Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The term theocracy was coined by Flavius Josephus in the 1st century CE to label a political system in which political rule is exercised by the clergy or other religious officials deemed as representatives of God on earth. This entry discusses the meaning of the term theocracy and its presence in various religions, historically and in the present. Theocracies have existed throughout the world at various points in history, not only in the Catholic and Islamic worlds but also in contexts as varied as that of the early Mormons in the United States, under Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and in Tibet from the 13th until the mid-20th centuries. After describing the concept of theocracy in various religions, this entry further explores the meaning of theocracy through the example of the role of the Russian Orthodox Church. It concludes with questions about whether political society in general presupposes some broadly theocratic foundation.

The Concept of Theocracy in Various Religious Contexts

In the strict sense of the term, theocracy is not parallel to the categories of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. One would indeed be at a loss if one wanted to situate God, who certainly is not of this world, in a concrete political function of any kind.

The word theocracy has, however, a real history, related to the justifications given by both ecclesiastical and secular authorities for the imposition of their views in the political sphere or in some aspects of it. There is a theocratic aspect to a given viewpoint if it is presented as indisputable because it is derived from a scripture deemed religious, or sacred, such as the Bible or the Koran, or from an assertion coming from a religious authority not recognized as competent in the political sphere. The latter is the case with fatwas, the decrees proclaimed by one form or other of Islamic authority, an ulema or a college of ulemas, even if it is on the other hand affirmed that in Islam there is no authority of any kind above the individual believer's reading of the Koran.

During the Middle Ages, the removal of a king or an emperor by a pope could also be termed an act with a theocratical basis, since papal sovereignty gave the pope indirect power over the political sphere. Another example is the pope's authority to intervene in the case of sin (ratione peccati) when there is a question of morality.

On the other hand, some princes and some kings, especially those who were the objects of quasi-sacramental coronations, seemed to be invested with a divine right proper; there was something theocratic about them, their power, and their commands. One may wonder whether this form of pretension still exists today anywhere. It may have been the case, probably, with the Japanese emperor until after World War II. The present Iranian regime, in which the final authority lies with an ayatollah (presently Seyed Ali Khamenei), can in some real sense be termed theocratic, and the same applies, with the differences specific to the Sunni world, to the Wahhabi monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Today's jihadist movement advocates the restoration of the caliphate system, abolished almost a century ago by Atatürk at the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading