Jump to content

Herrenvolk democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ballot paper used in the referendum. Ballot reads on the upper row: IS U TEN GUNSTE VAN 'N REPUBLIEK VIR DIE UNIE? in Afrikaans and on the bottom row: ARE YOU IN FAVOUR OF A REPUBLIC FOR THE UNION? in English.
A ballot paper from the 1960 South African republic referendum, in which only white people were allowed to vote—the first such national election in the union.

Herrenvolk democracy is a nominally democratic form of government in which only a specific ethnic group has voting rights and the right to run for office, while other groups are disenfranchised.[1] Herrenvolk democracy is a subtype of ethnocracy, which refers to any form of government where one ethnic group dominates the state, with or without elections. Elections were/are generally free, but voting suffrage was restricted based on race, with governance that reflected the interests of the politically dominant racial group. The German term Herrenvolk, meaning "master race", was used in nineteenth century discourse that justified German colonialism with the supposed racial superiority of Europeans.[2]

The Confederate States of America (1861–1865), South Africa under apartheid (1948–1994), and Liberia (1847–1946) are described as examples of Herrenvolk democracy. The State of Israel (1948–) has also been characterized as a Herrenvolk democracy by some scholars,[3][4][5] but other scholars dispute this characterization.

Characteristics

[edit]

This form of government is typically employed by an ethnic group or groups to maintain control and power within the system. It is often accompanied with a pretense of egalitarianism.[clarification needed] As people of the dominant ethnic group gain freedom and liberty and egalitarian principles are advanced, other ethnic groups are repressed and prevented from being involved in the government.

The term was first used in 1967 by Pierre van den Berghe in his book Race and Racism.[6]

Examples

[edit]

In his 1991 book The Wages of Whiteness, historian David R. Roediger reinterprets this form of government in the context of 19th-century United States, arguing that the term "Herrenvolk republicanism" more accurately describes racial politics at this time. The basis of Herrenvolk republicanism went beyond the marginalization of black people in favor of a republican government serving the "master race"; it contended that "blackness" was synonymous with dependency and servility and was, therefore, antithetical to republican independence and white freedom.[7] Consequently, the dependent white worker at this time used his whiteness to differentiate himself from and elevate himself over the dependent black worker or enslaved person.[8] According to this ideology, black people were not merely "non-citizens"; they were "anti-citizens" who inherently opposed the ideals of a republican government.[9]

This principle can be seen in the development of both the United States—especially the Southern states—and South Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries.[10] In these historical scenarios, even as legislation moved toward universal male suffrage and later toward universal suffrage for white people, it also further entrenched restrictions on political participation by black people and upheld their disenfranchisement.[11]

According to sociologist Michael West, Southern Rhodesia and later Rhodesia adopted a voting franchise based on income, property ownership, and literacy qualifications which was not a whites-only "herrenvolk democracy" as practiced in neighboring South Africa.[12] West notes that the Rhodesian system was "unlike" a herrenvolk democracy in that sense, although it still upheld white supremacy by imposing strict economic qualifications which only permitted a relatively small number of black Africans to participate in the democratic process.[12]

In their discussion of South Africa as a herrenvolk democracy, sociologists Chester Hunt and Lewis Walker found that the Rhodesian system could not confine citizenship and representative government to the "herrenvolk" because it was simply too small - white Rhodesians never made up more than five percent of the country's total population.[13] Hunt and Walker argued that this practical reality forced white Rhodesians to accept compromises that resulted in a slightly more pluralistic system as opposed to South Africa's herrenvolk democracy, albeit one in which they continued to enjoy disproportionate influence.[13]

In Liberia voting was restricted to descendants of Americo-Liberians until 1946.[14][15] Liberian nationality law is not alone:

At least half a dozen [African] countries effectively ensure that those from certain ethnic groups can never obtain nationality from birth; nor can their children nor their children’s children. At the most extreme end, Liberia and Sierra Leone, both founded by freed slaves, take the position that only those of “Negro” (Liberia) or “NegroAfrican” (Sierra Leone)[when?] descent can be citizens from birth. Sierra Leone also provides for more restrictive rules for naturalisation of “non-negro-Africans”, while Liberia provides that those not “of Negro descent” are not only excluded from citizenship from birth, but, “in order to preserve, foster, and maintain the positive Liberian culture, values, and character”, are prohibited from becoming citizens even by naturalisation.

