Relevancy22: Contemporary Christianity: Post-Evangelic Topics and Theology
Quotes & Sayings
We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater
There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead
Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater
The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller
The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller
According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater
Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater
Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger
Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton
I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon
Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII
Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut
Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest
We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater
People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon
Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater
An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater
Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann
Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner
“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”
Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton
The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon
The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul
The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah
If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon
Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson
We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord
Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater
To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement
Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma
It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater
God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater
In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall
Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater
-----
Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write off the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 [And] of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. - Isa 9.6-7
31Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him. 33Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. 34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. - John 13.31-35
* * * * * * * *
Across this series we've looked at how:
1 - To read the bible in its historical era by questioning its religious beliefs then and now:
6 - And finally, today, the best cross-sect for a strengthening of democracy and for oppressed people around the world, is the national and international (global) pursuit towards building ecological civilizations:
Firstly, democracies born from the imperfections of monarchal kingdoms were once perceived to be led by rulers place unto their throne by divine consent. But with Protestantism's Reformational rise helped by an era of European Enlightenment, the Royal Catholic Papacy died out to the newer strains of Constitutional democratic republics ruled by elected societal officers (also thought to be blessed by God) as humanity's preferred form of governance over earlier, imperfect kingdom forms.
That the bible's display of failed monarchy's and kingdom empires were no blessing to the people living under unaccountable throneship's to the people. That all thrones rather than being divine were consequently very human in the aftermaths of their very human and non-divined legacies.
That Israel's kingdoms likewise failed under the auspices of ruling kings begun by Saul, David, and Solomon, and concluded in a litany of evils and sins. That the bible's supposed "divine model" as projected by today's MAGA church is no more divine then as now... that all lead to forms of oppression and irresponsibility when separated from being accountable to the citizens and members of their realms.
That MAGA's stubborn belief that a "Theocratic Kingdom" is the best governance model is shown to be fatally flawed throughout its bible origination concept. That truly open democracies concentrating on social blending, equality, justice, and resource sharing are the better forms of governance. And that the standard for today's open democracies has become the common basis for addressing man-caused ecological collapses in his destruction of the earth.
To sum up, the whole inappropriate and antiquated biblical idea of "theocratic kingdoms" as best have shown themselves to be "variant models of oppression". And that other forms of governance via trial-and-error forms of economies from capitalism to socialism and back again, have also showed their failures.
That generally, for a society to form cooperative communes of locality interlinked to other local, regional, national, and globally interlinked communities of locality is a really, really, really difficult operational mode to obtain.
And finally, that a common harm to humanity - that of ecological disaster - is the most appropriate cause of response in pursuing open economies of resource sharing whether capitalist or socialist.
That the reality of building ecological civilizations of difference is the most common form of re-synching humanity across divisional lines of suspicion, pride and hate.
Hence, today's democracies are harmfully moving away from ecological societies when experimenting with various forms of hardline, rightwing authoritarianism bespeaking discrimination and oppression of migrants, minorities, women, gender, sexes, and civil disempowerment.
But by committing to the renewal of compassionate societal equality, cooperation, and unity, will give today's Gen X, Y, Z, and it's progeny the greatest futures when based upon (Whiteheadian) process forms of ecological civilization principles and behaviors.
* * * * * * * *
MAGA's New Words of Oppression are
Unacknowledged in their Socio-Political
Campaigns of Subversive Disinformation
Watching late 1700s France move between King's Fascist rights and People's Republic brought to mind the difficulty of becoming, and maintaining, a full fledged democracy. To some degree, the United States has achieved this rare distinction. But to another degree is still has a long ways to go. At present, we're falling into a half and half state of anocracy... part democratic and part autocracy.
In Russia, Putin is guilty on both counts of revanchism and irredentism ... put together Putin has acted as a despot chargeable for a power land grab of genocidal proportions.
Wikipedia Excerpt:
Revanchism draws its strength from patriotic and retributionist thought and is often motivated by economic or geopolitical factors. Extreme revanchist ideologues often represent a hawkish stance, suggesting that their desired objectives can be achieved through the positive outcome of another war. It is linked with "irredentism", the conception that a part of the cultural and ethnic nation remains "unredeemed" outside the borders of its appropriate nation-state.
"...Ethnic homogeneity within a state makesIrredentism more likely. Discrimination against the ethnic group in the neighboring territory is another contributing factor. A closely related explanation argues that national identities based primarily on ethnicity, culture, and history increase irredentist tendencies. Another approach is to explain irredentism as an attempt to increase power and wealth. In this regard, it is argued that irredentist claims are more likely if the neighboring territory is relatively rich. Many explanations also focus on the regime type and hold that democracies are less likely to engage in irredentism while anocracies are particularly open to it.
Cobbled together Putin's ethnic land cleansing of Ukrainians from their home land is an attempted to join old Tsarist Russian back together in the imagined glory days of wealth and power (using other people's wealth and power, of course).
To justify his imperious mania Putin "persuaded" the Russian Orthodox Christian church to support his nefarious "conservative reformist" designs so that Moscow's perceive so-called heretical (liberal) Christian opponents might end:
(1) Ukraine's Eastern Orthodox Christian church located in Kiev, which is coupled together with...
(2) Its Eastern Orthodox Turkish Twin residing in the old Ottomon/Turkish Empire in Istanbul, Turkey.
Hence, Putin imposed his religious view that the Easter Orthodox Church is the heretical spin off from Russia's own Russian Orthodox Church. This, he thought, would provide adequate disinformation for his evil actions.
