Talk:Herrenvolk democracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Africa[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Majority rule?[edit]

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)[reply]

Israel[edit]

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

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

Rhodesia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

India[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Americo-Liberian people and Liberia[edit]

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)[reply]