|Part of the Politics series|
|Basic forms of government|
Ethnocracy is a type of political regime, in which the state apparatus is appropriated by a dominant identity group (or groups) to further its interests, power and resources. Ethnocratic regimes typically display a combination of 'thin' democratic facade covering a more profound ethnic structure, in which ethnicity (or race, or religion) - and not citizenship - is the key to securing power and resources. An ethnocratic regime facilitates the ethnicization of the state by the dominant group, through the expansion of control, often through conflict with minorities and neighboring states. Ethnocracies therefore display their own logic of government, and are neither democratic, nor authoritarian or dictatorial.
A comprehensive model of the ethnocratic regime was first formulated by political and legal geographer Prof. Oren Yiftachel. In a series of articles and books articulated the regime's key principles, and its typical mechanisms of dealing with immigration, development, land, law, culture and security. Yiftachel drew on the prime example of Israel/Palestine, placed within a comparative framework of other recent ethnocracies such as Northern Ireland, Estonia, Latvia, Serbia, Croatia, Lebanon, Cyprus, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Yiftachel's work also relates to Israel as a 'settler ethnocracy' which is historically comparable to settler societies such Australia, South Africa and Canada.
Research shows that several spheres of regime control are vital for ethnocratic regimes, including the armed forces, land administration, immigration control and economic development. These power government instruments ensure the long-term domination of the leading ethnic groups, and the stratification of society into 'ethnoclasses', which has been exacerbated by the recent stage of capitalism, with its typical neo-liberal policies. Ethnocracies often manage to contain ethnic conflict in the short-term by effective control over minorities, and by effectively using the 'thin' procedural democratic façade. However, they tend to become unstable in the long-term, suffering from repeated conflict and crisis, which are resolved by either substantive democratization, partition or regime devolution into consociational arrangements. Alternatively, ethnocracies that do not resolve their internal conflict may deteriorate into periods of long-term internal strife and the institutionalization of structural discrimination or apartheid.
In ethnocratic states the government is typically representative of a particular ethnic group holding a number of posts disproportionately large to the percentage of the total population. The dominant ethnic group (or groups) represents and use them to advance the position of their particular ethnic group(s) to the detriment of others.   
The ethnic groups are systematically discriminated against by the state and may face repressions or violations of human rights at the hands of state organs. Ethnocracy can also be a political regime which is instituted on the basis of qualified rights to citizenship, and with ethnic affiliation (defined in terms of race, descent, religion, or language) as the distinguishing principle.  Generally, the raison d'être of an ethnocratic government is to secure the most important instruments of state power in the hands of a specific ethnic collectivity. All other considerations concerning the distribution of power are ultimately subordinated to this basic intention.
Ethnocracies are characterized by their control system – the legal, institutional, and physical instruments of power deemed necessary to secure ethnic dominance. The degree of system discrimination will tend to vary greatly from case to case and from situation to situation. If the dominant group (whose interests the system is meant to serve and whose identity it is meant to represent) constitutes a small minority (typically 20% or less) of the population within the state territory, substantial degrees of institutionalized suppression will probably be necessary to sustain the control of the dominant group.
Mono-ethnocracy vs. Poly-ethnocracy
In October 2012, Lise Morjé Howard  introduced the terms mono-ethnocracy and poly-ethnocracy. Mono-ethnocracy is a type of regime where one ethnic group dominates, which conforms with the traditional understanding of ethnocracy. Poly-ethnocracy is a type of regime where more than one ethnic group governs the state. Both mono- and poly-ethnocracy are types of ethnocracy. Ethnocracy is founded on the assumptions that ethnic groups are primordial, ethnicity is the basis of political identity, and citizens rarely share multiple ethnic identities.
Lise Morjé Howard  has labeled Belgium as both a poly-ethnocracy and a democracy. Citizens in Belgium exercise political rights found in democracies, such as voting and free speech. However, Belgian politics is increasingly defined by ethnic divisions between the Flemish and Francophone. For example, all the major political parties are formed around either a Flemish or Francophone identity. Furthermore, bilingual education has disappeared from most Francophone schools.
Israel has been labelled an ethnocracy by the pioneering work of Oren Yiftachel, with his co-writers Alexander Kedar, Asaad Ghanem, and Haim Yakobi,and by a considerable number of other scholars such as Shlomo sand, Nur Mashala, Baruch Kimmerling and Hannah Naveh. However, scholars such as Gershon Shafir, Yoav Peled and Sammy Smooha prefer the term ethnic democracy to describe Israel, a term which is intended to represent a "middle ground" between an ethnocracy and a liberal democracy. In later work, Yoav Peled has concluded that Israel has become an ethnocracy, following the events of 2000. 
Oren Yiftachel has recently shown how the Israeli ethnocracy has caused a process of 'creeping apartheid', due to its colonial expansion into the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and the lack of resolution of the conflict with the internal Palestinian Arab minority. 
