Talk:Ethnocracy

Redirect?

"Ethnic democracy" redirects to this page and it really shouldn't they are 2 separate theories of government. Sammy Smooha came up with the "ethnic democracy" concept to reconcile the differences between an ethnocracy and democracy for Israel. Ethnocracy replaces the demos (everyone) in democracy with ethnos (an ethnic group) meaning that it is no longer a democracy. Although i don't entirely subscribe to his view, Smooha argues that although Israel is a Jewish state, run by and for the Jewish people, it has enough democratic characteristics (independent Judiciary, periodic elections etc.) for it to still be classed as a form of democracy rather than an ethnocracy or apartheid regime. There is obviously much debate about which Israel actually is, but the fact of the matter is that they are not the same type of system. - B Cook 87.194.21.65 19:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree. This article originally stated that "ethnocracy" and "ethnic democracy" was the same thing. I attempted to clean up this article, but obviously we need a separate article. Martintg 01:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Split into Ethnic democracy completed Martintg 01:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Israel?

Shouldn't Israel be mentioned as well ? A clear example of an ethnocracy ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.104.78 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 September 2006

Actually Israel is a very weak example considering the fact that Arabs hold portfolios in the government, serve in the knesset, vote and are deputy speakers in the partliament.

I think the section on Israel should be removed. Citizens of Israel have equal voting rights, and therefore Israel does not fit the definition of "ethnocracy". Just because some professor wrote a book saying otherwise doesn't justify a whole section of the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The section is well sourced and attributed. —Ashley Y 10:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though 20% of Israeli population is Arabic citizen, there is only 10% of Arab inside Knesset, due to democratic votes. Anyway, it is not ethnocracy. It is democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.144.70 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The elephant in the room here being that Israel employs ethno/religious criteria to immigration to manipulate the demographic of the state to begin with, using of the Law of Return (encouraging Jewish immigration) whilst simultaneously using the Absentee Law (to expropriate Arab property) and ensuring Palestinian refugees to not return to Israel "proper". It's really a case of "do you really think it'd be that obvious?". Israeli law rarely explicitly states a ethnocratic desire, but the way laws are always used to reinforce the "Israel is a Jewish state" mantra. And that's before we even get on to the issue of the fact that Arabs in the occupied territories have no democratic representation at all to the Knesset whilst the Jewish settlements in the OT full complete and full political rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.223.65 (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Many countries, including Japan, Germany, and Finland have laws which are designed to maintain the national character of the state, including favorable immigration laws for specific ethnicities. This is quite common, and Israel is not unique in this respect at all. See Right of Return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.215.226 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The piece on Israel is very poorly-written and biased. Firstly, the reference to 'Native Palestinian [sic]', which is a politically-loaded term that fails to take into account the substantial population of Jews in Palestine before mass Aliyah in the 19th century. Secondly, the pledge of allegiance has yet to be passed into law, and is by no means guaranteed to get passed into law. Thirdly, Israel has been officially a 'Jewish and democratic state' according to basic law for about as long as it has existed, and surely the piece should mention this and not simply the pledge? Finally, opposing points of view have obviously not been taken into account. I do support mentioning Israel in this article due to perceptions of Israel as an 'apartheid state', but absolutely not in this way.92.232.174.87 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only should Israel be mentioned under the list of current ethnocracies, but the section needs to be expanded, and also, the ridiculous Zionist propaganda arguing that it represents a "middle ground" between an ethnocracy and liberal democracy should be removed. Israel has been found to be an apartheid state by reputable international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) and Human Rights Watch (https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2021/04/israel_palestine0421_web_0.pdf).

Israel is therefore more accurately described as an extreme example of an ethnocracy.

For the same reason, Israel should be removed from the related article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ethnic_democracy

MathewMunro (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Syria

Don't forget the Alawite-controlled government of Syria which places fellow Alawites in key positions of power. Though nominally belonging to a quasi-Islamic religious sect, Alawites form a dominant minority who perceive themselves as a distinct ethnic group with a culture of their own. Since they do not impose their religious views on the larger society and instead uphold secular ideals, it would be improper to call Syria a "theocracy." I propose including Syria among other ethnocracies. The dominant Alawite role in the government and military has been a central issue in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDS2006 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

========================

You also miss a Mastodon in the room, and the elephant sits over him....Israel is a democracy built, aside all merits and efforts, in a "easy way"; not educating all people who live in a place to cohabit without racism and violence but, uhmmmmmm.......denying citizenship to the ones we don't like. That is, sending away an undesirable numerical majority of natives denying its natural citizenship rights in that land, according to rules applied anywhere else in post-colonial time. Eg, if you are born in India, be it in Tamil Nadu o Uttar Pradesh, under British rule, when India is independent you have citizenship and voting rights.

In Israel instead this is only given to a "controllable" minority of Arabs, which still seem a bit less privileged than the so engineered Jewish majority. Even if there is this minority of accepted Arabs that make you happy and cheerful, the mastodon remains: a large, PREDOMINANT chunk of the "natural" regional demos was kicked out for political reasons by a minority that made its own state and its own rules. Another large chunk (Palestinians in Gaza an West Bank) is locked out without citizenship and with limited freedoms. This is in contrast with a democracy based on "western" standards, especially because no viable, human-rights compliant alternative (eg, two states - see Slovakia and Czech Republic) was seriosly pursued. Israel is a democracy built and preserved with a substantial, habitual violation of contemporary citizenship attribution criteria and of human rights general charters. Denying it is fiction.