In summary, America's MAGA components see in Putin their model for a new imperial Kingdom in America... one that supports the evangelical Chruch as it sees itself and intends for itself to rule oppressively over all the elites, liberals, and religious in the way they wish to rule.
MAGA's theocratic kingdom... or church-based kingdom... is a farce and an evil to the land it wishes to rule over so as to usher in their imagined "Kingdom of God." A Kingdom I'm told, which has come in Christ and to his disciples to witness and minister, caretake and shepherd in love. But to which the MAGA Christian faithful believe are their to inherit to inforce all kinds of religious restrictions, jots and tittles upon their vanquished via MAGA-sponsored and unConstitutional Republicanism.
And so, we back where we started in Napoleon's day when the people threw off Louis XVI's reign, and with it, the papacy of the ruling church, to flounder in the muds and slimes of how to build an open society of difference and resource sharing.
America did the same with it's Royalists groups in its Colonies so that after an eight year rule it could build upon the Bill of Rights and Independence Constitution. Yet in its enactment if failed to remove slavery and nearly a hundred years later fought a bloody insurrection against non-Constitutionalists refusing to enact the Bill of Rights of another fully into America's economy.
Quoting Scripture and God these Christian erudites taught tyranny and rule over "inferior" races. Which lands us here today at the doorstep of Trumpian MAGA'gots imposing their religious ideations and rule upon an open democracy by acts of blashphemy and anathema in the eyes of God and man.
Proving once again that "Democracies" are less likely than "anocrisies" to exploit homogenous ethnic regions but yet, to the unenlightened religious troglodytes of America's white conservative churches, a "theocratic kingdom of God" is noised about by evil hands and sinful hearts.
R.E. Slater
Dec 3, 2023
Ahem, One last...
Do not think we, and the world, are any less guilty of the abomination going on under the rule of Israeli MAGA'gots in their hardline stances against Hamas and Hezebolla which conflagration has caught the innocents of the land of Canaan in Palestine and Israel in deeply grievous actions of loss and death. The world either learns to love one another and share with one another as we can or we will die the ugly deaths of our own destruction as illustrated by the book of Revelation in the bible. It's message is not of God's evil but man's own evil which God comes to save by redeeming actions (rather than the popular Christian opinions of divine vengeance and retribution). One way or another, earth and sky, seas and wind, will rise upon us to decimate and destroy as harshly as we did it's own biotic communities. The wisdom here is to see one-and-all, man and earth, as surviving participants with one another that each in its own way thrives and nourishes the other.
Over the last several articles I've asked if the bible narratives in the Old and New Testaments are healthy forms of religion and governance. Especially as the traditional church continues to promote divine holiness and sovereign rule.
In answer, it has be stated that God's love is the foremost of all God's divine attributes and character traits. That divine love gives meaning to who God is. That holiness cannot give God's love meaning, but creates in itself a devolution of God's love.
Likewise, as a sovereign dictator whom we call KING, God has been shown in the bible as a moody, heavy-handed and vengeful judge and ruler who "tears down and builds up" whom he will.
That God's Kingdom in Revelation and again in the Old and New Testament prophecies shows it to be a violent kingdom which falls upon the kingdom's of men with haste and destruction.
Hence, a God defined in terms of holiness and as a ruling Monarch wreathed in holiness is a God to be feared... and feared greatly.
But when re-reading the bible, it's testaments, and the covenants which God had established with Abraham and later his progeny Israel we see a different kind of God. One marked by wisdom, love, mercy and forgiveness.
So the question is... Is God all of things? Is God bipolar (extreme swings of mania and depression) or dipolar (a God of deep extremes without ability control God's Self)?
My argument is we have read the bible in unhealthy ways and have placed theological stress upon the Christian faith bespeaking ourselves rather than God's Self.
That is, our pride and perchance for self-glorifying legalism has led us to this idolatrous view of the God of the bible. More so, the biblical narratives themselves have done the same as context to how man's ancient cultures perceived God to be.
That when reading the bible normally for the narratives within it, without giving to it inerrant authoritarianism in our beliefs... shows to us how the church is little different than its legendary predecessors longs years ago.
They saw God as something to be feared. Who presence demanded forms of holiness of a kind. Whose divine rule meant harm and destruction if failing to live up to his covenantal demands.
And yet, should we place God as love into the center or our readings, studies, teachings, and activities, we will quickly discovered that divine holiness means something altogether different we framed and founded upon divine love.
So too our reading of the bible... of how the ancients got God partly right and partly wrong in their festivals, and holy days, their ceremonies and commendorations, their religious lives as versus their day-to-day lives.
In God's love all is praise, right, kind, and good. But without it, God is like the gods of their neighbors in attitude, action, and malignancy.
The bible then tells us about how the people in the bible beheld God. It comes out in the history sections of the bible, the preachings and prophecies, the longings and fears, their songs and praise, and across the breadth of the New Testament as Jesus preached a Sovereign God defined in terms of love rather than holy malevolency.
This God of Love ensnared Jesus, circling his soul around-and-about with its wisdom, longing, persuasion, and capture. Jesus taught a different kind of gospel than did his Temple superiors. It amazed them when they heard and shook their religious institutions to the very core of their prideful foundations.
It was this same God which the disciple John was inspired by and later wrote of in his gospel and epistles. Who, perhaps mockingly, fell in step with the alarmist eschatologies of his day, to write of God's vindication that would fall upon man for not loving one another.
