Talk:List of forms of government/Archive 1

Archive 1

Big list notes

I agree with Lowellian. Some invented names were really jokes, with few Google hits at best. Feel free to add new ones but give at least one source where the name is used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added the term Particracy a few weeks ago. It's widely used in Belgium and Italy, but not much outside of those 2 countries. Wouter Lievens 09:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

sapienocraty

its not a mispelling its correct you write it like this

It is a hoax. Check out the article: Sapienocraty. Example: "if you are fat you do not deserve food" - Tεxτurε 15:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove “For Kids and starters” section?

The title of this section is POV, and the contents appear to be inaccurate (capitalism and socialism aren’t forms of government, and the remaining classifications refer to several different aspects of a government). Is there some reason that such a section should exist at all, or should it be removed? —Altales Teriadem (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a simple wiki. If you think simple renaming and/or cleanup will not salvage it, then let's delete it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism from Anarchism

Next to Anarchism it says "best described as a system that rejects hierarchy" or along the lines. Because of this and the fact that Anarcho-Capitalism sets up an intentional hiearchy between workers and employers/business owners, amongst other thing, it cannot be seriously considered a school of Anarchism, thus I'm removing it.

Anarchy is most accurately described as "without ruler(s)." Arbitrarily designating one end of a trade (i.e., money for labor) as the "ruler" is flawed. 12.47.123.121 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Republic

Unknownj removed republic from the list. But that's a form of government isn't it? It is categorized as such and defined as with references to monarchy (a form of government). I'm reinserting it. --C mon 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gynecocracy

I've added Gynecocracy to the list. It doesn't have enough articles linking to it. If it is merged with Matriarchy (There's an ongoing discussion curently), I'll remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Millancad (talk • contribs) 08:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Etymology

If -archy means 'leadership' then this list of '-archy's should say 'leadership by...' rather than 'government by'. There is a subtle, but etymologically distinct, difference. Bristoltrolley 11:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

contradict tag

If Anarchism should be removed from the list Forms of government, then it certainly must follow that Black should be removed from the List of colors. After all, black is even more clearly precisely the lack of all colors, just as some will argue that Anarchism is the lack of all government. However, just as I don't think that it is helpful to the user of Wikipedia to delete black from the list of colors, I don't think it is helpful to remove Anarchy from the list or template or category Forms of government. It's probably worth noting that it appears that black has been included on the Wikipedia list of colors since its inception over 4 years ago. Also see here [[1]]and here [[2]]for more discussion. Cheers, Doright (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism is not a form of government. According to the Wikipedia article, it's philosophy. Also anarchism by definition is against any government. Did history ever experienced any anarchistic government? Chelentano (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Communism and Fascism

Communism and Fascism are not forms of government. These are ideologies. Removed "Communism and Fascism" from the list. Chelentano (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the forms of goverment called where they have communism or fascism as ideology?

Communism and Fascism are economic and social ideologies, and Communist State or Fascist State is far too broad because a Communist State could very well be democratic and free. I'm removing Communist State, if there are no objections.

The merger

I think the merger of -archy and -cracy into this combined article was a terrible idea. It introduces a depressing amount of POV issues that didn't exist before. In the previous articles, we needed only list them alphabetically and be done with it, aside from perhaps short summaries of each. But now, we've got highly contestable parent groupings that can only lead to endless reshuffling by various factions. This is one of the most ill-conceived moves I've seen among political articles. It's almost as though it was intended to stir up controversy. I'd have been in favor of simply merging the previous articles, more or less intact, into a single space. But I'm absolutely opposed to what was done. So much so that all I can do is shake my head in despair. I don't even know where to begin fixing it in such a way that wouldn't swiftly escalate into a turf war. This really, really sucks. I can only hope I'm not alone and that someone with the right wiki-connections will take the initiative and get the ball rolling so we unconnected proles can join them once the repair work is safely underway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Magocracy?

Its appearing as a form of government in the list to the right (forms of government template list? don't know the name). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magocracy Which I think its pretty ridiculous, should this be removed from that list? 200.49.188.27 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lobbycracy

What about lobbycracy? Both EU and USA are more or less run by lobbyists working for different interestgroups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.155.143 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC) That's a little bit biased against lobbyists and I don't think it's appropriate for the article.

