorities.^[7] (Development and Transition has also published papers disputing Hughes' contentions.)

[edit] Latvia

Although ethnic Latvians comprise only 58% of the population of Latvia, 92% of all officials are ethnic Latvians.^[13]

[edit] See also

• Ethnic nationalism
• Dominant minority
• Ethnic elite
• Superstratum
• Nationalism
• South Africa under apartheid
• Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Politics of Ethnocracies: Strategies and Dilemmas of Ethnic Domination Nils A. Butenschøn