Which in non-Calvinistic, and very Arminian terms, bespoke man's sin and evil more than it did God's retributive justice. A God such as preached by Reformational Calvinism has a lot more to be feared of than a God preached by Reformational Arminianism.
The one is high and might who crashes-down upon the lives of wicked men; the other, an incarnated God as found in Jesus' teaching of God's love and showing this God in exemplary ways of wisdom, kindness, and goodness.
Our sin is our own. God is not sin. Nor does God do works of evil and harm. God is a God of love always. There is no fickleness in this God of earth and creation. When we read the bible let us learn to read it as past imagined beliefs about God even as we have in the church's midst today.
But if reading the bible literally without any imagination or form of wit, then we can make of the bible anything we wish when ascribing our imaginings to our Savior God, including persuasive theologies meant to remove God from us because we our unholy when this is the very reason God is WITH us, loves us, and yearns to redeem us.
Think about it... not all theologies are healthy... nor any not written in God's love.
We do not copy the bible for it's religious or kingdom forms of past "godliness"
but study it for it's failings in lifting all into the love of God and into one another.
- re slater
Last week viewing Scott Ridley's movie, Napoleon, in IMAX 2D, I came away puzzled by it's storyline. It wandered a bit confusing the man, the wars, and his love, Josephine, with France's own story of revolution... of which it went through several as pointed out in my last post.
It took that night and the next morning before it became clear how the movie could become relatable to the Christian message and to global democracies as a whole.
It's a storyline which will not be very favorable to Christianity's own storyline but one which I think must be discussed.
Here's what I noticed when concluding my assessment of Napoleon:
The movie shows the turmoil a democracy can get itself in when it lets its guard down to authoritarian socio-political figures and policies. Such figures (leaders) confuse their constituents with words of division, oppression, blaming, and hate.
Napoleon also shows itself to be more than a documentary of the man or French history... it shows the deep struggle a nation-state faces in becoming a full-fledged democracy. One that is open to all it's people while not favoring a majority or minority. In America's case, our government is being held hostage by a vocal few identified as white supremacists and Christian nationalists.
Too, the movie shows why any-and-all forms of kingdom are to be eschewed and the equally difficult task of forming civilly fair forms of democracy.
This last point reflects upon evangelical Christianity's fixation with Jesus returning in flame and vengeance upon the world to establish his "theocratic" kingdom of rule over the nations as read in the book of Revelation as well as in the Old Testament regarding Israel's own ancient kingdom form of government.
NAPOLEON - Official Trailer (HD)
Sony Pictures Entertainment | 2:38
Thanksgiving 2023
This last observation is probably the one item which disturbs me most about present-day evangelical Christianity. That it has assumed for us that the best form of governance is not an open democracy where all it's citizens and members have an equal say... but that it favors a kingdom rule over an open democracy.
Here in America, under hardline republicans charging into office, we are facing the very real reality of becoming an "anocracy" as we devolve into a society which is partly authoritarian and partly dictatorship.
Democracy:
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Anocracy:
Anocracy is a form of government loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features".
Autocracy:
An autocracy is a system of government in which a single person or party (the autocrat) possesses supreme and absolute power.
Colonization:
Colonization is a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components. Colonization refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies in America or Australia, trading posts, and plantations, while colonialism to the existing indigenous peoples of styled "new territories". Colonization was linked to the spread of tens of millions from Western European states all over the world.
Reading through Wikipedia's article on Anocracy (the full article is given below) one finds human rights violations to rise significantly along with deep state violence across socio-political communities. This latter results from acts of terrorism by both the autocratic state leadership as well as from outside groups attracted to despotism (sic, the loss of human rights and welfare).
NAY! To MAGA Church supported Kingdom-Terror
Firstly, I neither want, nor will work for, any form of yesteryear's imagined biblical kingdoms by any church group. Those Church-kingdoms (the Ottoman Empire, Rome's Papal Empire, The Spanish, English Empires, etc) didn't work then and they will not work now.
A theocratic kingdom is unadvisable as an imaginary warrant for inputted divine holiness into a society leading always to human oppression and abuse of power.
Whereas the checks and balances of a Constitutional democracy requires give-and-take in civilly fair and equal forms of opportunity, freedom, and justice. Remove one ingredient and you lose all.
I therefore choose against any form of church rule, and against all forms of authoritarian rule. As the Constitutional framers of America's democracy well knew, Church-and-State must always remain separate to avoid theocratic oppression of a nation-state's people.
I also therefore choose to support all efforts for a civilly free, fair, open/accountable rule by the people with all it's checks and balances that an open democracy might cause a society to work unitedly together with one another against all other forces which would drive it apart into divisional quarrels and erratic views of religious oppression,
Nay! To Church Theologies of Theocratic Kingdom Oppressions
Secondly, as Jesus-Christians we do not copy the bible for it's forms of past "godliness" but study it for it's past failings. Here's what I mean:
Watching Napoleon showed the struggles a would-be people's democratic republic must face when rising against the face of monarchal authoritarianism. Though the storyline wanders and condenses too much information into the mere hours it has to tell of Napoleon's rise to power... the inferences are there of the deep struggles present when yearning to throw off a former monarchy's rule... that is, there is no such thing as the divine rights of kings when monarchs rule over the people of a nation.
My Christian Nationalist brethren have confused Jesus' "rule" these past centuries thinking a Theocratic Monarchy is the most preferred form of rule for any country.
It isn't.