The current stability of the current Israeli democracy relies on the expulsion of a vast majority of former Arabic, non-Jewish inhabitants (as many as the current jewish population maybe more), as much as on the prohibition of their return. Ok, for the people who belong to it, it is a democracy; but the ethnic, numeric and social aspects of the DEMOS that had full international and customary rights to inhabit that land has been VIOLENTLY altered in preparation and during the cours of this democratic system. We all know that the Palestinians had a valid case to be citizens after the British independence if a single state was to be, and they would clearly, if allowed to vote, alter deeply the current nature of Israel (its democracy system itself included). Can you be proud of a democracy that excluded from the game most of the natives, putting it in the same league of SweDEN OR Switzerland (exact opposite) without being at least a bit in bad faith?

Enough many historians, I bet, agree it is a democracy made with XIX century methods, crafted kicking out / keeping under control the "wrong people", to make room to the current Israeli system of "right guys", which everyone knows / admits will always be "protected" from risks of Arab demgraphic takeover by propor political choices that preserve the desired ethnic balance (if you need quotations we will find some, but new settlements and Jerusalem construction strategy go in this direction)....

Since most other historic cases slaughtered all the natives, and Israel merely expelled them (and clearly did a bad job of it, considering 20% of people in Israel-proper are Arabs), sure, I'm proud. Also worth mentioning that the majority of them were expelled in a defensive war initiated by the other side, and there is good reason to believe no expulsions would have happened if not for the context of war, so really, I think the idea that the consequences of war rest with the aggressor is not entirely far-fetched.

Anyway, none of this rhetoric is a good argument for claiming that the state of Israel, the one that actually exists -- not the one that could have been -- is an ethnocracy. 64.244.215.226 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Latvia

Despite the fact that more 22% of the Latvian citizens are ethnic Russian speakers, not a single ethnic Russian speaker was working as a minister from the beginning 1990. Only some ethnic Russian speakers were holding top level positions in the governmental institutions. The lack of loyalty is mentioned as justification for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandonini (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion about Latvia. That is not only question of citizens and non-citizens. Lets take citizens only! A lot of Russian speakers are living for centuries in Latvia. In 2009 about 22% of all the CITIZENS are Russian speakers in Latvia. In the last 19 years there was 15 Cabinets of Ministers (in each more than 10 ministers). Not a single minister was ethnic Russian speaker. Russian speakers are politically labelled as "non-loyal", without any legal basis. Only some Russian speakers (like Aleksejs Losutovs) was working in the whole governmental sector at the top positions (yet there are no statistics about that). So, Russian speakers are heavily underrepresented. I am not putting references to the secondary source of information, but to the primary sources, like statistics. --Gandonini (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Malaysia

Malaysia is dominated by the ethnic Malay group which is only 50% of the population while Chinese and Indian minorities suffer official discrimination under the 'Malays first' policies that were enacted in1 1965. It should be included.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

By Anonymous Coward —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalaysianPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the demographic of Malaysia, Malays constitute of 50.4% of the population. Other Bumiputera is around 11%. 23.7% are Chinese, Indian 7.1%.

Approximately 60.4% Malaysians are Muslim, and according to the constitution, Malays are Muslims. Muslim of any race that speak Malay language and practice Malay custom is consider as Malays. Since most people assimilate to Malays culture and language, therefore, technically, 60.4% of Malaysian population are considered as Malays. Second generation of Chinese Muslim and Indian Muslim, are consider as Malays politically and constitutionally, even though they identify themselves as different race.

Under recent ruling Barisan National Government, there is 29 Ministers in Malaysia (including Prime minister and his deputy). 19 of them are Malays (66%); 6 Chinese (21%); 3 aborigines (10%) and 1 Indian (3%). This nearly proportional to the number of ethnic in Malaysia. Among 40 deputy minister, 20 are Malays (50%); 11 Chinese (27.5%), 5 aborigines(12.5%), 4 Indians (10%). The proportion of deputy minister isn't proportionate to ethnicity in Malaysia - there is only 50% Malays become deputy minister.

Total minister and deputy minister offices is 69. 39 Malays (56.52%), lower than demographic racial proportion 60.4%. 9 aborigines (13%) 17 Chinese (24.63%), and 5 Indian (7.25%).

The racial propotion of representative in House of Representative (lower house of Malaysian Parliament) aren't clear, since seperation usually done by differentiating the parties, not race.

Recent President of Higher House of Malaysian Parliament, Dewan Negara, is Wong Foon Meng, a member of Barisan Nasional Component Party, MCA.

According to the definition of ethnocracy, 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" can't be applied to ruling system of Barisan National.

"Ketuanan Melayu" doesn't have democratic political effects, except that all Malaysian Monarchs must be Malay (they aren't elected, but rather as hereditary just like British Monarch have to come from one family). That is not ethocracy, but rather, Monarchy. Barisan National applied the quota system adapted with meritocracy in their sharing of power. They calculate the demographic proportion and suit it to their government.

And secondly, "Ketuanan Melayu Right" is not been enacted on 1965. It is written under Constitution, proposed by Reid Commission, selected by British, during pre-independent process.

Chinese and Indian doesn't suffer official discrimination. It is only that Malay have "Special Privileges". If one ethnic have special privileges, then, it is not that the other ethnic suffer from discrimination. There is official special privileges for Sons of Land (Malays and aborigines) , but there is no official discrimination against minority. Chinese in Malaysia have better political and economic position compare to any other nation where they are minority (including non-official discriminative Europen nations).

Most Chinese and Tamil Primary School are government-sponsored. Chinese New Year and Indian's Deepavali are National Holiday in Malaysia. Indian and Chinese customs, arts, and traditional performance has been promoted through government incentives and has been advertised in Malaysian Tourism Campaign - Malaysia Truly Asia. Mandarin and Tamil is considered as national languages.

