A theocratic government structure is efficient

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that theocracy's advantage lies in the speed with which it can act. A theocracy operates through a centralized structure with fewer branches of government, so a general declaration from the leader is often all that is necessary to create the desired changes. Where authority is divided, a policy must survive negotiation between institutions before it takes effect; where it is concentrated and religiously sanctioned, the distance between a decision and its implementation is short. A second efficiency is said to follow from shared premises. Because everyone is on the same page from the start, deliberation does not have to establish what the society is for before it can address what should be done. Theocracies therefore typically discuss the best ways to implement processes instead of debating the underlying ideas — on this account converting arguments about ends, which rarely resolve, into arguments about means, which can. The examples offered are meant to show that the structure operates at very different scales: Yemen, Vatican City, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, and Mauritania range from a city-state to large national populations, and proponents argue that in each case the centralized structure benefits the local population. The final claim concerns compliance. Theocracies are said to achieve higher levels of societal and legislative compliance than other forms of government because the leader holds a sanction no secular authority can match: the authority to declare a person to be eternally damned for non-compliance. Where a state can impose penalties only in this life, a theocracy is held to reach further, so laws are followed with less need for monitoring or enforcement. Taken together — fast decision-making, deliberation confined to implementation, and compliance secured at low cost — these features are offered as evidence that a theocratic government structure is efficient, and that this counts among the good points of theocracy.

Premises

Counter-arguments

A theocracy equates to a dictatorship and is the antithesis of democracy. The all-consuming power of the leader is not beneficial to the citizens.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] This is not beneficial to citizens.