They have simply assumed monarchial authoritarianism (either good or bad) as the preferred form from their reading of David and Solomon's kingdoms in the OT.
However, a deeper read shows how Israel lost its unity when the 10 northern tribes left the two southern tribes and fell into evil authoritarian practices.
In France, with its removal of King Louis XVI's terrible kingdom rule they chose an early form of democratic republic which had great difficulty in establishing what that form of government meant.
In the ensuing power vacuum a panel of people's representatives stepped in, screwed it up, quickly reduced itself to a panel of three, which quickly led to one, Napoleon.
And if you had a military behind you... and knew how to use it... as Napoleon did... then you had the power to rule in the demise of a former kingdom gone to rot.
As a quasi-King, or People's de facto ruler, Napoleon was a poor domestic leader but a great general. When Napoleon finally lost his rule in battle he had finally lost his rule with the people... a rule which he had practically lost many years earlier in France.
The MAGA Church Aligns with Oppression
Today, we think Trump and hardline Republicans will be magnanimous in their authoritarian rule. That they will usher in a benevolent form of Theocratic kingdom rather than a malevolent one which history teaches us will surely come.
Neither Anocracy nor any Kingdom forms of government are acceptable in a Constitutionally formed open democracy. And both will assure forms of oppression, demise, and wars both civil and international.
Hence, a theocratic kingdom is unadvisable simply posing in imposterous form as an assured warrant for human oppression and abuse of power. The checks and balances of a Constitutional democracy requires give-and-take in civilly fair and equal forms of opportunity, freedom, and justice. Remove one ingredient and you lose all.
Conclusion
Today, I have shown the kinds of devolution authoritarianism can have upon a democratic republic. America, currently, is experimenting with anocracy - a semi-state of democracy and autocracy (and oligarchy for the rich and powerful).
The discriminated and poorer classes of America's migrants and minorities must be a part of our national union for without it no truer form of democracy can lift up its peoples as caretakers of one another.
so that it benefits all by the FULL usage of all its people resources rather than restricting itself to an incapable few with lesser ties to their local communities. A Christian principal which no true church can either refuse or disagree.
In sum, reject all forms of authoritarianism and concentrate on becoming a fairer form of civil and international governance led by compassion, dialogue, and give-and-take. Only then can we, as a democratic society, eschew eschew all forms of discriminatory oppression, turmoil, and hatred.
If done, peace will be had with a deeper ability to surmount the difficulties of life when we are working together.
R.E. Slater
December 1, 2023
How Many in the World are in
Democracy, Anocracy or Autocracy?
BusiTelCe | 6:13 | Dec 11, 2019
Visualization shows world population that live in different political regimes over the past 200 years, 1816-2015.
Anocracy, or semi-democracy,[1] is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship,[2][3] or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features".[3] Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances."[4][5] The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements.[6][7] Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas.[8] Similarly, the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition.[2] Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.[9]
The operational definition of anocracy is extensively used by scholars Monty G. Marshall and Benjamin R. Cole at the Center for Systemic Peace,[10] which gained most of its dissemination through the polity data series. The data set aims to measure democracy in different states and retains anocracy as one of its classification methods for regime type.[11] Consequently, anocracy frequently appears in democratization literature that utilizes the polity-data set.[12]
Unlike traditional democracy, semi-democratic regimes, also known as hybrid regimes, are known for having guided democracy instead of liberal democracy. Semi-dictatorial regimes have dictatorial powers with some democratic values, and despite being authoritarian, have elections. In a closed anocracy, competitors are drawn from the elite. In an open anocracy, others also compete.[9] The number of anocratic regimes has steadily increased over time, with the most notable jump occurring after the end of the Cold War.[9] From 1989 to 2013, the number of anocracies increased from 30 to 53.[13]
Characteristics
Human rights
"The Polity IV score captures the type of political regime for each country on a range from -10 (full autocracy) to +10 (full democracy). Regimes that fall into the middle of this spectrum are called anocracies." From Our World in Data, 2015.[14]
The instability of anocratic regimes causes human rights violations to be significantly higher within anocracies than democratic regimes.[15][16][17] According to Maplecroft's 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas, eight of the top ten worst human rights violating countries are anocracies.[18][19] In addition, the report categorized every current anocracy as "at risk" or at "extreme risk" of human rights offenses.[18]
The high correlation between anocratic regimes and human rights abuses denotes the nonlinear progression in a country's transition from an autocracy to a democracy.[20][21][22][23] Generally, human rights violations substantially decrease when a certain threshold of full democracy is reached.[16][24] However, human rights abuses tend to remain the same or even to increase as countries move from an autocratic to an anocratic regime.[17][25][26]
During the revolutions of the Arab Spring, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen, all of the countries made relative progress towards more democratic regimes.[27] With many of the authoritarian practices of their governments remaining, those states currently fall under the category of anocracies.[13] They are also listed as some of the most extreme human rights violating countries in the world.[18][19] The violations include torture, police brutality, slavery, discrimination, unfair trials, and restricted freedom of expression.[19][28] Research has shown that political protests, such as those that occurred during the Arab Spring, generally lead to an increase in human right violations, as the existing government tries to retain power and influence over governmental opposition.[17][20][29][30][31] Therefore, transitioning governments tend to have high levels of human rights abuses.[32][33]
In its annual Freedom in the World report, Freedom House scored states’ violations of civil liberties on a seven-point scale, with a score of seven representing the highest percentage of violations.[34] Freedom House defined civil liberty violations as the infringement of freedom of expression, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and individual rights.[35] Most consolidated democracies received scores of one, but almost all anocracies were scored between four and six because of the high percentage of civil liberties violations in most anocratic regimes.[34]
Violence
