Polyarchy

Polyarchy. Remeber 'Right-wing Authoritarianism', this is them now, feel old yet?

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Anocracy	Republic against kingdom, reactionary against revolutionary, liberal against authoritarian. It is tempting to simplify the ideological struggles of an age into two clearly defined camps. In the aftermath of the Great War, with the new international movements that have flourished, it is still possible to try to demarcate the line between "free" and "unfree" when discussing governments — yet some still defy easy categorization. The forces unleashed by that war and the instability that followed would occasionally produce states that, while not adhering to a totalizing ideological programme, were neither representative nor simply pedestrian military dictatorships. It is these regimes, hybrids of autocratic and democratic systems, that are classified as Anocracies. Naturally, a wide range of governments would fit under this umbrella. Arguably Napoleon III's Second French Empire would qualify, with the legitimacy of its throne backed by occasional referenda, and with the state and economy liberalizing under pressure from different interests. At times, an Anocracy may be constitutional and representative in word, but in deed a single party is dominant through control of state institutions and patronage networks, or the legal opposition only exists in a narrow acceptable range. At others, the regime is authoritarian by definition, but has democratic features to direct the political consciousness of the population, such as internal party elections and public votes on some matters. The hybrid regime may not be the original intended design of the government, but a state of affairs that it evolved into over time due to internal and external pressures. There is little idealistic or doctrinaire about the concept of Anocracy. There is no Anocratic International purporting to unite the semi-autocracies and dominant-party democracies of the world. When managed capably, however, the system can deliver stable, decisive governance like any other. The quality of leadership will determine whether it will be a regime of evolution, or of stagnation.	Yan Xishan* Kristján X* Andrey Vlasov Syngman Rhee
Colonial Government'	Even something that is so apparently self-evident as colonialism has evolved with time. Some features seem eternal: the justifications of seeking land, markets, and resources, or extending the breadth of one's faith and empire, and so on. But as the claimed land has expanded, and technology and administrative expertise have grown with it, the systems of governance have become more sophisticated as well. The means of control always bear investigating when examining a Colonial Government. A colony is not an integral part of its patron state. This may be an eventual goal of the colonial project, and direct settlement could be encouraged for that very reason, but the same governmental system typically does not apply an ocean way. Instead, the government of the day tends to answer to the imperial capital, even submitting laws and governing statutes for approval. However, as settlement dwindled over centuries, and greater spans of populated territory were claimed for economic and strategic reasons, administration had to become more complex to ensure stable rule and resource extraction. On one hand, even colonies that were not given a say in the affairs of the home country were increasingly given powers of local government, sometimes an appointed or advisory body of notables who could ostensibly bring local concerns to the administration's policies. On the other, preexisting authorities — kings, chiefs, and so on — were increasingly integrated into the colonial system, being given some autonomy in the system so long as they leveraged their station and connections to bring taxes and recruits back to the capital. Colonial Government is thus more than lines painted on a map for a foreign country to tap. The relationships, both political and commercial, that make it possible to administer these lands without a tide of settlers and an expensive garrison are deceptively complex. Overall, there has been a trend towards greater self-government for colonies, especially with the costs of the Great War and the sociopolitical tensions it produced. Whether the remaining colonies of the world are headed for a dramatic breaking point like the late British Raj, or a continued rethinking of the imperial relationship, is anyone's guess.	Edward Gent* Karl Ebermaier* Wilfred Malleson*