---

A reply from MalaysianPhilosopher (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Ketuanan Melayu was NEVER mentioned in the Constitution. It only mentions about "Hak Keistimewaan orang Melayu". This is nothing but just the mentioned "Aborigin Rights" just like most other countries, like Canada and Singapore. "Ketuanan Melayu" was invented, but I'm not sure when is it exactly that it was first being used. One may say it is a derivation from the Article 153, but it has gone too far from beneficial - it has been abused and being used as a tool by Barisan Nasional for their own gain. The rationale behind Hak Keistimewaan Orang Melayu is that what they claimed that Malays are the Aborigins (although I don't really agree with this, the Peranakans has settled in Malacca during the 15th centuries!) - the true Aborigins are none other than Orang Aslis. Let's assume that the fact that Malays are aborigins are true. Article 153 never introduced "Malays First" Policy, but rather the means to protect Malay rights as well as the rights of other races in this country. Article 153 is never controversial, but rather being ABUSED by certain politicians. I hope these makes it clear. The most prominent example that happens in this country right now is the government scholarship. You can read almost everywhere about this. Isn't this already an official discrimination? You can read more like the BTN courses who always refers the Chinese (include Peranakan generations) and Indians as "pendatang", but the fact is that Parameswara himself is a Pendatang, (and also Khir Toyo).

Although Malaysia is not officially an Enthnocracy, but we can see that Malaysia appears to be one. Enthocracy is not limited to particular race in government positions, but it refers also to racial policies and practises. The definition of Ethnocracy includes "and use them to advance the position of their particular ethnic group(s) to the detriment of others". Under the Malays First Policy (NEP, MARA, and many more) this is indeed very clear without further elaboration.

Note: If don't agree with anything with me or any other people who writes this article, please refer to this talk page. Don't vandalise the article by copy and pasting. Also, if you're (or anyone) is confident about the fact they're going to write, please provide citations. I hope this page is not being used as a propaganda of certain parties. Be it from BN or PR. (I have removed the vandalized part of the article)

IN RETALIATION TO MALAYSIAN PHILOSOPHER: (I'm previous Anonymous Coward, and I didn't know how to used Wikipedia, except editing)

NOTE: The following bold text are the replies from Malaysian Philosopher to Anonymous Coward MalaysianPhilosopher (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu is used since early 1980's to explains what is Hak Keistimewaan Orang Melayu. I have to agree that the politicians abuse the term too much, and defined it no longer as what the early 1980's, try to strengthen their political position. Ketuanan Melayu, as perceived by many Malays aren't in the sense of what has been perceived by some other Malays, or the non. (You can know my own defintion based on article above, it is purely constitutional definition, with the unconstitutional used of terminology. As I say, it doesn't have political effect)

Well, like you said, it is used in the 80's. Therefore, it is 'invented' to explain Article 153 isn't it? 'Invent' still stands.

Governmental scholarship is included under the special privileges of Malay, other being quota in civil services and armed forced, Malay reserved land (mostly forest), etc. Please refer to the constitution. Government scholarship is included under the power of Yang Dipertuan Agong. Recent Government are giving scholarship quota 60:40 for Bumi:non-bumi, and that is still not enough for the non.

Now this is the problem. Just a matter of fact, there are actually more chinese and indians and other pendatangs (as you like to call) deserve more the governemnt scholarships than the Malays. You can always do a survey of all government sponsored students and evaluate them and see the statistics. Just a matter of fact, because of this quota, there are many straight A's bright pendatang students denied the scholarship just because there are no more "room" - the 40% - for them, whereas even a half straight A's Malay and does not have a good co-curiculum could get this prestigious scholarship. Therefore, all those bright pendatang students have to spent their OWN money to go ooverseas or local uni, regardless of whether they're poor or rich, and of course, they made a right decision to NOT coming back - the Brain Drain -, seeing all the governemt officials begging them to come back right now makes me laugh, no thanks to the infamous "Ketuanan Melayu" policy.

And concerning the fact that Malays are come to Malay Peninsular, from other Malay Archipelago, later that that of Peranakan (and therefore aren't aborigines/ Son of The Land). Firstly, Peranakan is included as Son of Land, comparing between Malays with them is like comparing Apples and Orange, and ask "which one is a fruit?". Peranakan get the special privilege too. Secondly, claiming people that come later from Java as pendatang is pathetic approach to deny that Malaysia is a part of Malay Archipelago. And even the British, during their rule, defined that Malays and Sons of Land, are any tribes that are native to Malay Archipelago.

Oh really? Tun Tan Cheng Lock himself is a Peranakan do you know that?

Concerning your statement on Malaysia appear to be ethnocracy. So, why you putted it here? Didn't it supposed to be at racial discrimination part. It doesn't make any intellectual sense of been defined under Ethnocracy. I have to be objective on the definition. And policies? Please refer to the definition of ethnocracy in the first paragraph. Unless it has been "vandalized" by Pendatang, the definition didn't suit the situation in Malaysia. The representative of non-Bumi are still proportionate, it is not because of that, the Bumiputras "advance their position". It is because the representative of non-Malay are weak. It should be accepted. MIC and MCA loss greatly in General Election because of these.

Now now now, previously I have provided a citation to that particular section but now who's the one who REMOVED it heh? http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps09_112.pdf.

