Talk:Herrenvolk democracy

South Africa

Is the definition of this the rule of a majority over a minority? If so, the example of South Africa must be removed. If this concept is appropriate in apartheid South Africa, then the definition in the opening sentences must be changed. --Michael (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

how i understand is that: its a democracy but only for a specific ethnic group, doesnt have to be a minority Braganza (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Majority rule?

If I take the example of (modern-day) Namibia: In 1913, the territory German Southwest Africa had a population of roughly 200.000 pople; about13.000 of those were German. I would expect the situation in South Africa to be similar. If youmake up 1/20th of the population, and you want to rule, it certainly isnt the biggest ethnic group ruling. Wouldn't it be: Using a mix of Social Darwinism, and (possibly changing) alliances with local tribes, you can rule, without giving the local tribes too much influence?Eptalon (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Israel

Does Israel not fit into this? 2600:1700:A3F0:6FB0:2997:ECD3:9631:F116 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

they have voting rights (at least most of them) Braganza (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a Herrenvolk democracy. Just like the Confederacy, most (whites) had voting rights. 2603:8000:2A00:9F10:34F5:9143:3A5A:F6C0 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The 20% arabic minority in Israel has full voting and citizen rights. They have got heir own parties, representatives in high ranking state positions and so on.

For more on this, check out this article: Arab citizens of Israel#Politics Hannsg.logitech (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

yes, the Arabs/Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have Israeli voting rights, but the issue is that the millions of Palestinians who live under de facto Israeli rule do not have Israeli voting rights, while Jewish settlers within the west bank (not de jure Israeli territory) are given Israeli voting rights 2.30.72.200 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/9/12/headlines/former_mossad_chief_tamir_pardo_calls_israel_an_apartheid_state Lupinthethird93 (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Rhodesia

I really must question Rhodesia being added to the list. Compared to South Africa with extreme aparteid laws and the Confederate States of America with literal Slavery, Rhodesia was extremely mild. Rhodesia had race issues, but not comparable to these other countries. Use the flags of quite the few European colonies, as well as Nigeria as they too have had opression between peoples similar to Rhodesia. Why not the Third Reich as well? 94.234.111.142 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

National Socialism would be an example for a totalitarian herrenvolk democracy, since there were sham elections, but, after 1935, exluding Jews and others from voting 88.64.206.156 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So not a democracy. A totalitarian state with sham elections. The difference is that under South African apartheid the elections were legitimately competitive between the National Party and their white opposition. Flavius717 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that Rhodesia had wealth-based suffrage, which because almost every wealthy person was a white settler from Britain, ended up being a herrenvolk democracy. Ellenor2000 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

India

Does the term necessary have to be limited to societies that marginalize ethnic groups, or can other forms of political exclusion (specifically, those based on religion) qualify as well? India, in recent years, has been widely criticized for rolling back the freedoms of Muslims and other religious minorities, but these are not ethnic groups per se. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

i don't think so, there aren't expelled from politics "only" surpressed Braganza (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Americo-Liberian people and Liberia

After gaining independence in 1847 (and even before), former American slaves migrated to Liberia (resulting in the Americo-Liberian population). Many United States institutions were copied, and two major parties were established: the True Whig Party and the Republican Party. Following the dissolution of the Republican Party in 1876, the True Whig Party dominated Liberian government until the 1980 coup. During this period, Liberia effectively functioned as a stable one-party state, with little politics in the usual sense. However, from 1847 to 1876, Liberian politics closely resembled that of the United States. There were two major parties, and Americo-Liberians controlled both of them and eventually the governement. Americo-Liberians were the only ethnic group with voting rights and indigenous peoples of Liberia were treated as second-class citizens. Consequently, I think Liberia during this time (1847-1871) could be considered a form of Herrenvolk democracy, with Americo-Liberians as the master class participating in democratic elections and the government, while indigenous people held second-class status. Sultán Sahak (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Slight edit war over Israel's inclusion or lack thereof?

So I noticed that changes adding and removing Israel from the flag box (why do we even have a flag box?) have been made like five or six times in all. Some of the editors on both sides have been IPs. No single person (assuming good faith by assuming all IPs are separate people) has busted the 3RR. I will note that a different IP from the same ISP as one of the IP reverters (DOL Ankara, AS#12,978) has also, a fairly long time ago in internet time, removed sourced information about Israel possibly being a herrenvolk democracy in the body text of the article (which was since re-added). That also never rose to an edit war.