"Lobbycracy/Mobocracy" is called Ochlocracy. 96.240.34.47 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Stupid

This is kind of stupid, because it generalizes too much. For example, I could have a autocratic-democratic-oligarcic-monarchy (or autodemosolimonarchy). The people elect a noble family (from a set of say, fourteen), who rule unquestioned until one member dies. Then there is another election. What would you classify that under, hmm?

Oligarchy Mobeelex (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

the American form of govt

this should be added

the diff between democracy vs republic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.34.218 (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in thereMobeelex (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Media-ocracy?

That sounds like something made up by someone who doesn't like the media. The actual article has nothing of substance (no references,) and has been nominated for deletion as of Nov 2, 2006. I'm going to remove all references to it as a form of government here on Nov 8 if there are no objections. (Since the actual article on "Media-ocracy" will likely be deleted then, anyway.) Ehurtley 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's called mediocracy and it has nothing to do with the media. It is a form of government or dominance of society by the médiocre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocracy Mobeelex (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Noocracy

Anyone here more in tune with political sciences that would know where noocracy would falls into the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdealisticRealist (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be a sub-catagory of Aristocracy Mobeelex (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the proletariat

This is not a system that falls under "Democracy (The Rule of the many)". It a rule of the few.. namely the "communist party".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it does kind of fit into a democracy as the people do rule it only that you must be an industrial working class to be part of the government. It could be argued to be in either but it really doesn't matter which one because it can fit under both. Mobeelex (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pornocracy

What about pornocracy? 14:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.44.222 (talk)

It's in there but it has a diffrent name and the link cover more then just pornocracy. It's title should be Saeculum obscurum. Mobeelex (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Polity?

1. Polity as expressed by Aristotle, where is it? 2010-04-29 T05:18 Z-7 PDT 76.90.227.163 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Polity isn't a form of government it's the form of government of a nation, state, church, or organization. For example the polity of England would be a constitutional monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobeelex (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Socialism

Socialism is not a form of government. It is an economic policy that is usually connected to democracy and tyranny. It is certainly not Rule by all. That is not possible. People will always disagree on something. Southafricanguy (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How is Socialism rule by all? I cannot imagine a Socialist society where all rule in a fashion other than democracy. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialism is not a form of government. Its a form of economy, meaning state controlled enterprises. Most socialist states are or were non democratic republics, USSR, GDR, China and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.93.154 (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Socialism is a form of government. In "The Communist Manifesto," Marx and Engels set out the transition from a pro-Capitalist government to Communism, in which a dictatorship of the proletariat replaces the pro-Capitalist government. During that time, the government acts to eliminate class boundaries - that is the Socialist form of government. This "rule by all" comes from Communism, which should exist after the Socialist government is dissolved - Marx and Engels argued that the destruction of classes would create a society without a government. --66.80.177.254 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In practice Socialism has not been rule by all, however it was designed to be that way, so the definition is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.157.123 (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a "pro capitalist" government? Again no form of governing. This puts China,Russia and the US in the same pot. The 6 classical greek forms of governing are enough to describe every even the modern forms of governing a state. To make it more clear, during WWII even the United States had a socialist economy to fulfill the needs of producing war equipment which wouldnt happen in a pure capitalist economy. Nevertheless they stayed a republic (which is a mixed form of government) "rule by all" decribes a direct democracy like Athens had or nowadays to a certain degree Switzerland. If just the working class is into power then it cant be "rule by all", upper classes are excluded. Anyway Marx was wrong the struggles between classes are vital to every state. If you look at the Roman Republic you can see as if the Plebejans got too much Power, the republic dissolved and Caesar put himself into power.

I agree. Socialism is not a form of government. It's a form of economy and system of ownership: mainly state property, wealth redistribution and extended social benefits (free health care, higher education, welfare).Chelentano (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

True socialism is not a direct form of government it is a economic and social policy but it affects the form of the government and as said before it is usually connected to democracy and tyranny so it has been added as it is a deviant form. Mobeelex (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Diarchy

Should diarchy be in this list? --HappyDog 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is in the list Mobeelex (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Authoritarianism = Autocracy

They both mean 1 thing rule of a single entity(person, group etc.). Why are they separated?

Answer: Authoritarianism is a subgroup in Autocracy.

