Definition: Theocracy

 

Most literally, "theocracy" means "rule by God," but in practice always takes the form of political rule by clergy, who claim to speak for God.  (Not very surprisingly, politically ambitious clergymen are often strong supporters of the concept.)

Theocratic rule is rarely democratic,  and indeed has exhibited anti-democratic proclivities, as in principle it acknowledges no political authority aside from that claimed to be derived directly from God.  (By contrast, in democracies, authority derives exclusively from the consent of the governed.)  Theocracy is thus also strongly disposed to be authoritarian and autocratic (as we find today, for example, in Iran).  Rarely, however, more positive forms have emerged, such as the rule of Tibet by the Dalai Lama. 

Contemporary advocates of theocracy include a significant number of Christian fundamentalist clergymen and laypersons, who argue, with some

  

 

plausibility, that America is far gone into moral decline.  (Having forgotten that "the love of money is the root of all evil", this decline is absurdly attributed instead to the much-scapegoated secular humanists. However, both secular and religious humanists are actually advocates of a morality grounded in reason and compassion, and are themselves greatly concerned with the moral decline of America, which they believe is more plausibly attributed to materialism and to the laissez faire economics advocated by "conservative" plutocrats.)  That Christian fundamentalist entrepreneurs would benefit economically from theocratic rule (as they have already benefitted economically from their numerous churches and radio and television ministries) generally goes unmentioned, as does the fact that any form of theocracy is fundamentally unconstitutional, and profoundly un-American.  Ignored as well are the mostly baneful examples of theocratic rule provided by history,

 

such as that of the hyper-corrupt, pre-Reformation Catholic church of the 15th and 16th centuries, and the experience of "witch" burning in the US.

Also worrying to those who have some knowledge of this period are the obvious, and chilling, comparisons to be made with such fanatical figures of that era as Torquemada (who organized the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition and was responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, all in God's name). 

It is something of a historical irony that the Progressives of the 1930s, who criticized and effectively reformed the corruption of their era (which was also due primarily to materialism and laissez faire) were largely reform-minded Christian liberals.

Perhaps the most credible argument advanced by advocates of theocracy is the idea that the institutions of society ought to reflect the values of that society.  However, it is a matter of historical record that  this worthy aim has

 

very, very rarely been achieved by theocracies, and never for any length of time.  Far more common is the corruption of an ever more wealthy and powerful clergy, the institutionalization of the views of one particular sect, the persecution of anyone perceived as not belonging to that sect (a role already played today by secular humanists, and sometimes even by Catholics and Jews), and the entanglement of the state in the interpretation and legal enforcement of religious doctrine.

A final irony is that many fundamentalists claim that, in a Christian nation, ruled in all three branches of government by sympathetic conservatives, they are somehow persecuted for their beliefs, when in actuality they have failed to understand, or don't wish to understand, that the wall of separation of church and state acts to protect freedom of conscience from state intrusion.)