Statistics show that anocracies are ten times more likely to experience intrastate conflict than democracies and twice as likely as autocracies.[36] One explanation for the increase in violence and conflict within anocracies is a theory known as More Murder in the Middle (MMM).[20][37] The theory argues that the unstable characteristics of anocratic regimes, which include the presence of divided elites, inequality, and violent challengers who threaten the legitimacy of the current social order, cause governing elites to resort to much more political repression or state terror than do democratic or authoritarian regimes.[20][33][38][unreliable source?] That leads to high levels of what are termed "life-integrity violations,"[20][32][33] which include state-sponsored genocide, extrajudicial executions, and torture.[20][25][26][32][33][39]
State life-integrity violations can be categorized as acts of state terror.[32][33][40] Acts of terrorism by both governmental and outside groups are generally higher in transitioning anocratic governments than in either democratic or authoritarian regimes.[41][42]Harvard Public Policy Professor Alberto Abadie argues that the tight control of authoritarian regime is likely to discourage terrorist activities in the state. However, without the stability of a clear authoritarian rule or a consolidated democracy, anocracies are more open and susceptible to terrorist attacks.[42][43] He notes that in Iraq and previously Spain and Russia, transitions from an authoritarian regime to a democracy were accompanied by temporary increases in terrorism.[44]
According to the political terror scale (PTS), a data set that ranks state sponsored violence on a five-point scale, almost every anocracy is ranked as having a score between three and five.[45] On the scale, a score of three indicates that in a state, "there is extensive political imprisonment, or a recent history of such imprisonment. Execution or other political murders and brutality may be common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, for political views is accepted."[45] States are ranked as a four when "civil and political rights violations have expanded to large numbers of the population. Murders, disappearances and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its generality, on this level terror affects those who interest themselves in politics or ideas."[45] Scores of five are given to states if "terror has expanded to the whole population. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals."[45] Although only eleven states were given scores of five in the 2012 Political Terror Scale report, four of those states, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan, were classified by the polity data series as anocracies.[13][45]
Civil war
There are differing views on whether or not anocracy leads to civil war. It is debated whether or not transitions between government regimes or political violence lead to civil war.
Civil war in unstable countries are usually the outcome of a country's inability to meet the population's demands.[9] The inability for the state to provide the needs of the population leads to factionalism within the country.[9] When factions are not able to get what they want, they take up arms against the state.[9]
Former democracies that transition to anocracy have a greater risk of being embroiled in civil conflict.[4] The population's awareness of what rights they had as a democratic society may compel them to fight to regain their rights and liberties. On the other hand, autocracies that transition into anocracies are less likely to break out in civil war.[4] Not all anocracies are unstable. There are many[citation needed] countries that are stable but are classified as anocracies, such as Russia[as of?].[4][13] It is the transitional qualities associated with some anocracies that are predicative of civil conflict.[4] The magnitude of the transition also affects the probability of a civil conflict. The higher magnitude of the transition, the higher likelihood of civil war.[4]
However, some international relations experts use the polity data series in the formulation of their hypothesis and study, which presents a problem because the Polity IV system uses violence and civil war as factors in its computation of a country's polity score.[2] Two components, "the degree of institutionalization, or regulation, of political competition,"[2] and "the extent of government restriction on political competition,"[2] are problematic to use in any study involving Polity IV and civil war in anocratic governments. In the numeric rating system of one of these parts of Polity IV, unregulated, "may or may be characterized by violent conflict among partisan groups."[2] The other component states that "there are relatively stable and enduring political groups - but competition among them is intense, hostile, and frequently violent."[2] The only thing that can be deduced concretely is that political violence tends to lead to civil war.[2] There is no solid evidence to support that political institutions in an anocracy leads to civil war.[2]
Broadness and complexity
While the first three characteristics capture the instability of anocracies, another feature of anocratic regimes is their broad descriptiveness. Anocracy describes a regime type with a mix of institutional characteristics that either constrains or promotes the democratic process, "encapsulating a complex category encompassing many institutional arrangements."[4][3] Although anocracies demonstrate some capacity for civil society and political participation, their autocratic and democratic counterparts show considerably more or less capabilities.[4][3] Thus, while scholars are easily able to identify democratic and autocratic regimes based on their respective characteristics, anocracies become a wider, "catchall" category for all other regimes.[4] However, despite its broadness and complexity, the convention is still used because of its relevance to civil instability as well as its usage in the polity data series.[4][46]
Examples
Africa
At the end of World War II, European control over its colonial territories in Africa diminished.[9] During the period of decolonization in the 1950s and 1960s, many African states gained independence.[9] Although these newly independent African states could become either democratic or autocratic regimes, manageability issues made way for autocratic regimes to come into power.[9] Most underdeveloped African states that did become democracies in this time period failed within 10 years and transitioned to autocracies.[9] For about 30 years after 1960, the number of autocratic regimes in Africa rose from 17 to 41 as the number of democratic regimes stayed around five.[9][47] After the collapse of communism in Europe and the rise of democratization at the end of the Cold War, Africa experienced a major political transformation.[47] In the 1990s, the number of autocracies decreased to nine, and the number of democracies increased to nine since many African countries remained anocratic.[9][47] By 2012, Africa had three autocracies, 17 democracies, and 30 anocracies.[47] By 2013, most African countries had remained either open or closed anocracies.[9] As African states transition from autocracy to anocracy and from anocracy to democracy, electoral conflicts and violence remain prevalent.[48]
Nigeria