I agree: Authoritarianism is a subgroup in Autocracy. Making correction in hierarchy. Chelentano (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, don't do that, leave them the way they were: seperated. If you read the paragraph at the top of the page it will say that the forms of governments' definitions may overlap each other. Mobeelex (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sociocracy

I removed the previous comment here because it was innapropriate and did not relate to the article. Mobeelex (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is kind of a joke

It lists governments that don't exist and have never existed. While interesting, this article is not only uninformative, a student coming to this list (ranked as highly important to the politics portal) would come away with several incorrect views of kinds of government. Yes, it is important, for instance, to list Communist or Anarchist thinking. However, listing random governments we come up with ourselves is foolish and a waste of the readers time, as well as against wikipedia's rule of 'no independent research' User:Ethan_Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.172.151 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Absolutely ridiculous list, non-encyclopedic, whimsical, imaginary, the worst kind of non-scholarship. "Forms of government" is an undefined phrase that leaves the list open to putting utter nonsense in. Government of what? Nations? People? Emotions? Societies? Motor-cars? Chemical reactions?

OK, maybe I'm being obtuse, the term "government" should be obvious in this context. But it's not. People and societies have ways of governing themselves that aren't synonymous with political belief (or non-belief) systems. Three quarters of what's in the list is completely imaginary. And what about ways of governing associations of people at smaller than national level? What about board of directors, trustees, representative assemblies, and so on? Let's just call a shovel a shovel. There are only four types of "government" of people: One person decides for everybody (call it what you will; "dictatorship" fits, as does "cult leader" and "editor"); a subset decides (representative government, board of directors, college of cardinals, figure skating competitions); the majority decides (democracy, in many permutations); or everybody decides for themselves (anarchy).

This is the sort of article that makes Wikipedia about as insightful as the doodling on a sophomore's notebook cover. I rant but don't propose changes because Wikipedia itself is a democratic anarchy, and truth isn't subject to "consensus." Plus I'm lazy. 72.148.152.214 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a joke because it's here and it has a list of forms of governments and even more types of governments to the right of the page. If you click on the link and there just so happens to be pages about what you selected, you will then be lead to a page that has more information and is more useful.This list is like any other list on Wikipedia, so if you consider this one a 'joke' then you might as well consider them all a joke.It is also not a waste of a viewers’ time because it leads to information and the viewer is not at all obliged to look through or browse or do anything with this list. The list would not be wasting any viewers’ time, because if they come here and somehow found themselves not able to leave they would be wasting their own time.Government is government; you would be nonsensical to think of "Government of what? Nations? People? Emotions? Societies? Motor-cars? Chemical reactions?" when presented with "List of forms of government". Also, there need be no more clarity added to the title as there are surely more ambiguous titles that meet all requirements to be a proper title.The term “Government” is obvious in this context because “List of Forms of Government” should not bring anything else to mind besides forms of government. This list is not about words synonymous to political beliefs; it is about forms of government. Nowhere in the title and article says “the forms of government listed will be real and/or currently in use and/or have ever been in use.” Forms of governments apply to any group of people no matter the size. For example, one group could monarchical while the other a direct democracy. Boards of directors, trustees, and so on are not forms of a government they are ruling bodies of organizations. Representitive assemblies are usually branches of governments and if the nation has a representitive assembly that is the government they are then an oligarchy, which happens to be in the list you think should be brought down to only four forms of government. If you also read the little paragraph above the list it say so knowledgably “The systems listed are of course not mutually exclusive, and often have overlapping definitions.” By not having the most amount of information about everything our website decrease, because I am nearly positive that most good and credible Wikipedians would rather have all information, even the information of such small information the web link would never be activated for years rather than broad and general so broad you would only get detail that applies to everything about it and no unique detail because it doesn’t apply to every section about it. So why would you want to take 75+ forms of government and shrink it down to four forms? Mobeelex (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It has to be a joke, either that or off-railed by one-sided politics. Why are abstract concepts listed side by side with forms of government? Carewolf (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Republic is not Democracy

A republic represents the "rule of law", the law is the king in a republic (in America that would be the Constitution, i.e. "King Constitution"). It can have democratic features, such as elected officials, but is definately NOT "rule by the many". Ninsegtari (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A democracy is not a form of government, it is an abstract concept of where from power is derived. Republic is a form of government. Most democratic states are either constitutional monarchies or republics. Carewolf (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dictatorship of proletarian, democracy, and socialistic states

I have a question for you all:

Why do you have put the dictatorship of proletarian inside the democracy types of government?

Who can a dictatorship be looked as a democracy?

Why don't you put it inside the socialistic form of power chapter?

Pardon, I'm the author of this comment.--Davide Raghnar (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Other forms of oligarchy

Could the form of government "ruling clique" be added to this page? I wrote a page about the ruling clique system of government. I think it would be useful to set up a link here for it.