National Democracy	Whatever the idealists have said, the competition between nations is a zero-sum game. The Great War was proof enough. To forget that essential truth, to ignore the ongoing struggle, would be to risk everything. The dissolute liberalism that has been the midwife of national confusion and political gridlock typifies this. However, the concept of representative democracy, the people having a voice in their government rather than out-of-touch aristocrats, is not inherently flawed. The citizen democracies of Athens and Rome once intimately tied the franchise to patriotic duty and military service. Shorn of its liberal trappings — weaknesses — a purified and strengthened execution of the concept emerges: that of National Democracy. But what defines this tendency other than a vague notion of illiberal republicanism? Arguably, the first theoretician to coin the name was the Polish nationalist Roman Dmowski. While his credentials were marred by accommodation with the Russian Empire, his Endecja organization advanced the concept of a democratic, yet anti-pluralist and centralized Poland. The short-lived far-right government in post-war France, while chiefly associated with monarchism, also had a republican wing equally vociferous in denouncing the factionalism of the Third Republic. While some of their heirs would abandon democracy entirely, others saw that the unity of the people and nation could be expressed through the political party and democratic process, sometimes with the leader as the embodiment of the demos. In practice, National Democracy favours stronger government powers. If the leader or the party embody the people, then they should be able to discard certain limitations that liberal constitutionalism places on the majoritarian will. Thus empowered, the regime is capable of marginalizing the deemed threats to national unity, political and cultural. While this sometimes places the two halves of the ideology's name in competition with one another, the label refers to governments that still maintain democratic structures within the party and without, however opposition might be discouraged. Freed of the structural rot of liberalism, they would counter, this ideology allows for the only kind of representative government that will not fall into the pages of history.	Balakrishna Shivram Moonje* Adolf Pölzl Ngô Đình Khôi Ljubo Leontić Ramón Serrano Suñer
'Oligarchy	The oldest form of organization in human history, Oligarchy is remarkably simple conceptually: the banding together of certain men, tied amongst themselves through blood, status, wealth, or mission. This basic principle of government of the few over the many has been a constant throughout every era, with its refinements and clarifications when need be. This apparent vulgarity hides a richness in variety, form, function, and all the intricate developments this phenomenon has undergone until reaching our current generation. It was considered by Greek philosophers to be the golden mean of regimes, the equidistant point between monarchy and democracy, and thus its virtue was in its ability to both effectively rule a state and its inherent constraint in the application of laws. In times of great peril, local potentates confederated in order to defend their demesne and ensure the continuation of the rule of law in absence of legislators, as it happened in Greece itself or with the juntas of the Peninsular War in Spain. In these cases it was thus a natural and regional response to the needs of governance, and even today oligarchy has strong connotations with local elites. These systems may resemble, in the modern world, factions of wealthy business owners, groups of quasi-feudal caciques, strong partitocracies, or perhaps authoritarian but decentralised regimes, among others. Oligarchical regimes, whether openly elitist or made up of unspoken cliques, boast intricate webs of ever-evolving needs, alliances, grievances, and interests among every involved party. An oligarchy is a complex machine with uncountable moving parts, and therein lies its weakness and its strength: the great statesman may make use of them for his own ends by keeping its precarious balance or destroying it for a greater purpose, but these hidden interests are also very likely to federate against any encroachment on their power, which provides a fair warning against excesses in rulership.	Reza Shah Pahlavi* Aleksandr Kolchak* Duan Qirui* Nikolai Merkulov Alexandrina Cantacuzino Cenu bej Kryeziu
Plutocracy	The crowns and vestments of monarchy were never the only markers of status. In the medieval merchant republics of Europe, the post-revolutionary liberal states, and even the old Roman Republic, there existed a class of men who, rather than by a noble birth, owed their stature to their fortunes and the influence this provided. The great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and so on — criticisms of this monied aristocracy's influence on politics have dogged them wherever they have gone. While oligarchical systems of power are hardly unique, and hereditary rulers may find themselves amassing wealth through their inherited holdings, a Plutocracy is control over the government by an elite purely selected by their wealth. But what makes a mere flawed democracy or authoritarian regime into a plutocratic one? It is rare that there is a council of men directly appointed due to their wealth, selecting a first-among-equals from their ranks to dictate the government's affairs with an eye for profit. Rather, it is in the subversion of a pre-existing system that Plutocracy grows, whether by leveraging the influence of its elite