Research Paper on Theocracy

Throughout history, thousands of people have claimed deity status- or at least to be in direct communication with a denominational higher power. When such individuals are given political leadership, a theocracy is created. Through exploring both western and eastern implementations of theocracy, the detrimental effects of the practice become obvious. In such, we arrive at the conclusion that the implementation of theocracy is unjust. 

Theocracy can safely be defined as the following; “By theocracy we generally mean a form of government that is exercised under divine authority, i.e., a government which recognizes God as the supreme ruler in civic affairs and accepts His Revelation– interpreted by His representatives— as the basis on which state and society should be built. In a theocracy God is proclaimed as the sovereign of the state, represented on earth by his vicegerent, the ruler” (Khalid).  The term can be used both evidently and speculatively to define numerous systems of government throughout history. In the pursuit of solidifying theocracy as an unjust practice, we must start by analyzing the longest-standing and most successful theocratic government, that of Vatican City. Vatican City has been theocratic for about as long as the Catholic pope has resided in the Vatican palace. Politically, the government can be described as one that minds its own business- quite unusually so considering its theocratic bias. So, why is the Vatican city-state different from most theocracies? In short, it boils down to execution and population. Just around 800 people reside in the area, reflected by the 8 crucial members of the Vatican government. Seven of the eight, while appointed by the pope, are not claimed to be deities. These seven balance out the power of the pope, and make sure that the (usually insignificant, but existing) political decisions of the city-state are just. This system of checks and balances is not reflected in the commonly existing mob-mentality-type theocracy that we will explore, which contributes to the neutrality of Vatican city. So while theocracy, like any system of government, can prove mildly successful in sparsely populated or small areas, the injustice of the practice can be construed from larger scale implementations. 

Growing up in the United States, the idea of theocracy is extremely foreign- it goes against fundamental American values. ‘American-theocratic culture shock’ is a recent phenomenon, however; British settlers, as hypocritical as it may seem, were eager to develop theocratic political systems within the colonies. Despite a number of settlers leaving England for the very same practice, utilizing the tactics under their own religions’ order gave them a sense of true American freedom (unless you happened to be a Quaker in Massachusetts, of course). The Massachusetts Bay Colony is arguably the most notorious example of American theocracy. Founded by Puritans, for Puritans, under the rule of Puritans, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was not kind to outsiders. The only way to gain political power within the colony was to extraneously prove your devotion to the congregation, the details of which decided at random by pre-existing political figures. Already, this creates a system of unchecked power where anyone can be made to do anything under the guise of ‘proving their faith to the Lord.’ The colony’s second political strike was their corporal punishment of Quaker missonaries. Wandering Quaker missionaries who ended up in Massachusetts often found themselves with a hole in the tongue or a missing ear upon exit. Eventually, the Puritans had found themselves even more fed up with the mere presence of these people and established the death penalty for Quaker missionaries who entered the colony. The theocratic system in place within the colony allowed these religiously-fueled hate crimes to occur. Hundreds of Quakers died in the Massachusetts Bay Colony within the span of four years- numbers large enough to startle King Charles II. It was 1661, and the king could still tell the settlers what to do- and in a very American fashion (for a Restoration era English king) he passed a new charter restricting religious-based laws. Of course, doing so allowed him to be in control of the colony again, and all oaths were newly required to be taken to the king (instead of the government of Massachusetts). The action taken by the king, while most likely a last ditch effort to regain control, destroyed the theocratic version of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, not only spreading religious tolerance, but saving the lives of many. This American system of theocracy not only killed hundreds of people, but set us back a few steps in terms of early colonial independence, a setback that can only be attributed to the ineffectiveness of theocracy. 

The most obvious forms of theocracy seemingly lie in the Middle East.Theocracy is a broad term- used as an umbrella for almost any form of religiously influenced government. Nomocracy describes a government operating under rule of law. A 2020 “International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding” article arguing the presence of an Islamic nomocracy argues the following;  “…the principles of Islamic nomocracy including the principle of power as 1) trust, 2) the principle of equality, 3) the principle of recognition and protection of every human rights, 3) the principle of deliberation, 4) the principle of justice, 5) principles of the free trial, 6) principles of peace, 7) principles of welfare and so on. As for the constitutional state of Pancasila, it is based on the values a) divinity, b) humanity, c) integrity, deliberation, and justice.” Islamic principles, no doubt, but it does not account for the numerous ways in which religion both interferes with and outvalues such. If the protection of religion fuels a nation’s wars, is it not inherently a theocratic one? Protection of principles differs heavily from protection of denomination in western societies, but when religion and ethnic identity go hand and hand, like that of Islam, protection embodies both the secular and non-secular. In this, there is little civilian choice. The choice to prioritize values over denomination is unavailable, while the opposite is encouraged. In the context of Islamic theocracy, injustice is perpetuated by such. 

The fight against theocracy is inherently a liberal one. The Oxford definition of liberal is such: “Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.” The pursuit of religious freedom embodies the basic definition of liberal. So to go about solidifying theocracy as an unjust practice without political bias, our final exploration will be that of an inherently liberal philosophy. Is an atheist theocracy possible? This question embodies one of the toughest questions in history- what makes a religion? Eduard Heimann, a prevalent German socialist argued Marxism to be inherently religious, and the implementation of such in government as theocratic. Isn’t Marxism inherently a scientific argument? Well, in the words of Heimann: “Marxist doctrine is not scientific, despite all the ingenious sociological analyses it includes. In terms of method, Marxism as a whole is strictly dogmatic, that is, it cannot be verified or refuted by scientific methods. It is religious in the dual sense that it appeals to souls searching for a faith, and that it makes this appeal by teaching a coherent, all-inclusive objective structure of the world and of man’s mission in it– a supra-rational interpretation of man’s position in the whole of life.” Isn’t a “supra-rational interpretation of man’s position in the whole of life” a religion? At its core, religion embodies an outlet for the expression of the human need for purpose, just as Marxism does. Communism is liberal, yes, but Marxism does not embody all of communism. In Marxism, the faults of Capitalism are blamed entirely on the ownership of private property. In defining power as the ownership of private property. Playing along, if no private property is owned, no power can be abused, and everything is right in the world, right? Well, it seems obvious  that power comes from much more than a lackey of private property. In such a definition, Marxism creates yet another theocratic system of unchecked power by undermining the source of power. Followers of Marxism tend to be anti-religious, and in presenting the theory as the full scientific truth, it can be accepted by such individuals, despite having the same base intention, both in practice and in theory as religion. An atheist theocracy, on the basis of Marxism, is entirely possible. In the words of Eduard Heimann, “Marxism, anti-religious in intention, becomes pseudo-religious in essence and counterreligious in form; and being materialistic, it embodies itself in atheist theocracy.” 

Each implementation of theocracy we have explored is deeply ineffective in similar ways. Within theocracy, power is unchecked, freedom of choice is obstructed, and there is an absurd amount of room left for atrocity. Theocratic injustice is prevalent in all denominations, regions of the world, and even within seemingly anti-religious implementations of theocracy. Conclusively, the implementation of theocracy, whatever form it may take, is unjust.