Sure, it deserves a note as a subtype of oligarchy. I will add it in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism from Anarchism

I am gona put it back with (disputed) like the articles do.

Where is Protarchy?

Why is PROTARCHY omitted? It well existed in Ancient Greek times and really should be considered nowadays!

Alphabetizing

I'm putting this alphabetical order, hope no one has an issue with that.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

India's status as a federation/unitary state

India's own Wikipedia page describes it as a federal republic, shouldn't it be moved to the federation section instead of the unitary section? Notumengi (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"Totalitarian Democracy"

That is completely biased. It's simply another way of saying representative democracy but totalitarian if its constitution doesn't enforce liberalism and anything else. That just applies to every nation that has constitutional restriction over politics. I think that line shall be deleted. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That could totally be possible. Totalitarism lies in controlling everything. Imposing drastic restrictions. Often violence from the state. But it lacks a formal definition because few countries claimed to be so. An array of parties might be authorised if they are close from the line of the party. So yes elections could occur even if mostly flawed. Liberalism is not in the definition of democracy. (Rule of people's will). Representative and democracy are also things that can be conceived as separated. It does not mean there is nobody to enforce democracy or elections by the rules (actually most countries do not have a service to enforce it). Liberalism might occur in a totalitarian state. On some points soviet union was liberal WHILE totalitarian (homosexuality is legal in the 20s in some soviet republics). Women are encouraged in leaving their traditionnal roles. Many countries given/considered as examples of democracies woud just jail, execute, expulse them. It is untrue to say that totalitarian states had no restrictions. At least some key ones at least for some.

"Often violence from the state" this did happen also from democracies. Representation does not bring always democracy.

United States are defined as a "panopticon" where one is looked at but unable to tell he is looked at. That goes against, constitution, state constitutions, UN laws. Etc. It is to be noted UN is not here to enforce it. And NSA,CIA,FBI most likely with massive relevations by snowden just might slide into controlling everything. Veto right of permanenet security council member states at UN is also a way to controll everything it may considered undemocratic over the other states. Yet this is para-legal. Being blatant violations of constitution.

So yes a totalitarian democracy is possible concept. One condition: respecting election's outcomes, not interfering with them.

-Execute people's will (consent is not meant to be supposed, or bypassed with exceptions> so elections or referendums might be needed) even if it includes to take drastic mesures, and prosecute harshly/violently, watch everything. Actually here those mesures are usually taken on people's behalf WHILE having votes. Taking those mesures when there are no votes isn't democratic either.

Republican Party

Why is the Republican Party listed here? 2601:3C9:100:6320:4060:97B5:B5D:5C49 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Anarchy isn't a form of government

By definition, Anarchy is not a form of government. It's the lack of one. Why is it listed here? Galactipod (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It pertains to governement matters

--2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:D403:F49A:3318:77DF (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

"Oligarchy" as a Raelian invention

The Oligarchy entry currently claims that Oligarchy is "A term invented by the founder of Raëlism." This is bizarre and I'm going to remove it. A cursory glance around indicates that mentions of "oligarchy" go back to the 15th century in English, and that the term's presence in other languages goes back at least as far as Plato's Republic. 98.240.197.125 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Name for government without Coalition government?

Example European parliament, which has no Coalition government HudecEmil (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Where should the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan be classified?

Until 2021, Afghanistan was an Islamic republic and would be divided between Mauritania, Iran and Pakistan, but after the fall of Kabul, the Islamic Emirate was restored. The Afghan Islamic Emirate is the only state establishment of its kind in the world, the emirate evokes a monarchy, but it is called so only because the leader is referred to as the "prince of the faithful" (prince as the Arabic equivalent of emir) and the government is theocratic, just like in Iran. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This page is not an exhaustive list. Rather, the countries listed are examples. Edge cases are best kept out. Afghanistan is classified as provisional at List of countries by system of government because the Taliban call it an "interim government" and have no constitution. But it could be classified as both a theocracy and an emirate. Your translation of Amir al-Mu'minin is actually incorrect. "Prince" is the correct translation of "emir" in some contexts but not this one. It is better translated as "commander", and the supreme leader of Afghanistan is typically not considered a monarch, just as the supreme leader of Iran isn't. 25stargeneral (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Which thing go up with two legs and come down with three?

I don’t know if you know tell me what is it. 180.188.251.19 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)