class or becoming elected officials themselves to represent their interests. Alternatively, like the Dutch East India Company - which had diplomatic, judicial, and currency-minting powers of its own - a board of investors may outright pull the strings of government, perhaps due to a collapse of the state. Plutocracy has been used as a pejorative label in the vast majority of cases. From the left, the right, or even the population at large, a suspicion exists that the priorities of this system align only with the direct interests of this class. This can mean that material benefits accrue at the top to the detriment of the bottom, or privilege international investments over domestic ones. However, at its most charitable, the financial elite have a vested interest in maintaining the stability of their investment, bringing their own interests into synchronicity with those of the country. In this circumstance, a mercenary eye for material gain can be a valuable asset.	Kishi Nobusuke* Harvey Firestone Jr. John Cadman Boris Bryner
Praetorian Oligarchy	The military has been, with all its faults and glories, one of the cornerstones of human civilization and a key political player throughout all of history. It has served as a wheel of fortune for regimes and entire nations, and even today it is an indispensable tool for all states worthy of the name. A dark truth of this reality is that, on occasion, this proximity to power only creates an insatiable craving for it. Whether out of necessity or ambition, the "army with a state" archetype is both a possibility and a danger. It may be that a determined political goal is pursued through the force of arms, which necessitates the creation of a militant organisation. Before long, the movement discovers itself uniformed and marching to the beat of war-drums, their organs following strict discipline and chain of command, their leaders greeted now with a stern salute, and their mythos transformed into a soldier's creed. It may also be that a civilian government, perhaps incapable of fulfilling their responsibility towards the state, is swiftly replaced by a military authority. In other words, the last line of defence for the nation simply fulfils its purpose. It could just be that the state, placing their trust on their military, has granted it exceptional use of imperium over a given territory for a variety of reasons. It can be temporary or indefinite, but the homage owed to the men at arms is indisputable. Do not confuse these moments with the dashing charisma of caudillos and other despots — this is not a one man job. What you are witnessing is the submission of the whole political system not to a generalissimo, but to the army as an institution. A guild with their own rules, their own society within society, their own symbols and stories. Whether through juntas or through a single dictator, this is the fulfilment of the natural prerogative of the warrior to lord over the clerks and merchants by the virtue of their caste.	Ze'ev Jabotinsky* Landry Sales Gonçalves (Warlord)* Borys Khreshchatyts’kyi* Zhang Xueliang
Provisional Government	On occasion, the old world dies and a new world is born. Independence is achieved by political or armed struggle. A government is overthrown by its people. The need for constitutional reform becomes so dire that the system willingly takes itself apart to rebuild, renegotiating the terms of its agreement with itself or former political outsiders. However it was accomplished, the rough beast of the future slouches toward power to be born, and the abstract questions of the future give way to the practical realities of "what now." In this interstitial period, what administers the new state is often a Provisional Government. Less an ideology and more of a compromise, this term describes a temporary system that maintains the day-to-day functions of society while the first structures of government are drawn up. The reality of politics is that a movement for grand change rarely has a unified vision of what life after this change should look like, especially on the finer details of administration. Some machinery must be put in place to manage debate and keep public order in the interim, one that generally involves appointed or collective leadership. After the transitional period ends, power is then ceded to the government it fostered the creation of, often with an inaugural election. The contradictions of a Provisional Government are many on its surface. However democratic the eventual plan of government is, the means of safeguarding it often leave little room for public input. Stability of the process is paramount, but it is also designed to be dismantled when its time has passed. Is a strong hand to watch over the proceedings a sign of approaching dictatorship? Would loosening the grip too early risk a collapse of the government's careful negotiations? For a time, in this liminal state, everything is possible. But one should be aware: in politics, there is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.	Gherman Pantea* Antun Sa'adah* Ernest Douwes Dekker Bronislav Kaminski