Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Is theocracy good?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, theocracies have many good points
Argument‹3 of 4›: A theocracy encourages stability

Theocracies could change the world for the better and increase societal stability.

The argument

Outside of Europe, theocracies almost always tended to bring political stability. The Aztec civilisation, for example, was based upon theocracy and was able to sustain vast populations before the Spanish conquistadors destroyed it. Native American culture may have entailed a type of theocracy that enabled communities to live in harmony with their environment and not hunt animals to depletion. The reason European Christian theocracies were unsuccessful was that Christianity contains no political instructions, so a western theocracy is tantamount to arbitrary rule. Islam, unlike other religions aims to provide both a political framework and a spiritual solace for its adherents hence the persisting numbers of Muslim theocracies.

Premises

[P1]Outside Europe, theocracies have almost always brought political stability, as the Aztec civilisation sustained vast populations and some Native American cultures lived in harmony with their environment. [P2] European Christian theocracies failed only because Christianity offers no political instructions, making them tantamount to arbitrary rule. [P3] Islam, by contrast, supplies both a political framework and spiritual solace, which is why Muslim theocracies have persisted. [C] Therefore, because a theocracy encourages stability where the religion provides political guidance, theocracies have many good points.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the historical examples are cherry-picked and shaky. The Aztec state rested on large-scale human sacrifice and did not endure, while 'living in harmony with the environment' is an unevidenced romanticisation. More fundamentally, stability under theocracy is frequently the stability of enforced conformity and suppressed dissent rather than genuine order. They add that modern theocracies are widely associated with the repression of women, minorities and free expression, and that secular states have achieved far greater — and freer — stability. Persistence or order, even where real, is not the same as good governance.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The examples are selective and unflattering on inspection — the Aztec state rested on mass human sacrifice and did not endure, and 'harmony with the environment' is an unevidenced romanticisation. [Rejecting P2] Attributing European theocracy's failure solely to Christianity 'lacking political instructions' ignores that theocratic rule of any creed tends toward arbitrary, unaccountable power. [Rejecting P3] That Muslim theocracies persist speaks to durability, not goodness; persistence is compatible with the suppression of dissent, women's rights and minorities.