With a polity score of four in 2014, Nigeria is categorized as an open anocracy, transitioning closer to democracy than autocracy.[13] In recent years, Nigeria has displayed characteristics of anocratic regimes including political corruption and electoral riggings.[49] Following years of military rule after gaining independence in 1960 to 1999 except for 1979 to 1983, the 2007 general elections marked the first time in Nigerian history that political leadership was passed from one civilian to another by an election.[49] However, in late 2006, just months before the April 2007 general election, ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo used state institutions to try to defeat political opponents as he attempted to win a third presidential term.[49][50] Using the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), an institution created by his administration, the former president had some of his political enemies and their family members arrested or detained.[50] Despite the electoral conflicts, some Nigerians view their country as running on democratic principles because military power has been controlled by political elites for 15 years.[50] However, those electoral conflicts, combined with state governors using legislative and judiciary power, to win elections repeatedly suggests that Nigeria remains an anocracy.[50] Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan was accused of abusing his power in an attempt to remain in office after 2015, despite claiming his presidency advocated democratic principles.[50] The Administration of President Buhari has also seen State forces used in ways that can be at times described as anti democratic by State Governors and agents of the Federal Government
Somalia
Somalia was labeled as an autocracy from 1969 to 2012, with a polity score of negative seven throughout the entire period.[13] From 1969 to 1991, Siad Barre was the military dictator of the Somali Democratic Republic.[51] After Barre was overthrown in 1991, two decades of chaos ensued, as civil war broke out and rival warlords fought to gain power. The consistent fighting of tribal leaders and warlords made the country unable to deal with natural disasters, droughts, and famines, which caused a combined 500,000 deaths in famines in 1992 and 2010 to 2012.[51]
After years of being split into fiefdoms, the main Somali warlords established an agreement to appoint a new president in 2004. However, the plan failed when Islamist insurgents, including the radical youth militia al-Shabaab, which has links to Al-Qaeda, gained control over much of southern Somalia from 2006 to 2008.[51][52] With the assistance of international peace keeping offensives and the Kenyan army, the Islamist insurgents were forced to withdraw in 2012.[51] In the same year, the first formal parliament in over 20 years was appointed in Somalia.[51] The newly formed parliament chose Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as the new president in September 2012. With international assistance, the Somali government has been able to rebuild itself and the country has recently been relatively more stable.[51] Since 2013, Somalia has retained a polity score of five and is listed as an open anocracy.[13]
Uganda
In the 1990s, Uganda transitioned from an autocracy to a closed anocracy.[13] Although Uganda saw a jump in its polity score in the mid-2000s, it has retained a polity score of negative two for the last decade.[13] Uganda is populated by many ethnic groups with the Buganda group, the largest of these groups, making up 17% of the population.[53] Since Uganda gained independence in 1962, incessant conflict has ensued between approximately 17 ethnic groups, which has led to political instability.[53] The dictator Idi Amin was responsible for around 300,000 deaths under his rule from 1971 to 1979, and guerrilla warfare from 1980 to 1985 under Milton Obote killed 100,000 people.[53] Human rights abuses under both rulers led to even more deaths from 1971 to 1985.[53]
In the early 1990s, Uganda experienced large-scale violent dissent as the country experienced more rebellions and guerrilla warfare.[54] As a result of the wars, the government called for nonparty presidential and legislative elections in the mid-1990s.[53] A period of relative peace followed, as a common law legal system was instituted in 1995. Uganda transitioned from an authoritarian regime to a closed anocracy.[13][53] The political situation of Uganda has seen little improvement under the rule of Yoweri Museveni, who has maintained power since 1986[53] because other political organizations in Uganda cannot sponsor candidates.[53] Only Museveni and his National Resistance Movement (NRM) can operate without any limitations leading to electoral conflicts and violence.[53]
Zimbabwe
When Robert Mugabe gained presidency in 1980, Zimbabwe was listed as an open anocracy with a polity score of four.[13][55] By 1987, the country had almost fully transitioned to an authoritarian regime, with a polity score of negative six, which made it a closed anocracy.[13] After remaining on the border between an authoritarian regime and closed anocracy for over a decade, Zimbabwe's polity score increased in the early 2000s. Currently, Zimbabwe has a polity score of 4, making it an open anocracy.[13] In recent years, Zimbabwe has moved toward becoming a more democratic regime, but electoral conflicts and human rights violations still exist leaving Zimbabwe as an anocratic regime.[55][56]
When Zimbabwe was a closed anocracy in the late 1990s, the country experienced major human rights violations.[56] Labor strikes were common, as employers did not listen to the demands of their employees, and real wages fell by 60 percent from 1992 to 1997.[56] The labor strikes that occurred in the late 1990s were declared illegal by the government of Zimbabwe, and blame was put on poor working-class citizens.[56] As labor laws continued hurting workers, health services declined, and housing projects stagnated.[56]
Since becoming president in 1980, Mugabe used a variety of tactics to remain in power that led to major electoral conflicts over the years.[55] In the March 2008 presidential election, the electoral body reported that Morgan Tsvangirai, the presidential candidate of the opposing party, had received more votes than Mugabe.[55] However, because Tsvangirai received 48% of the vote and not an absolute majority, it was announced that a runoff would take place. Using intimidation tactics, including murder threats, Mugabe and his party forced Tsvangirai to withdraw from the runoff, and Mugabe remained in power.[55] A US-led United Nations security council to impose sanctions on Mugabe failed, and talks about powersharing between Mugabe and Tsvangirai ended soon after the runoff.[55] After an opposing party candidate, Lovemore Moyo, won Speaker of the Legislature, a powersharing coalition was finally set up in September 2008 in which Tsvangirai was named prime minister.[55] The polity score of Zimbabwe had increased from one to four by 2010.[13] However, in 2013, Mugabe won his seventh straight presidential term, and the election was criticized for being rigged to allow Mugabe to win.[55]
Asia
Burma
Burma, or the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, is classified as an anocracy because of adverse armed conflict, changes in leadership, and the partly-democratic, partly-authoritarian nature of its government. Burma had a representative democracy after it gained independence from Britain. Soon after independence was achieved, there was an outbreak of various insurgencies and rebellions.[57] Many of the insurgencies were caused by divides along ethnic lines.[57] One of the most prominent civil wars in Burma, the Kachin conflict, restarted in 2011, and Burma is still embroiled in a civil war.[58][59]
