ideocracy

Sidney and Beatrice Webb used the term ideocracy in 1936, and it was given added currency by Nicholas Berdyaev in 1947.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 20, 182.{{clarify|date=December 2017}}

An ideocracy may take a totalitarian form, reliant on force, or a populist form, reliant on the voluntary support of true believers. The totalitarian form contains six components; 1) ideology, 2) a single party typically with one leader, 3) a terroristic police, 4) a monopoly of communications, 5) a monopoly of weaponry, 6) a centrally directed or planned economy.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 8.

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,Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 182.

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".Quoted in Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation, Beacon Press, 1963, p. 292.

Ideocracies derive political legitimacy, in the view of Piekalkiewicz and Penn, from one of the following ideological sources: nation, race, class, or culture.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 39. They also believe that ideocrats will project their own feelings of guilt onto groups of people—Jews, communists, capitalists, heretics—as forces undermining the ideocracy. These scapegoats symbolize the forces that true believers must combat within themselves. Blame for failures of policy is diverted away from the ideocrats onto the scapegoats, who are subjected to mob attacks, terrorism, show trials, and stylized punishments.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 49–50. In Hitler's Germany the drive to exterminate the Jews eventually took priority over every other goal.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 217.

Citizens of pluralist states may emigrate freely, but those who leave an ideocracy may be branded as traitors.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 189.

Individuals within ideocracies develop an authoritarian personality, say Piekalkiewicz and Penn, in order to succeed or survive. Long after the collapse of the ideocracy, these individuals remain resistant to democratization. Piekalkiewicz and Penn, pp. 190–191 They develop a closed mind in which their self-realization within the ideocracy overrides the hostility of the 'heretical' outside world. Simple slogans are adopted and repeated as signs of conformity and loyalty. Piekalkiewicz and Penn pp. 44–45 Those who disbelieve the ideology are fatalistic, supporting the system because they feel powerless to change it, or Machiavellian, cynically exploiting the system for their own ends. Both groups develop a form of doublethink. Piekalkiewicz and Penn, pp. 52–65

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. Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 56

According to Piekalkiewicz and Penn, ideocracies rise and fall in the following manner:

;Inception

1. 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.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 128, 131.
2. Takeover: Usually a political party with a determined leader ("the leader is the movement")Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 133. takes power by coup d'état, which creates a bandwagon effect:Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 132. as in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany,Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, pp. 20, 182. and in Iran.Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 135.
3. In an isolated colony: e.g., White South Africa, and the Puritans of New EnglandJaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 136.

;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. Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p. 140–141 The economy is nationalized, and totally mobilized in support of the ideocracy. Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy pp. 142–144 There will be scapegoating of enemies and terrorizing of dissidents. Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p. 145

;Evolution

1. 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 Peronist Argentina. There may be a popular rebellion. The economy may stagnate, as demands exceed ability. There may be external attacks by other states which fear the spread of the ideology, Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy pp. 149–153
2. 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. Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy pp. 154–161
3. Regeneration may prevent or postpone collapse. The ideology is rethought and adapted, or replaced by a completely new set of ideals. Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy p. 163 For example, in Poland, communist ideocracy failed in 1980, the recognition of 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. Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Penn, The Politics of Ideocracy, p. 221

Piekalkiewicz and Penn described Pharaonic Egypt, ancient Babylon, the Aztec and Inca empires, Sparta, the Islamic empire, Imperial Russia and Imperial China as ideocraciesPiekalkiewicz and Penn, SUNY Press, 1995, p. 3. and cite Tito's Yugoslavia,Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 131. Peronist Argentina, Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 150. Iraq under Saddam,Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 152. the USSR, Salazar's Portugal, Albania, the Warsaw pact countries, Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 177. and Imperial JapanPiekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 170. as among those that rose and fell in the 20th century. Both Catholic and Protestant extremists in Northern Ireland sought ideocratic solutions,{{huh|date=September 2021}} but were thwarted by British troops.Piekalkiewicz and Penn, pp. 116–117.

According to Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, the USSR,Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter six. Italy under Fascism,Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 7. Nazi GermanyUwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 8. and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany)Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 9. all rose and fell as ideocracies during the 20th century.

The populist form of ideocracy has been an important force in Latin American political history, where many charismatic leaders have emerged since the beginning of the 20th century.Guillermo A. O'Donnell, Bureaucratic authoritarianism: Argentina, 1966–1973, in comparative perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988, {{ISBN|0-520-04260-3}}, pp. 9–10 John D. French, The Brazilian workers' ABC: class conflict and alliances in modern São Paulo. University of North Carolina Press, 1992, {{ISBN|0-8078-4368-7}}, p. 4.

Uwe Backes lists China,Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 10. North KoreaUwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 11. and CubaUwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz, eds., Ideocracies in Comparison, Taylor and Francis, 2015, chapter 12. as regimes currently showing ideocratic tendencies. Willfried Spohn states that China is an ideocracy.Willfried Spohn, "Multiple Modernity", in Global Forces and Local Life-worlds, edited by Ulrike Schuerkens, Sage, 2004, pp. 81–83. Gordon White said in 1999 China had ceased to be one.Gordon White, "Ideocracy in Decline", in China in the 1990s, edited by Robert Benewick, University of British Columbia [?], 1999, p. 30.

Piekalkiewicz and Penn cite Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan as still extant ideocracies.Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 171. In Israel, only the religious Jewish settlers and ultranationalists seek ideocratic solutions.Piekalkiewicz and Penn, p. 216. Peter Bernholz asserts that Saudi Arabia, with its Wahhabist ideology, has been an ideocracy since 1924.Peter Bernholz, Totalitarianism, Terrorism and Supreme Values, Springer, 2017, p. 4.

{{Portal|Politics}}

• Political religion
• Power politics
• Power Politics (Wight book)
• State collapse

{{reflist}}

Category:Ideocracy

Category:Authoritarianism