If any of you are cruising the talk page, I'm not going to ping you because the dispute seems to be over, but... is this an edit war, and is it wrong to point this out? Please advise. Ellenor2000 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Israel in imagebox

Opening the discussion to establish an explicit consensus moving forward. The body text currently states 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, with full adherence to verification and neutral point of view, which was then used as the basis for including Israel in the lead image box alongside the other examples of Herrenvolk democracy in order for the lead image to accurately reflect the body of the article. The question now is whether or not Israel should be included in the image box from now on. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Untamed1910: @Garsh2: @Votbek: @Braganza: and @Brusquedandelion: as relevant contributors. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a pretty obvious decision to keep, as the RS do not portray the use of the term in the context of Israel to be any less significant that any other use, no one attempting to remove the item has made any argument apart from saying the sourced information is untrue or accusing the article of antisemitism. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll give you an argument: we're talking about Palestine, not Iraqi Kurdistan. This isn't an autonomous zone granted to a minority offering special status but still legally part of a bigger country, it's a fully independent state with its own governing, legal and juridical body that is recognised by 145 UN member states. As such, Palestinians should not vote in Israeli elections without Israeli citizenship since they're Palestinian citizens, not Israeli ones. Not to mention that if Israel actually got any government officials in Palestine to organise elections, everybody would be rightfully complaining about them infringing on Palestinian independence, but I guess you can't win with antisemites like you. Organising Palestinian elections are the Palestinian Authority's job, not Israel's. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the core policies of Wikipedia. WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability require that all articles are written according to published, reliable sources with an absence of original research. The reliable sources cited in this article clearly outline the original authors' reasoning as to the presence of Israeli settlers in occupied territories, any further arguments based on personal opinion rather than verifiable research and reliable sources will likely be ignored.

Wikipedia also has a very strict policy against personal attacks, which may lead to a block or ban if continued. Thank you. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority

https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/palestinian-authority-prime-minister-resigns-explainer

https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians

'The Palestinian Authority Basic Law provides for an elected president and legislative council.'

'Palestinian Authority (PA), governing body of the Palestinian autonomous regions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip established in 1994 as part of the Oslo Accords peace agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)'

'Officially, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) represents Palestinians worldwide at international fora, while the Palestinian Authority (PA), a newer institution led by a PLO faction known as Fatah, is supposed to govern most of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.' 82.76.159.190 (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Original research includes drawing original conclusions from sources, none of your sources explicitly state "Israel is not a Herrenvolk democracy". Orchastrattor (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You argument, the only argument for classifying Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy is that Palestinians inside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip cannot vote in Israeli elections. They do not need to, because they have their own government to vote at: the Palestinian Authority. I do not know if you've ever voted or been to a vote, but you need to have a citizenship of the country you wish to vote in before going to the ballots. Palestinians with Israeli citizenship can vote in Israeli elections, Palestinians without Israeli citizenship vote in PA elections, since the PA, not the Israeli government, is their government. It's really quite simple. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Again I'm not arguing anything, I am just restating what the sources say. The reliable sources clearly explain how Israel is pushing for citizens to settle occupied areas without granting the civilians there citizenship, if it is enough for the sources to make the claim then it is enough for Wikipedia to make the claim. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not enough for one source or another to make a claim. The claim has to be verifiable and ACCURATE. The media is full of claims, from plausible to complete aberrations, and frankly, putting Israel in the same group as the likes of the Confederate States, apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia is amongst them. The Israeli settlers are Israeli citizens and as such get to vote in Israeli elections. The locals are still Palestinian citizens and as such vote in PA elections, not Israeli ones. Should they change their citizenship to Israeli, they would get voting rights, but we both know that one side is as stubborn as the other. Now, the matter of the settlements themselves, while deplorable, is another issue altogether and is unrelated as to whether or not Israel can be classified as a Herrevonfolk democracy. A Herrevonfolk democracy is one where CITIZENS of the country are discriminated on based on their ethnicity, often to the advantage of a certain other ethnicity. Neither of those conditions can be seen in Israel. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If a claim is published in a reliable source then it is accurate, any opinion to the contrary is original research. See above under "claiming [...] sourced information is incorrect". Orchastrattor (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

https://m.jpost.com/international/article-760350

https://medium.com/@LiatBenZur/no-israel-is-not-an-apartheid-state-heres-why-feebb22f9b55

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41575857

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4343950

As per the 1948 declaration of independence: 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

My copied excerpt doesn't appear. I'll have to type it manually. Just great... 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2023/09/Constitution-for-Israel.pdf

See Article 8 Section 3 and Article 9 Paragraphs A and C 82.76.159.190 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, none of these make any direct claim on the subject of the article, this is more synthesizing of separate materials and not an actually admissible claim. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any claim more direct that the 'Israel is not an apartheid sate' plastered on the head of every one of those articles. Apartheid and Herrenvolk democracies share the exact same principle. I also find it extremely laughable that one of the three sources in the wiki article is Al Jazeera, the Qatari news outlet. The same Qatar that houses Hamas leaders and provides material support to Hamas. So much for 'neutral point of view'. Rules for me but not for thee, as they say. 82.76.159.190 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• for thee but not for me* Dammit, how did I mess this up?