MARA is a Statutory Body (Badan Berkanun), not fully government. Malay First Policy doesn't appear in any NEP phrase. It actually aims for 30% Malay Equity in economy. Fairer wealth distribution in the majority. May be NEP has been abuse by politicians from BN, but at all stage, NEP aims for good. You failed to notify that NEP are failed and bad move, not because its policy, but because abusive factor.

Because it can be easily abused, then it shows that it fails. I'm not talking about NEP theoretically, I'm talking about NEP in practical situations.

Thanks for being Malaysian Philosopher. People can say, philosophically, you aren't Malaysian, since you aren't Malay. Malaysia is Malay's. The others are only Pendatang. Pendatang support Malayan Union, so that they will keep Malays under their feet. But now, Malays are majority, and managed to resist Malayan Union. I'm NOT IN LINE with them. I'm more toward cosmopolitanist. It is useless to criticized BN here, because they still majority, and these only creates bad view of our beloved nation. If Malay resisted, it will continue to create further racial separation. People will think you are "unthankful pendatang", not because you are one, but defaming our nation in wikipedia is a bad move. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NON-BUMIS, AREN'T SMALL, NOT APPEAR TO BE ETHNOCRACY AT ALL, AS I'M TRYING TO SAY, please keep in pace with the facts. You love Malaysia (that is why you used "Malaysian" in your name), but people think you are traitor. And it is not because we didn't agree with something. It is because the terminology is defined and used in different way.

With all my respect - you're wrong! Malaysia is not Malay's, Chinese's, Indian's, British, Portuguese, Japanese, Africans, Whatever. Maybe you think that because MALAYsia is derived from 'Malay', so it belongs to Malays? You claimed that you're a cosmopolitant, but I think you've just contradicted yourself, by the usage of pendatangs all over your writing. I'm sorry but Wikipedia is space for you to write facts. Not that I must write good about Malaysia just because I must be thankful. Nobody defames Malaysia. It is the politicians that defame her. We are writing facts here. Not " Ohhh I love Malays because they grant me citizenship" - to my great grandfathers of course, not me. I was born here! I just write what is written in facts, and of course, my research is based on materials in the country and OUTSIDE the country, and by using my logical reasoning, this is my stand. Also, if people think I'm a traitor, so be it. A professional academician like me have integrities you know? We only argue things based on facts, research, and reasoning. We don't care about peer pressures. I think that really distinguish a philosopher and an ordinary person.

I didn't know how to "cited" it, but I already give the references - all from Wikipedia. Title: Demographic of Malaysia". Plus, Malaysian Constitution and Malaysian Parliament website. Ketuanan Melayu is defined as what has been first been defined by the UMNO Politician. In Social Science, people do know well on it's subjectivity. Certain thing are that obvious. You aren't philosopher but a ditactor, for removing the part. This is free speech space. I edit in on my own link, but you remove it, prove that you are just like another Ancient Chinese or Indian dictator, or Chinese Communist, come to Malay Archipelago to conquer the land, by overriding the natives.

Yes, I respect very much of your freedom of speech. If I was a dictator, I should have deleted what you have written RIGHT here in this talk page. I removed YOUR part of the article (other readers can read his first post) because of the following reasons:

• Lack of proper citation (You have commited serious plagiarism you know?)
• Unprofessional writing (Read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style)
• This is not a forum page. Like you said, this article is about Ethnocracy, then why did you use the article page to refute that? Like I said earlier, if you don't agree with anything, post it HERE!!
• Read: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I feel sorry for Wikipedia personally, they had let a person LIKE YOU to vandalize it's page, ruining it's reputation. Also, I see someone is getting personal here. Wooo.. typical Malaysian mindset, easily offended, close-mindedness, and unwilling to accept opposition's opinion respectfully.

Though I don't agree with you, I respect your opinion, I removed your parts just to conform to Wikipedia's standards. If I did not do that, somebody will definately do that. If you're unwilling to accept opposing point of view, then I guess you might as well QUIT editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for those people that are educated, open-minded, and are able to debate their arguments in a professional manner. If you are really desperate to share your view, then I suggests you to find a forum instead, there are many would welcome you there.