Burma has had a history of changes in government, usually by military coups. In 1962, General Ne Win enacted a military coup and created the Burma Socialist Programme Party, which held power for 26 years.[60] On September 18, 1988, General Saw Maung led another military coup to return the government to the people and created the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), which was renamed State Peace and Development Council.[61] After holding free and legitimate elections in May 1990, the National League for Democracy (NLD) won with Aung San Suu Kyi at its head.[61] However, the military junta refused to give up power to the NLD.[61] The Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), backed by the military, won the 2010 elections and the military government was dissolved soon afterward.[60][62][63]
The Burmese government shows signs of having democratic as well as authoritarian features. Burma is a pseudodemocratic state because of the elections that were held in 1990 and 2010.[61][62] However, both elections were problematic because the military did not transfer power to the winning party in 1990, and the 2010 elections were seen as illegitimate.[61][62][64] Violent repression is the biggest signifier of the authoritarian nature of the Burmese government. The Win regime was marked by extreme oppression and human rights abuses and as a result, Burmese civilians and students protested against the government.[65][66] The Burmese government responded violently to the protests and the Tatmadaw, or Myanmar Armed Forces, killed many of the protestors.[66] After the coup in 1988 by General Maung, the protests were violently suppressed again, as Maung's government proceeded to implement martial law to bring peace and order.[61]
Cambodia
Cambodia is an example of anocracy because its government displays democratic and authoritarian aspects. Under the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, Cambodia implemented an electoral system based on proportional representation, held legitimate elections, and it instituted a parliamentary system of government.[67] The constitution, created on 21 September 1993 indicated that Cambodia was a parliamentary government with a constitutional monarchy.[67] Cambodia exhibited signs of a democratic state, especially with the presence of elections and a proportionally-representative government. After the coup in 1997, the Cambodian government has taken more authoritarian measures to keep peace in the country.[68] Protests have been suppressed violently by pro-government forces and many human rights activists and protesters have been arrested by the Cambodian government.[68][69][70]
Cambodia shows signs of being an unstable government with abrupt changes in leadership, making it an anocratic. The initial elections led to FUNCINPEC's victory, under the leadership of Prince Ranariddh. FUNCINPEC and the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party won 68 out of 120 seats in the National Assembly.[67] The Cambodian People's Party, led by Hun Sen, refused to accept the outcome. Although a coalitional government was created with Prince Ranariddh as the First Prime Minister and Sen as the Second Prime Minister, the deal failed as Sen led a coup d'état on July 5, 1997.[71] Sen and the CPP have been in power ever since, and the CPP recently won a general election against the Cambodia National Rescue Party, led by Sam Rainsy.[72]
Anocratic regimes are often implicitly mentioned in democratic transition literature.[84][85][86] There are numerous examples of regimes that have successfully transitioned to democracy from anocracy.
Mexico
Mexico's transition from an anocratic to democratic regime occurred in the 1980s and the 1990s on the electoral stage. The period was characterized by the rise of multiple parties, the decline of power of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, and the decentralization of power from the national level into municipalities.[87] The democratization process produced competitive elections with less voting fraud, culminating with the 1994 presidential election.[88][89] There was also a documented increase in the role of media and journalism during this period, which led to the creation of various special interest groups, such as those representing the environment, indigenous rights, and women's rights.[88] However, violence continues to remain a characteristic of Mexico's local elections.[90][91][92]
Taiwan
At the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the Republic of Chinaretreated to the island of Taiwan. The constitution used by the Republic of China to govern Taiwan guaranteed civil rights and elections, but it was ignored in favor of rule under martial law.[93] Taiwan's pro-democracy movement gained momentum in the early 1980s and coalesced into the formation of the Democratic Progressive Party in 1986. Over the next decade, Taiwan attempted to restore the civil rights promised in its constitution, culminating with the Taiwan's first direct presidential election in 1996.[94] Taiwan continues to move towards a consolidated democracy.[95]
Ghana
In 1991, Ghana was listed as an autocratic regime with a polity score of negative seven. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, Ghana was an open anocracy. In 2005, Ghana successfully transitioned from an open anocracy to a democracy as it has retained a polity score of eight since 2006.[13] A major part of Ghana's success can be attributed to its management of the electoral process to decrease electoral conflict.[48] Since Ghana began having elections in 1992, the strengthening of government institutions such as a strong, independent electoral commission has decreased electoral conflict.[48] The existence of civil society organizations and a media aimed at ensuring democratic principles have also helped manage electoral conflicts in Ghana. For example, Ghana's 2008 elections ended peacefully, as political institutions were able to respond to electoral challenges and advance democratic principles and processes.[48] However, some electoral conflicts remain on a small scale in Ghana such as ethnic vote blocking, vote buying, intimidation, and hate speeches.[48] Yet, even with those minor conflicts, Ghana has been able to transform from an anocracy to a democracy by decreasing electoral conflicts.[48]
Etymology
Use of the word "anocracy" in English dates back to at least 1950, when R. F. C. Hull's reprinted translation of Martin Buber's 1946 work Pfade in Utopia [Paths in Utopia] distinguished "an-ocracy" (neoclassical compound: ἀκρατία akratia) from "anarchy" - "not absence of government but absence of domination".[96] Moreover, the word "anocracy" is a mistranslation by Hull of Buber's word "Akratie".[97] The correct translation should have been "acracy." As it is, the only possible interpretation of "anocracy," is as a Latin-Greek compound "ano-cracy" (like "merito-cracy")[citation needed]
^Seawright, Jason; Collier, David (2014). "Rival Strategies of Validation: Tools for Evaluating Measure of Democracy". Comparative Political Studies. 47 (1): 111–138. doi:10.1177/0010414013489098. S2CID14026291.