— Manby, 2016[16]

Following the dissolution of the Republican Party in the 1890s, Liberia turned into a one-party state under the True Whig Party until 1980.

Some scholars and commentators, including Ilan Pappé, Baruch Kimmerling, and Meron Benvenisti, have characterized Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy due to Israel's de facto control of the occupied territories whose native inhabitants may not vote in Israeli elections.[3][4][17][5] Others, such as Sammy Smooha, Ilan Peleg, Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Adi Ophir, have asserted that this characterization is invalid, variously describing the Israeli regime as a liberal democracy, ethnic democracy, illiberal democracy or a "hybrid regime".[18][19][20][21]

[edit]

Ethnic democracy

[edit]
Main article: Ethnic democracy

The term ethnic democracy has sometimes been used with either the same or a different meaning as Herrenvolk democracy. The former term was first introduced by Professor Juan José Linz of Yale University in 1975, who defined it as functionally synonymous with Herrenvolk democracy: "a political system that is democratic for the dominant group but excludes, on the basis of ethnicity, other groups from the democratic process".[22] However, it was subsequently and independently used by University of Haifa sociologist Professor Sammy Smooha in a book published in 1989,[23] as a universalised model of the nature of the Israeli state.[24][22] Unlike Linz, Smooha and a number of other scholars have used the term to refer to a type of state that differs from Herrenvolk democracy (or ethnocracy) in having more purely democratic elements: they argue that Israel and other purported "ethnic democracies" provide the non-core groups with more political participation, influence and improvement of status than is typical under a Herrenvolk state.[19] However, critical scholars have argued that the so-called "ethnic democracies" are not fundamentally different from Herrenvolk democracies or ethnocracies, or that the differences are of degree rather than kind. According to these critics, Herrenvolk democracy and ethnic democracy both share numerous key features, in particular hegemonic control and tyranny of the majority, but differ in tactics: when the minority is unmanageable or outright ceases to be a numerical minority, the dominant ethnic group resorts to the more repressive tactics of Herrenvolk democracy, but when the non-dominant ethnicities are smaller or weaker, the dominant group maintains a façade of democracy.[19]