Latvia

Please explain, which sources have defined Latvia as ethnocracy. I'm afraid a Communist Party newspaper is not enough. Constanz - Talk 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking. Since when BBC is communist newspaper? Quoting: Russian should be an official language with equal rights, just as Swedish is in Finland (for just 6% of the population). `'mikka 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Latvia in this article renders the article noncompliant and should be tagged as such. A large proportion of non-citizens is not evidence of an ethnocracy. Note that around 10% of those living in Latvia before 1940 were of Russian ethnicity and are automatically Latvian citizens. At the fall of the Soviet Union there was ambiguity in the citizenship of post war immigrants. Were they Russian citizens or were they Latvian citizens? Rather than impose blanket Latvian citizenship upon people who may not necessarily want it, Latvia put in place a naturalisation scheme and left the choice to these people. A significant proportion have opted for Russian citizenship and returned to Russia during the 1990's. As of 1006, over 50% of ethnic Russian permenant residents in Latvia have chosen to become Latvian citizens, while some 10% have opted for Russian citizenship retaining their right to permanent residency in Latvia. Many of those remaining non-citizens choose to remain so for reasons other than any imagined legal impediments. For example non-citizenship allows high school graduates, who are exempted from the language exam requirement, to avoid conscription into the Latvian Army. However the process of integration is ongoing, with non-citizenship being reduced from 40% to 20% in the last ten years. [1]. Martintg 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that the term "ethnocracy" is a political insult rather than a strict term. If someone argues that Latvia has features of ethnocracy, this fact deserves mentioning, if referenced, communists, Putin, or not. Further, as far as I understand, ethnic Latvians are about 60% of the population. Please tell me what percentage of ethnic Latvians is there in Latvian government? `'mikka 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Over 50% of ethnic Russians are now in fact Latvian citizens. That there aren't more ethnic Russians in parliament is more a function voter apathy than any legal impediment to representation Martintg 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to notice that Latvians and Livonians have a preferential status with respect to the citizenship law: they are among categories granted citizenship automatically. `'mikka 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians and their decendants who were residents of Latvia pre-1940 were also given preferrential treatment, they were also granted citizenship automatically. They represent around 10% of the entire population. Martintg 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Soviet occupation. The citizenship law specifically denies citizenship for those who took active part in implementation of Soviet power. And this part is sufficient to right the wrong. But wholesale denial of rights to 50% of population, indiscriminately punishing each and every migrant sucks, colleagues, badly. `'mikka 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with "punishment", but rather it has to do with legal ambiguity. They were all citizens of the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union is defunct. So do they want to be Russian citizens or Latvian citizens? Well over 50% of migrants have decided to become Latvian citizens, around 10% decided to become Russian citizens. The remaining 20% of Latvian resident ethnic Russians haven't decided yet. Note that a recent resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in November 2006 opines: The Assembly is of the opinion that, regardless of the reasons for which one state was succeeded by another, the principle to be respected is that of free choice in respect of their new citizenship for the nationals of the predecessor state. The resolution goes further and concedes: The Assembly considers that the naturalisation regulations adopted in Latvia do not raise insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of Latvian nationality and that the applicable procedure does not entail any requirements that are excessive or contrary to existing European standards. [2]. So there isn't any real barrier to Latvian citizenship for ethnic Russian non-citizens, other than the attitude of these ethnic Russians themselves Martintg 09:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

TO:Mikka - tell me, you dislike the idea that one has to have at least some knowledge of state language in order to get citizenship. In which EU state is it otherwise? Or can you immediately become a Russian citizen, in case you don't speak a word Russian?? Could it be otherwise? Latvia's and Estonia's rules are liberal, anyway: Boris Meissner, Die russische Politik gegenüber der baltischen Region als Prüfstein für das Verhältnis Russlands zu Europa -- in Die Aussenpolitik der baltischen Staaten und die internationalen Beziehungen im Ostseeraum, Hamburg:Bibliotheka Baltica, 1994, S.466-504.Constanz - Talk 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed Latvia from article, for the reasons outlined above. Including Latvia in this article because "ethnocracy" is a political insult rather than a strict term, as Mikka claims above, is un-encyclopedic. Martintg 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary source cited in the article defines ethnocracy in [3] thus:

Ethnocracy is a political regime which, in contrast to democracy, 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.

Latvian laws on citizenship do not qualify the "right to citizenship" based on such an ethnic affiliation. Thus, Latvia's inclusion in the article is obviously improper. I will remove Latvia. Digwuren 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn has reverted my removal, and not explained it on this talk page. I will remove it again, based on the same deliberations explained above. Digwuren 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As you are one of the chief proponents of an ethn what ever you want to call it, your evaluation on what should be included and what should not cannot be seen as unbiased. -- Petri Krohn 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I admit that there is a problem in including Latvia without including Estonia. -- Petri Krohn 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Latvia. If you make such claims please back up it with references first. And second check what democratically elected governement means. And check the ethnicity of electors. And also check the the ethnicity of candidates. This is becoming plain stupid. Suva 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn subsequently again reverted my second removal, and as can be seen above, did not offer substantial explanation for the reversal. Interestingly, while restoring disputed material, he dishonestly neglected to reinstate the disputeabout tag.

My position stands. However, Suva has this time removed the improperly added section on Latvia already. Digwuren 19:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for the tag, I should have taken the effort to restore it. The reason it was removed, was that I only reverted the first of your two edits. The undo function managed to mess things up, it should have failed as an edit conflict. -- Petri Krohn 23:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn subsequently reverted for third time removal of Latvia, this time by Suva, without duly explaining this action. Digwuren 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted that reversal. Petri Krohn, please do not continue this edit war. Without appropriate sources, your WP:POV assertions are bound to be considered WP:OR, and thus contradict official Wikipedia policy. Digwuren 23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source that describes Latvia and Estonia as "ethnic democracies". -- Petri Krohn 23:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed your sources and reverted the addition.

