Ideocracy
Ideocracy (a
Every government has ideological bases from which assumptions and policies are drawn; ideocracies are governments wherein one dominant ideology has become deeply ingrained into politics and generally politics has become deeply ingrained into all or most aspects of society. The ideology of an ideocracy presents itself as an absolute, universal, and supreme system for understanding social life, much as a
Analysis
An ideocracy may take a
According to Piekalkiewicz and Penn, in addition, an ideocracy such as a strict religious state or Nazi Germany, will suppress scientific research and knowledge if it conflicts with the ideology,[7] Piekalkiewicz and Penn, argue that every state is either organic (the organized expression of a community, within which all individuals are dependent and subsumed, as the fingers belong to the body), or mechanical/pragmatic (an artificial concept in which individuals have rights against the state and are co-equal). As Adlai Stevenson II has said, "Since the beginning of time governments have been engaged in kicking people around. The astonishing achievement in modern times is the idea that citizens should do the kicking".[8]
Ideocracies derive
Citizens of pluralist states may emigrate freely, but those who leave an ideocracy may be branded as traitors.[12]
Psychological aspects
Individuals within ideocracies develop an
A small minority of self-actualisers, tolerant of ambiguity, are able to resist the monistic belief system and continue to search long-term for new ideas and complex answers.[16]
Inception, stabilization, and evolution
According to Piekalkiewicz and Penn, ideocracies rise and fall in the following manner:
- Inception
- Civil war: As in the USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia. In order to establish the ideocracy, there must be a ruthless charismatic leader: a Lenin, Mao, Castro, Tito.[17]
- Takeover: Usually a political party with a determined leader ("the leader is the movement")[18] takes power by coup d'état, which creates a bandwagon effect:[19] as in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany,[20] and in Iran.[21]
- In an isolated colony: e.g., White South Africa, and the Puritans of New England[22]
- Stabilization
This usually takes 10–15 years. The leader is no longer a Prophet, but is now deified. There is a purge of followers, and bureaucratization of the state and party.[23] The economy is nationalized, and totally mobilized in support of the ideocracy.[24] There will be scapegoating of enemies and terrorizing of dissidents.[25]
- Evolution
- Self-destruction. One or more of the following may cause decline. The ideocracy may split into 'warring camps'. It may be ended by a military coup, as in
- Peaceful erosion. A new generation matures which is less fervent and more tolerant of pluralism. Technological developments and artistic expression (for example, the plays of Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia) erode faith in the ideology. The leadership become a less-effective self-serving, careerist elite.[27]
- Regeneration may prevent or postpone collapse. The ideology is rethought and adapted, or replaced by a completely new set of ideals.Lech Walesa's Solidarity Trade Union leading to a military coup and authoritarian military rule. Romanian communism ended abruptly in 1989 and again the military took over, trying and executing Ceaușescu.[29]
History
From ancient history to the 20th century
Piekalkiewicz and Penn described
According to
The populist form of ideocracy has been an important force in Latin American political history, where many
21st century
Piekalkiewicz and Penn cite
See also
- Political religion
- Power politics
- Power Politics (Wight book)
- State collapse
References
- ^ Oxford English Dictionary.
- ISBN 978-0791422984.
- ISBN 978-1138848856.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 22.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 20, 182.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 8.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 182.
- ^ Quoted in Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation, Beacon Press, 1963, p. 292.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 39.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 49-50.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 217.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 189.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn , p 190-1
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn p 44-5
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p 52-5
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn , p56
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 128, 131.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 133.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 132.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 20, 182.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 135.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 136.
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p 140-1
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p142'4
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p145
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p149-53
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p154-61
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p163
- ^ Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p 221
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, SUNY Press, 1995, p. 3.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 131.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 150.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 152.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 177.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 170.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 116-17.
- ^ Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter six.
- ^ Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 7.
- ^ Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 8.
- ^ Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 9.
- ISBN 0-520-04260-3, pp. 9–10
- ISBN 0-8078-4368-7, p. 4.
- ^ Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 10.
- ^ Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 11.
- ^ Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 12.
- ^ Willfried Spohn, "Multiple Modernity", in Global Forces and Local Life-worlds, edited by Ulrike Schuerkens, Sage, 2004, pp. 81–83.
- ^ Gordon White, "Ideocracy in Decline", in China in the 1990s, edited by Robert Benewick, University of British Columbia [?], 1999, p. 30.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 171.
- ^ Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 216.
- ^ Peter Bernholz, Totalitarianism, Terrorism and Supreme Values, Springer, 2017, p. 4.