82.76.159.190 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If the sources do not directly mention Herrenvolk democracy then they are not directly relevant to an article on Herrenvolk democracy, it's a very straightforward concept. "Apartheid and Herrenvolk democracies share the exact same principle" is just more synthesis. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If a state allows voting from all ethnic groups, it is by definition not a Herrenvolk democracy. Israel allows ethnically Palestinian citizens of Israel to vote. Ergo it is not a Herrenvolk democracy. Most Palestinians within Israeli-controlled land are not Israeli citizens and so are disenfranchised. That is a different issue, and it's just not Herrenvolk democracy. Strongly disagree with the infobox. If nothing else, best to keep countries that clearly are examples of the term instead of stretching it to make a political point. Bruhpedia (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As Brusquedandelion said, the four countries in question are the four given by the reliable sources, whether or not you personally feel something is politically motivated or not has no bearing on what is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Apart from what @Orchastrattor has said, I'd add that the three states that are uncontroversially in the infobox plus Israel are, canonically, the four herrenvolk democracies that invariably come up in association with the scholarly usage of the term. It would be against WP:NPOV, in particular, WP:DUE, to include the other three and not Israel. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing new to add but I concur with the reasoning above. Garsh (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I accidentally triggered the edit war by adding the image back in May. I honestly don't think it's that useful have the imagebox at all, but if it is in the article, Israel should be included per the included sources. मल्ल (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the inclusion of Israel in the imagebox specifically could be argued against since it's only included in the article in one sentence, which is about some scholars' opinions. The opinions from known scholars in an article is good of course, but it's just that the imagebox seems very provocative to some people for this very reason.

Also, the article specifically uses the occupied territories as an argument, and not Israel proper. Which is why it's controversial to keep the country's flag in the imagebox.

Peace. MeManBlaze (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

All Herrenvolk democracies use some sort of legal fiction to maintain the pretense of democracy. Israel is somewhat unique in its choice of that legal fiction being the nominally separate status of the so-called occupied territories, which de facto are under Israeli sovereigty. But I say "somewhat unique" because even that is not wholly unprecedented, see: Bantustans. So it really isn't demonstrating anything of relevance to point to the existence of such a specious ruse; in fact, the very existence of such an artifice is evidence in favor of Israel's status as a Herrenvolk democracy. Normal democracies do not have "occupied territories" for 57 years (57 is an entirely generous lower bound). Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a unique situation. I'm just talking about the pure definition of the term. I'm not speaking of any opinions.

But I'm neutral whether it should be in the imagebox or not. MeManBlaze (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A somewhat closer analogy would be if South Africa had disenfranchised Bantustans but allowed coloured voting in South Africa proper, which, while not good, would by definition, not be an example of a herrenvolk democracy, because the franchise is not restricted to a certain ethnicity. Israel's inclusion seems like more of a political statement than an objective one, and I don't see a reason for Wikipedia to take a subjective stand on such a controversial, no-win issue. Bruhpedia (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is complete and utter bullshit. The Palestinian territories are independent in all but name. Citizens of Palestine cannot vote in Israeli elections BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS OF ISRAEL, THEY ARE CITIZENS OF PALESTINE. As such, their government isn't the Israeli government but the Palestinian National Authority, which is an independent governing body that Israel doesn't have control over, and where Palestinians can vote because it actually is their damn government. Not to mention that if any Israeli officials tried to organise any elections there, or even interfere in their politics, they'd get killed by terrorists and everyone on this Earth would be saying that they're infringing Palestine's independence. So make up your minds. Is it independent or not? 82.76.159.190 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Including Israel in this article essentially makes it redundant with ethnocracy. Herrenvolk democracies were much more open about discrimination, and their laws explicitly categorized certain groups as second-class citizens and/or completely denaturalized former citizens. If users insist on mentioning Israel here, we might as well merge the two articles. 98.21.199.197 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The reliable sources characterize Israel as a Herrenvolk democracy. If the sources treat Herrenvolk democracy as a distinct sub-type of ethnocracy then it is only reasonable to treat the article as a distinct sub-topic of ethnocracy. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There are also sources that label Israel as an ethnic democracy, which has two implications: 1) we should probably add that caveat afterwards as other articles typically do on contested topics, and 2) remove the flag (or all them, not sure why we need a flagbox), as the status of the other three as Herrenvolk democracies is less contested.

Offhandedly, someone should also probably mention Syria and Algeria in this article since they adopted Herrenvolk nationality laws in the early 1960s. 98.21.199.197 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)