Specifically, out of all the sources you added, this one is the only one supporting the idea that Latvia and Estonia "can be described" as "ethnic democracies". However, it is not a WP:RS, even though it appears to be a notable source. Digwuren 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn readded the claims, this time along with a misleading dispute tag. I reverted again, and issued the appropriate warning. Digwuren 02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would not it better if we would state that some authors (refs) refer to Latvia as an ethnic democracy because of this and that. While others (refs) consider these allegations wrong because of this that. That way we would save WP:NPOV of the article witout censoring the content? Alex Bakharev 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It could work. Can you propose a draft? Digwuren 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is a mess. It confuses Ethnocracy with Ethnic Democracy. The term Ethnic Democracy was originally coined by Professor Sammy Smooha from the University of Haifa, Israel. He defines Ethnic Democracy as a political system that combines the extension of democratic rights for all with the institutionalized dominance of a single ethnic group. He goes on to say that in his view, while Israel is an ethnic democracy, Estonia and Latvia are currently not. In fact many consider these two countries to be civic democracies since, for example, the granting of citizenship is not determined by ethnicity and there is a policy of integration. See Mark A. Jubulis, Nationalism and Democratic Transition. The Politics of Citizenship and Language in Post-Soviet Latvia (Lanham, New York and Oxford: University Press of America, 2001), pp. 201–208. Martintg 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and put a draft in the article. The anti-ethnocratic part of the argument is weak and badly references but I am confident you could expand and strengthen it Alex Bakharev 03:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is better, although still considerably NPOV. Thank you; I'll try to improve it in the future. Digwuren 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read your draft, but you seemed to have missed the gist of the issue, which is that this article claims that Latvia is an Ethnic Democracy citing the large number of non-citizens as evidence. The issue is that Professor Smooha, who originally defined the term Ethnic Democracy, himself stated that Latvia's large number of non-citizens is evidence that Latvia is not an Ethnic Democracy. This article is a factual contradiction. Martintg 10:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to improve that section a bit, however, it still fails to mention several key factors and figures - for example, that out of 18% w/o Estonian citizenship, almost half (8% of total) are citizens of Russian Federation; that language courses and exams are free (first sponsored by Estonia and foreign funds, latter by Estonian government). Also, mixing both Estonia and Latvia under same heading seems a bit awkward. DLX 15:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked it somewhat, too. I didn't include much new information; for example, Prof. Smooha's position is yet to be included. Digwuren 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn reverted all my edits in one fell swoop, attempted to masquerade this reversal as a "restoration", and put these mysterious lines into the article:

<!-- Argument - If you disagree, please contribute to the "counterargument section below. -->

<!-- Counterargument - Nationalists, feel free to edit below this line -->

I have reverted, and express my disagreement to this blatant attempt at establishing "control zones" and doing "intra-article WP:POVFORK". The insult I'll just call short-sighted. Digwuren 19:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsequently, he proceeded to issue a bogus 3RR warning to me. Digwuren 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an argument and an counterargument. These can both be presented in separate paragraphs. There is no need to include both sides of the issue in every sentence. Splitting the views into different sections is not "intra-article WP:POVFORK", it is simply the way Wikipedia achives WP:NPOV. -- Petri Krohn 19:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt to reintroduce the same unconstructive split. I reverted. Digwuren 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the dispute appears to be that some scholars believe that high number of non-citizen residents means ethnocracy while others believe that lack of ethnic criteria in laws means no ethnocracy. If it can be referenced as such, it should be explained in such a simple manner. Digwuren 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Latvia is ethnocracy. You woun't finde russians or jewish in state structures. Parlament oposition always are russians or jewish, and parlament position are always latvians. Russian minority are allways in suspicion of not enought loyality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.177.142 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Language affiliation

It seems to me that a good deal of confusion regarding the concept is over what 'ethnic affiliation defined in terms of language' actually means. My understanding is that Butenschøn's criterion is based on the primary language of a person. However, a lot of the discussion above involves ability to communicate instead. The former can reasonably be construed as an indicator of affiliation; the latter certainly not. Digwuren 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Some authors

There were six references next to "Some authors" in the section on Latvia. Four of them were newspaper articles, apparently from a previous incarnation of the section, and thus do not really qualify under the customary academic sense of "some authors". I moved them here for possible later usage:

• Citizenship row divides Latvia, BBC News
• Latvia: the politics of "ethnic cleansing", The Guardian (Australian Communist Party weekly), May 15, 2002
• Latvian lessons irk Russians, BBC News
• Naturalization has to become more complicated in Latvia, Regnum News Agency

Serbia

I think including Serbia on the basis of article written in 1996 in US publication (in the same time when US had been involved in direct military action against Serbs in B&H) is an insane example of POV. Besides, most of paragraph's content about Albanian ethnic parties not allowed in elections and Serbia having low index of human rights is simply irrelevant. I am removing this paragraph and inviting all interested wikipedians to discuss. 206.186.8.130 13:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

The section on South Africa is quite dated (1985 or so) and talks about "the conflict in South Africa" during Apartheid as if it is an ongoing event. I feel that this section should either be edited to indicate that this was a past proposal, removed entirely, or changed to show that Apartheid was a form of ethnocracy. Pjones (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Latvia, again

Based on the discussion above (which has not even been archived to a separate page yet), I oppose inclusion of Latvia in this article. Classification issues are particularly tricky, requiring widespread consensus among the relevant scholars -- and it's clear that there is no such consensus here. It even appears that some of the relevant POVs are non-notable, but if they weren't, they should be discussed in other pages. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Latvia is already discussed in Ethnic democracy, which discusses a wide range of scholarly opinions ranging from Civic democracy to Ethnic democracy. --Martintg (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Latvia and Estonia, once again

Two sources for Estonia [4], [5] don't mention ethnocracy at all. First speaks of alleged ethnic democracy in Estonia and Latvia - and for some reason, a very strong refutation of the claims in the same newsletter is not mentioned at all. The second document from Amnesty does not mention ethnocracy as well.

The source about Latvia [6] seems to be an opinion piece. I have no idea if the source is notable or not, I think someone from Latvia can be a judge of that.

Both Estonia and Latvia have a section in ethnic democracy. Unless some actual source is dedicated (not just mentioning) to describing Estonia and Latvia as ethnocracies can be found, including those countries to Ethnocracy is an original research. It seems to come from ethnic prejudices and/or hatred towards those countries.

