Herrenvolk democracy is a nominallydemocratic form of government in which only a specificethnic group hasvoting rights and the right to run for office, while other groups aredisenfranchised.[1]Herrenvolk democracy is a subtype ofethnocracy, which refers to any form of government where one ethnic group dominates thestate, with or without elections. Elections were/are generallyfree, but voting suffrage was restricted based onrace, with governance that reflected the interests of the politically dominant racial group. The German termHerrenvolk, meaning "master race", was used in nineteenth century discourse that justified Germancolonialism with the supposedracial superiority ofEuropeans.[2]
TheConfederate States of America (1861–1865),South Africa underapartheid (1948–1994), andLiberia (1847–1946) are described as examples ofHerrenvolk democracy. TheState of Israel's (1967–present) occupation of thePalestinian territories is also characterized as aHerrenvolk democracy.[3][4][5] The breakaway British dependency ofRhodesia (1965–1979) maintained aminoritarian system that mirrored aspects ofherrenvolk democracy, but did not restrict its political franchise to members of the dominant ethnic or racial class, choosingeconomic and financial criteria instead.[6]
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 ofegalitarianism.[clarification needed] As people of the dominant ethnic group gainfreedom andliberty and egalitarian principles are advanced, other ethnic groups arerepressed and prevented from being involved in the government.
The term was first used in 1967 byPierre van den Berghe in his bookRace and Racism.[7]
In his 1991 bookThe Wages of Whiteness, historianDavid 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 ofHerrenvolk republicanism went beyond themarginalization of black people in favor of arepublican 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.[8] 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.[9] According to this ideology, black people were not merely "non-citizens"; they were "anti-citizens" who inherently opposed the ideals of a republican government.[10]
This principle can be seen in the development of both theUnited States—especially theSouthern states—andSouth Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries.[11] In these historical scenarios, even as legislation moved towarduniversal male suffrage and later towarduniversal suffrage forwhite people, it also further entrenched restrictions on political participation byblack people and upheld their disenfranchisement.[12]
According to sociologist Michael West,Southern Rhodesia and laterRhodesia 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.[6] West notes that the Rhodesian system was "unlike" a herrenvolk democracy in that sense, although it still upheldwhite supremacy by imposing strict economic qualifications which only permitted a relatively small number of black Africans to participate in the democratic process.[6]
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]
After theReconstruction era, theSouthern states of the United States introduced the "Jim Crow laws" introduced literacy requirements andpoll taxes effectivelydisfranchising millions of African Americans until theCivil Rights Act of 1964.[14] This resulted in aone-party system called theSolid South, in which a candidate's victory inprimary elections of theDemocratic Party wastantamount to election to the office itself.White primaries were another means that the Democrats used to consolidate their political power, excluding blacks from voting.[15]
Liberia became de facto an one-party state underTrue Whig Party even though opposition parties were never banned.[16] Voting was restricted to descendants ofAmerico-Liberians until 1946. However, Americo-Liberians continued to dominate politics under the party until the1980 Liberian coup d'état.[17][18]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 andSierra 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 frombecoming citizens even by naturalisation.
— Manby, 2016[19]
Some scholars and commentators, includingIlan Pappé,Baruch Kimmerling, andMeron Benvenisti, have characterizedIsrael as aHerrenvolk democracy due to Israel'sde facto control of theoccupied territories whose Palestinian citizens may not vote in Israeli elections.[3][4][20][5] Others, such asSammy Smooha, Ilan Peleg,Nachman Ben-Yehuda,Adi Ophir, have asserted that this characterization is invalid, variously describing the Israeli regime as aliberal democracy,ethnic democracy,illiberal democracy or a "hybrid regime".[21][22][23][24]
The termethnic democracy has sometimes been used with either the same or a different meaning asHerrenvolk democracy. The former term was first introduced by ProfessorJuan José Linz ofYale University in 1975, who defined it as functionally synonymous withHerrenvolk democracy: "a political system that is democratic for the dominant group but excludes, on the basis ofethnicity, other groups from the democratic process".[25] However, it was subsequently and independently used byUniversity of Haifa sociologist ProfessorSammy Smooha in a book published in 1989,[26] as a universalised model of the nature of theIsraeli state.[27][25] Unlike Linz, Smooha and a number of other scholars have used the term to refer to a type of state that differs fromHerrenvolk democracy (orethnocracy) 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 aHerrenvolk state.[22] However, critical scholars have argued that the so-called "ethnic democracies" are not fundamentally different fromHerrenvolk 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 ofHerrenvolk democracy, but when the non-dominant ethnicities are smaller or weaker, the dominant group maintains a façade of democracy.[22]
The term "ethnocracy" was initially defined byOren 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".[28][22] Today, ethnocracies generally make at least some attempts to erect a thin democratic façade.[29] 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."[30] Similarly, interpreting Yiftachel's model, Sammy Smooha has noted that while ethnocracy, likeHerrenvolk democracy, is not truly democratic, it distinguishes itself from the latter in having "universal suffrage and democratic institutions".[22]