Ethnocracy

[edit]
Main article: Ethnocracy

The term "ethnocracy" was initially defined by Oren Yiftachel as a model for describing and understanding Israel, as "a non-democratic regime which attempts to extend or preserve disproportional ethnic control over a contested multiethnic territory".[25][19] Today, ethnocracies generally make at least some attempts to erect a thin democratic façade.[26] Yiftachel distinguishes ethnocracy by noting that "[s]ignificant (though partial) civil and political rights are extended to minority members, distinguishing ethnocracies from Herrenvolk or authoritarian regimes."[27] Similarly, interpreting Yiftachel's model, Sammy Smooha has noted that while ethnocracy, like Herrenvolk democracy, is not truly democratic, it distinguishes itself from the latter in having "universal suffrage and democratic institutions".[19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Vickery, Kenneth P. (June 1974). "'Herrenvolk' Democracy and Egalitarianism in South Africa and the U.S. South". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 16 (13): 309–328. doi:10.1017/s0010417500012469. JSTOR 17826.
  2. ^ Gründer, Horst (1999). "Ideologie und Praxis des deutschen Kolonialismus" [Ideology and practice of German colonialism]. In Beck, Thomas (ed.). Überseegeschichte [Overseas history]. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. pp. 254 et seq. ISBN 9783515074902.
  3. ^ a b Kimmerling, Baruch (3 April 2002). "Opinion | A matter of conscience : Israeli democracy's decline". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
  4. ^ a b Barghouti, Omar (3 August 2011). "Dropping the last mask of democracy". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
  5. ^ a b Gerrard, Douglas (19 April 2019). "Weimar Israel". Jacobin. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
  6. ^ van den Berghe, Pierre L. (1967). Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. New York; Sydney: Wiley.
  7. ^ Roediger 1997, p. 172.
  8. ^ Roediger 1997, pp. 59–60.
  9. ^ Blevins, Cameron. "U.S. History Qualifying Exams: Book Summaries: The Wages of Whiteness". Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
  10. ^ Anderson, T. L. "Herrenvolk Democracy: The Rise of the Alt-Right in Trump's America". Critical Theory and the Humanities in the Age of the Alt-Right. Palgrave Macmillan: 88.
  11. ^ Vickery, Kenneth P. (June 1974). "'Herrenvolk' Democracy and Egalitarianism in South Africa and the U.S. South". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 16 (3): 311–315. doi:10.1017/s0010417500012469. JSTOR 17826.
  12. ^ a b West, Michael O. (18 December 2008). ""Equal Rights for All Civilized Men": Elite Africans and the Quest for "European" Liquor in Colonial Zimbabwe, 1924-1961" (PDF). International Review of Social History. 37 (3): 382. doi:10.1017/S0020859000111344.
  13. ^ a b Hunt, Chester; Walker, Lewis (1979). Ethnic Dynamics Patterns of Intergroup Relations in Various Societies. Holmes Beach: Learning Publications. pp. 201–203. ISBN 978-0918452160.
  14. ^ Kazuteru Omori (2017). ""Little America" in Africa: Liberia as a Touchstone for African Americans" (PDF). The Japanese Journal of American Studies (28).
  15. ^ "1900-1997 One Nation, Many Peoples". Library of Congress.
  16. ^ Bronwen Manby (2016). Citizenship Law in Africa (3 ed.). Cape Town: African Minds. ISBN 978-1-928331-08-7.
  17. ^ Ariely, Gal (2021). "Israel's Regime Conflicting Classifications". In Kumaraswamy, P. R. (ed.). The Palgrave International Handbook of Israel. Singapore: Springer. pp. 1–16. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-2717-0_2-1. ISBN 978-981-16-2717-0.
  18. ^ Smooha, Sammy (1997). "Ethnic Democracy: Israel as an Archetype". Israel Studies. 2 (2): 198–241. doi:10.2979/ISR.1997.2.2.198. ISSN 1084-9513. JSTOR 30246820.
  19. ^ a b c d e Smooha, Sammy (October 2002). "The model of ethnic democracy: Israel as a Jewish and democratic state". Nations and Nationalism. 8 (4): 475–503. doi:10.1111/1469-8219.00062. ISSN 1354-5078.
  20. ^ Harel-Shalev, Ayelet; Peleg, Ilan (March 2014). "Hybridity and Israel's Democratic Order: The End of an Imperfect Balance?". Contemporary Review of the Middle East. 1 (1): 75–94. doi:10.1177/2347798913518462. ISSN 2347-7989.
  21. ^ Ariely, Gal (28 February 2021). Israel's Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108951371.002. ISBN 978-1-108-95137-1.
  22. ^ a b Smooha, 2001, p.23: "I used this name in 1989 without being aware that it was coined originally by Linz in 1975 to refer to a political system that is democratic for the dominant group but excludes, on the basis of ethnicity, other groups from the democratic process. In 1996 Linz and Stepan followed Linz’s original usage and employed the term (Type II, pp. 429-430) to essentially mean “Herrenvolk democracy”, which is a non-democratic system."
  23. ^ Smooha, S. The model of ethnic democracy Archived 2 June 2010 at the Wayback Machine, European Centre for Minority Issues, ECMI Working Paper # 13, 2001, p24.
  24. ^ S Smooha, Ethnic democracy: Israel as an archetype Archived 2017-03-09 at the Wayback Machine Israel, 1997
  25. ^ Yiftachel, Oren (1997). "Israeli Society and Jewish-Palestinian Reconciliation: 'Ethnocracy' and Its Territorial Contradictions". Middle East Journal. 51 (4). Middle East Institute: 505–519. ISSN 0026-3141. JSTOR 4329117. Retrieved 21 October 2024.
  26. ^ Anderson, James (30 November 2016). "ETHNOCRACY: Exploring and Extending the Concept". Cosmopolitan Civil Societies. 8 (3): 1–29. doi:10.5130/ccs.v8i3.5143. Retrieved 23 March 2021.
  27. ^ Ufheil-Somers, Amanda (28 June 1998). "Democracy or Ethnocracy?". MERIP. Retrieved 21 October 2024.

Bibliography

[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herrenvolk_democracy&oldid=1258684570"