Latvia and Estonia
There is a spectrum of opinion among authors as to the classification of Latvia and Estonia, spanning from Liberal or Civic Democracy through Ethnic democracy to Ethnocracy. Will Kymlicka regards Estonia as a democracy, stressing the peculiar status of Russian-speakers, stemming from being at once partly transients, partly immigrants and partly natives. British researcher Neil Melvin concludes that Estonia is moving towards a genuinely pluralist democratic society through its liberalization of citizenship and actively drawing of leaders of the Russian settler communities into the political process. James Hughes, in the United Nations Development Programme's Development and Transition, contends Latvia and Estonia are cases of ‘ethnic democracy’ where the state has been captured by the titular ethnic group and then used to promote ‘nationalising’ policies and alleged discrimination against Russophone minorities. (Development and Transition has also published papers disputing Hughes' contentions.) Israeli researchers Oren Yiftachel and As’ad Ghanem consider Estonia as an ethnocracy. Israeli sociologist Sammy Smooha, of the University of Haifa, disagrees with Yiftachel, contending that the ethnocratic model developed by Yiftachel does not fit the case of Latvia and Estonia; it is not a settler society as its core ethnic group is indigenous, nor did it expand territorially or have a diaspora intervening in its internal affairs as in the case of Israel for which Yiftachel originally developed his model.
Ethnocracy indicates a specific principle of power-distribution in a society. In his book Power-Sharing in South Africa, Arend Lijphart classifies contemporary constitutional proposals for a solution to the conflict in South Africa into four categories:
- majoritarian (one man, one vote)
- non-democratic (varieties of white domination)
- partitionist (creating new political entities)
- consociational (power-sharing by proportional representation and elite accommodation) (1985:5)
Not surprisingly, Lijphart argues strongly in favour of the consociational model and his categories illustrates that, on the constitutional level, state power can be distributed along two dimensions: Legal-institutional and territorial.
Along the legal-institutional dimension we can distinguish between singularism (power centralised according to membership in a specific group), pluralism (power-distribution among defined groups according to relative numerical strength), and universalism (power-distribution without any group-specific qualifications). The three main alternatives on the territorial dimension are the unitary state, "intermediate restructuring" (within one formal sovereignty), and partition (creating separate political entities). Ethnocracy indicates a specific principle of power-distribution in a society.
- Ethnic nationalism
- Dominant minority
- Ethnic elite
- Ethnic nepotism
- Ketuanan Melayu
- South Africa under apartheid
- Human rights in Estonia
- Yiftachel, O. (1997) 'Israeli Society and Jewish-Palestinian Reconciliation: Ethnocracy and Its Territorial Contradictions', Middle East Journal, Vol. 51: 4: 505-519
- Yiftachel, O. (1999) ‘”Ethnocracy”: the Politics of Judaizing Israel/Palestine’, Constellations: International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, Vol. 6: 3: 364-390
- Yiftachel, O. and Ghanem, A. (2005), ‘Understanding Ethnocratic Regimes: the Politics of Seizing Contested Territories’, Political Geography, Vol. 23: 4: 647-67
- Yiftachel, O. (2006) Ethnocracy: Land, and the Politics of Identity Israel/Palestine (PennPress)
- Kariye, Badal W. "The Political Sociology of Security, Politics, Economics and Diplomacy" AuthorHouse 2010 ISBN 9781452085470 Page 99, item 20 View on Google Books
- Howard, L. M. (October 2012). "The Ethnocracy Trap". Journal of Democracy, Vol. 23, No. 4, p.p. 155-169.
- Peled, Y. http://www.academia.edu/192741/Citizenship_Betrayed_Israels_Emerging_Immigration_and_Citizenship_Regime
- Yiftachel, O. http://www.merip.org/mer/mer253/creeping-apartheid-israel-palestine; and http://www.merip.org/mer/mer253/creeping-apartheid-israel-palestine.
- Pickles, John; Smith, Adrian (1998). Theorising transition: the political economy of post-Communist transformations. Taylor & Francis. p. 284.
- Jubulis, M. (2001). "Nationalism and Democratic Transition". The Politics of Citizenship and Language in Post-Soviet Latvia. Lanham, New York and Oxford: University Press of America. pp. 201–208.
- Discrimination against the Russophone Minority in Estonia and Latvia — synopsis of article published in the Journal of Common Market Studies (November 2005)
- Kymlicka, Will (2000). "Estonia’s Integration Policies in a Comparative Perspective". Estonia’s Integration Landscape: From Apathy to Harmony. pp. 29–57.
- Melvin, N. J. (2000). "Post imperial Ethnocracy and the Russophone Minorities of Estonia and Latvia". In Stein, J. P. The Policies of National Minority Participation Post-Communist Europe. State-Building, Democracy and Ethnic Mobilisation. EastWest Institute (EWI). p. 160.
- Yiftachel, Oren; As’ad Ghanem (August 2004). "Understanding ‘ethnocratic’ regimes: the politics of seizing contested territories". Political Geography 23 (6). doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2004.04.003.
- Yiftachel, Oren (23 January 2004). "Ethnocratic States and Spaces". United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved 2009-10-18.
- Smooha , S. The model of ethnic democracy, European Centre for Minority Issues, ECMI Working Paper # 13, 2001, p23.
- Lijphart, Arend (1985). Power-sharing in South Africa. Berkeley : Institute of International Studies, University of California. ISBN 0-87725-524-5.
- Soldiers and Kinsmen in Uganda: The Making of a Military Ethnocracy by Ali A. Mazrui. Author(s) of Review: Rodger Yeager The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1977), pp. 289-293. doi:10.2307/217352
- Politics of Ethnocracies: Strategies and Dilemmas of Ethnic Domination Nils A. Butenschøn