--Sander Säde 11:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have added two academic sources mentioning Estonia as an example of ethnocracy. As I understand, Oren Yiftachel is one of the authors of the term. He included a section on Estonia "4.2. Estonia: from communism to (democratizing?) ethnocracy" in his Political geography article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a span of opinion backed by academic sources, ranging from civic democracy, through ethnic democracy to ethnocracy, and this is discussed in a neutral way in Ethnic_democracy#Latvia_and_Estonia, which includes Oren Yiftachel's opinion. Should we also insert Estonia and Latvia into the article Civic democracy too? Ethnic democracy was considered the middle ground and the most appropriate place for treatment given the range of opinions. --Martintg (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

South-Africa

I understand it's probably not as urgent as covering the Estonia's current inhuman regime, but the section on South Africa doesn't make any sense. Oth (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• This a result of an old vandalism or a test edit. I have restored the older text of the section as well as reformatted the book reference. Thanks, Oth Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the paragraph is still no good, being a quite out-of-context description of a book from 1985. Other country paragraphs in the article are essentially saying "this state is an ethnocracy" but I don't think anyone is claiming these days that South Africa is one (am I mistaken)? It should be either completely rewritten to describe apartheid era of South Africa (and explicitly state so) or deleted as it is mentioned in article's main text already. Oth (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This article provides no sources that show that ethnocracy is a recognized term, let alone than it has any recognized definition. What does it mean anyway - a society governed by ethnic conflict? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

Do Kazakhstan qualifies as ethnocracy. Kazakhstan sayes, that they do need russian specialists, but most of in goverment positions anywhay are ethnic kazakhs. Kazakhstan is whay democratic than rest of central asia, but still not Swiss;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.177.142 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.129.105 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research

If you want to claim country X is an ethnocracy because of policy Y , you need to cite specific sources that make this claim. you can't simply plunk into the article something which you think makes a counry an ethnocracy. That is WP:OR. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of NoCal100 stop POV pushing and removing information because it makes Israel look bad and you don't like that. Maybe User:Nableezy, User:Makeandtoss, User:Nishidani, User:RolandR, User:Pluto2012, User:Trinacrialucente, User:Tanbircdq, User:Kingsindian, User:Dan Murphy or User:Zero0000 can put the information back. 81.132.248.242 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What page are you referring to? i'll take a look and provide a 3rd opinion.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I have no interest in this page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't really do anything here because I got tagged. But maybe you should edit the parts where original research exists rather than completely removing them.Makeandtoss (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

|}

Some sections state that x scholars think x country(s) is/are an ethnocracy. There is little point in this content alone without any context as to why the countries might be considered an ethnocracy such as including content about the history and background of those countries legislation supported by commentary and opinion (providing this information is available of course).

Also, ALL the content is from reliable sources and NONE of it is WP:OR, if you disagree with this please specifically explain exactly what is supposed to be OR here. In addition, it is unconstructive to repeatedly remove this content without a valid explanation. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SYNTH - you clearly don't understand what original research means. if you think "it is sourced" means it is not original research. You need to find a source that specifically cites the examples you keep edit warring into the article as examples of why Israel is an ethnocracy - you can't just take a law that YOU think makes Israel an ethnocracy and describe it here.When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet it was YOU that got BLOCKED for editwarring on THIS page, haha. Your hyprocrisy is so ironic! I think the information should remain, it is very useful to know why some people think it is an ethnocracy. Also YOU need to read WP:SOCK as you are a sockpuppet of NoCal100. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is dirt easy to find multiple examples of Israel being called an ethnocracy and examples of argument about it. Zero^talk 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

yes, and the version I am reverting to clearly cites several scholars that do this. That does not mean we can dump any material that a wikipedia editor thinks is the reason that Israel is called an ethnocracy into this article, without a source that has a notable person making that connection. If you want to keep that material in, you need to find a reliable source that uses that example, in conjunction with a discussion of ethnocracy (and while doing that, keep in mind WP:UNDUE - the article already devotes far more to Israel than to any other example, including those listed in the lead and the ones used by Yiftachel when he coined the term. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Not just "a" wikipedia editor, it is only you that disagrees here. Plenty of reliable sources that supports the claim here, so should be included. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

no, theres exactly one editor - Tanbircdq - that is inserting this material, in contravention of WP:SYNTH. You are not allowed to edit here, per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, so your opinion and reverts, across your many scrutiny-evading IP sockpuppets, don't count. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess I must've imagined the fact that User:Gob Lofa twice reverted you [7][8]. You removed the information no less than 10 times which YOU GOT BLOCKED FOR. That's really hypocritcal, seeing as you're a sockpuppet of NoCal100 neither do yours. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa has failed to participate in the discussion, he is blindly reverting. Consensus is based on arguments,not numerical counts.And you are not allowed to participate here, so I will bere omiving your comments. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: material that does not explicitly refer to ethnocracy

The consensus is "no" to the question. Cordless Larry's position enjoys support in policy (WP:SYNTH) and in the discussion here: "we should only be describing states as ethnocracies if there are reliable sources that do the same. Deciding for ourselves that particular states match the definition is original research."

Cunard (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can descriptions of certain countries' laws or policies, carried by generalist publications such as newspapers, which do not describe such practices as ethnocracy (or even mention ethnocracy), be included in the specific sections related to those countries, or does this violate WP:SYNTH? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the above user was blocked as a long term sock puppet. However the question stands for comment