^ Jump up to:abDavenport, Christian; Armstrong, David A. (2004). "Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights: A Statistical Analysis from 1976 to 1996". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (3): 538–554. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00086.x. JSTOR1519915.
^Zanger, Sabine (March 2000). "A Global Analysis of the Effect of Political Regime Changes on Life Integrity Violations, 1977-93". Journal of Peace Research. 37 (2): 213–233. doi:10.1177/0022343300037002006. JSTOR424921. S2CID110502394.
^Gartner, S. S.; Regan, P. M. (1996). "Threat and repression: the non-linear relationship between government and opposition violence". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (3): 273–288. doi:10.1177/0022343396033003003. JSTOR425316. S2CID36644947.
^ Jump up to:abRegan, Patrick M.; Henderson, Errol A. (2002). "Democracy, Threats and Political Repression in Developing Countries: Are Democracies Internally Less Violent?". Third World Quarterly. 23 (1): 119–136. doi:10.1080/01436590220108207. JSTOR3993579. S2CID33823017.
^Francisco, R. A. (1996). "Coercion and protest: An empirical test in two democratic states". American Journal of Political Science. 40 (4): 1179–1204. doi:10.2307/2111747. JSTOR2111747.
^Hendrix, Cullen S.; Wong, Wendy H. (July 2013). "When Is the Pen Truly Mighty? Regime Type and the Efficacy of Naming and Shaming in Curbing Human Rights Abuses". British Journal of Political Science. 43 (3): 651–672. doi:10.1017/s0007123412000488. JSTOR23526248. S2CID154774395.
^Gates, Scott; Havard, Heger; Jones, Mark P.; Strand, Havard (2003). Institutional Inconsistency and Political Instability: The Duration of Polities (Unpublished manuscript, Prio Institute).
^Spirer, H. F. (1990). "Violations of Human Rights—How Many?". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 49 (2): 199–210. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1990.tb02272.x.
^Gibney, Mark. Wood, Reed M. (2010) The Political Terror Scale (PTS): A Re-Introduction and a Comparison to CIRI."Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 32, Issue 2, 367-400. Retrieved from "Archived copy"(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 4 July 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
^Piazza, J. A. (2008). "Incubators of terror: Do failed and failing states promote transnational terrorism?". International Studies Quarterly. 52 (3): 469–488. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2008.00511.x. S2CID154963630.
^Abadie, A.; Gardeazabal, J. (2003). "The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country". American Economic Review. 93 (1): 113–131. doi:10.1257/000282803321455188. S2CID6141454.
^Gates, Scott; Hegre, Havard; Jones, Mark P. (2006). "Institutional inconsistency and political instability: Polity duration 1800-2000". American Journal of Political Science. 50 (4): 893–908. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00222.x.
^ Jump up to:abcdeCroissant, Aurel; Martin, Beate (2006). Between Consolidation and Crisis: Elections and Democracy in Five Nations in Southeast Asia. LIT Verlag Munster.
^Tien, Hung-Mao; Shiau, Chyuan-Jeng (Fall 1992). "Taiwan's Democratization: A Summary". World Affairs. 155 (2): 58–61.
^Rigger, Shelley (10 November 2011). "Democratic Transition and Consolidation in Taiwan". Paper Prepared for Taiwan's Future in the Asian Century: Toward a Strong, Prosperous, and Enduring Democracy Conference.
^Buber, Martin (1950) [1949]. Paths in utopia. The Martin Buber Library. Translated by Hull, R. F. C. Syracuse University Press. p. 43. ISBN9780815604211. Retrieved 25 April 2013. [...] Kropotkin is ultimately attacking not State-order as such but only the existing order in all its forms; [...] his "anarchy", like Proudhon's, is in reality "anocracy" (akratia); not absence of government but absence of domination.
^Buber, Martin (1950) [1946]. Pfade in Utopia. L. Schneider. p. 77. Retrieved 18 January 2022. [...] seine >>Anarchie<<, wie die Proudhons, in Wahrheit Akratie ist, nicht Regierungslosigkeit, sondern Herrschaftslosigkeit.