• If the description matches the definition of Ethnocracy then probably yes. A newspaper is unlikely to use a technical word of this nature. Ideally we would have an academic source so in the absence of that the description would have to be a near exact match and the articles used should be more that just news items. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• 'An ethnocracy is a type of political regime in which the state apparatus is appropriated by a dominant ethnic group (or groups) to further its interests, power and resources' is the definition. There are 2 issues here (a)WP:SYNTH is claimed if the precise word 'ethnocracy/ethnocratic' is not in a source, and (b) the hairsplitting use of policy to exclude the inclusion of what 'looks like a duck, quacks like a duck' etc., as was blatantly the case with the editor in questing ducking past the fact that he cannot edit here, in order to revert out material he dislikes. An effectively, this reading of 'ethnocracy' boils down to insisting that only anyone commenting on Oren Yiftachel's theory can be used. Personally, I think it is best practice to search for material with the 'ethnocratic' (or synonyms) present to avoid even the odour of suspicion WP:SYNTH is being abused, but that ultimately the call should be commonsensical and consensual. Yiftachel uses it generally of Israel, while some writers (like Peter Beinert) prefer to use it only of Israeli colonization practices over the Green Line post-1967, and this distinction has been ignored. The page suffers from a lack of work.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (summoned by bot): we should only be describing states as ethnocracies if there are reliable sources that do the same. Deciding for ourselves that particular states match the definition is original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (summoned by bot). In short the answer is no. Your asking for a waiver on the prohibition to original research and there's no logical reason for doing so. And on something like this, an ethnocracy, there would sources that actually define or suggest the countries or laws in question constitute an ethnocracy. Wikipedia isn't in the habit of defining things itself. We shouldn't start now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment No, including any country or regime in the article requires a reliable source specifically using that term in reference to it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research?

I removed the following from the article:

In 2003, Citizenship Law was passed which stipulates that the interior minister does not have the authority to approve residence in Israel for a resident of West Bank unless they are Jewish settlers. The law prevents Israeli citizens from marrying the spouse of their choice and living with this spouse in Israel, if the spouse is a Palestinian from West Bank.

In March 2014, the Israeli cabinet passed two laws. One authorizes rural, Jewish-majority communities to reject Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel and other applicants for residency based on "suitability", and the other imposes fines on Arab towns, local authorities and state-funded organizations that commemorate Nakba Day. Critics said the laws will increase discrimination against Arabs.

In November 2014, the Israeli cabinet approved a bill declaring Israel to be a "Jewish state". The law would grant the Israeli state the authority to strip Arab residents of civil rights if they were found to participate in or encourage the use of violence, including stone-throwing. It would also mean that Jewish law will be the inspiration for Israel's legal system and it enshrines the automatic citizenship granted by the Law of Return. The bill affirms "the personal rights of all [Israel's] citizens according to law" and reserves communal rights for Jews only. Arabic was demoted from its status as an official language, alongside Hebrew. The bill was seen as controversial by some politicians due to its potential effects on Israel's Arab minority, which make up around 20 percent of the population.

None of the sources here mention "ethnocracy". Seems like putting it in the article is OR. Any thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that this is also what the RfC above decided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100602193044/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC

There was an RFC on the subject we can't include sources that doesn't mention ethnocracy if someone want to change it please gain a new consensus.--Shrike (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504025222/http://www.developmentandtransition.net/index.cfm?module=ActiveWeb&page=WebPage&DocumentID=586 to http://www.developmentandtransition.net/index.cfm?module=ActiveWeb&page=WebPage&DocumentID=586

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs cleanup and NPOV editing

I made a few rearrangements, but the page still needs extensive cleanup, perhaps the "blow it up and start over" treatment. OtterAM (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Differences from Herrenvolk democracy need explanation

One issue needing attention is how ethnocracy differs from Herrenvolk democracy.

Is the difference that:

• whereas in an ethnocracy ethnicity (or race or religion) is the key to securing power
• in a Herrenvolk democracy they are the keys to citizenship of any kind?

If it is not this factor, what else sets ethnocracy apart from Herrenvolk democracy? luokehao, 21 December 2020, 13:41 (UTC)

I am also struggling to find differences.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Luokehao @Geysirhead as initially defined by Oren Yiftachel, an ethnocracy has more nominally democratic elements than a Herrenvolk democracy. I am working on rewriting the article to make this clearer, but you can refer to this section on the Herrenvolk democracy page where I have written a bit about the differences between these two terms, as well as ethnic democracy. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Singapore to be included?

Singapore should also be included as it is ruled by the Chinese-Singaporeans, with only nominal equality for the other two groups: Malay-descended and British-descended peoples living there. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Need to create a section for historic ethnocracies.

Northern Ireland should be moved to a new section under historic ethnocracies, along with the Jim Crow-era United States.

MathewMunro (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The introduction should include a reference to the Portmanteau Wiki

Since the term ethnocracy is in fact a Portmanteau - a combination of the terms ethnic and democracy, I believe that the introduction should include a reference to the Portmanteau Wiki. Also, I believe that the entire Ethnic democracy Wiki should be deleted, as it appears to be little more than a Zionist propaganda exercise - trying to argue in the face of findings by Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch that Israel is in fact an apartheid state, that it's somehow not quite as bad as other ethnocracies. MathewMunro (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight

The distinction between mono- and poly-ethnocracy is essentially just the model of a single scholar that has received very little coverage, either positive, negative, or neutral, by the rest of the field, compared with the general use of the unsuffixed term. If you actually look at the usage of this term, it is almost entirely used to refer to what Lise Morjé Howard would call a "mono"-ethnocracy. In particular, the word is almost always used in connection with Israel—whether to argue in favor of or against the applicability of the term to that state—followed, very distantly, by certain other states like apartheid South Africa, and even more distantly by Malaysia, Latvia, Estonia, and other states. In fact, the model was first coined by Oren Yiftachel specifically to describe Israel, something the article does not mention at all.

Conversely, the article currently spills as much ink talking about Belgium as it does Israel. This is not in line with the policy guidelines at WP:DUE. I am opening a talk page discussion here first, but will be editing the article to better reflect the actual scholarship if no objections are made. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)