Template talk:Authoritarian types of rule

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 June 10. The result of the discussion was "keep".

TfD nomination of Template:Autocratic

Template:Authoritarian types of rule has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. max rspct leave a message 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its been 2 days, and we've had 4 keeps vs. you on the delete vote. Is it necessary to stretch the vote on this any longer? Cwolfsheep 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the marker for deletion. Its been 7 days: vote is 4-2 for keeping, and I believe the deletion guideline states the vote should already be over with by now. Cwolfsheep 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added UET: better ideas?

Maybe we need to add another category to this template, covering actions that enable a branch of a democratic government to act on its own authority. Enabling act, Signing statements, and Secondary legislation came up in my follow-up search. Cwolfsheep 11:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are categories for constitutional law and administrative law. Do you think mare are needed? Ultramarine 14:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political discussions of executive-decisions ala Hitler's Enabling Act, or Bush's reliance of signing statements, indicate autocratic tendencies in a democratic institution. I'd like to find a way to enable that discussion in an efficient manner. I was thinking that since I've already tied together the auto/auth & made Template:Forms of leadership, something should be constructed to link matters of law as you have suggested. Cwolfsheep 03:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. Maybe you should talk to some of the people who works on articles related to law. They may know if there is a good term.Ultramarine 11:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance

User:Fastifex keeps changing the template to a very sloppy "non-generalized" version. Templates of this manner are usually for general subject matter, but he insists on it being specific subjects, and his attempt at it is not very useable. I would like some help in reconciling his attempts with the standard established by myself and User:Ultramarine. Cwolfsheep 14:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to reconcile some of his changes & changed the styling some. Cwolfsheep 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is incorrect in one area

It states that Imamate is an autocratic form of government. This is false. The Imam (as) IS the True Caliph, and the True Caliph is the Imam (as). Thus, all the Shia Imams (as) are the True Caliphs. So Imamate should be removed from this table. I'll do that now, Insha'Allah. Armyrifle 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless enumeration without any base

Look, Nolan, I don't want to start an endless argument, but Baathism and Peronism, rather than general "types of rule", are particular cases in history, and, anyway, one cannot understand why did you choose to ad those two cases and not any other (that's what I mean with "random, pointless and whimsical"). Moreover, those are two controversial additions, and you don't provide any reason (other than your own will) for which they should be there. And remember that it's always recommendable to avoid the creation of endless lists of particular cases, and to resume the particular cases in greater and essential "types" (not only in this template, but as a general principle). In regard to "Socialist State", you must bear in mind that it's not essentialy definded as a "totalitarian type of government", but rather as a "State commited to the construction of socialism" (whatever the word "socialism" is understood). As there are many types and cases of socialist states, and many other states that are designed socialist by some but not by other (for example, Western welfare states, Bismarck's "State socialism", nations with a social-democratic government, and nations with a more or less nationalized economy), you shouldn't tag every so-called "Socialist state" as a "totalitarian type of rule". Regarding to "Dictatorship of proletariat", I just considered that it was redundant, as it was already comprised in the term "Communist state", but I will not oppose if you want to leave it. The same happended with "Enlightened absolutism" in respect of "Absolute monarchy". Regarding to the link to "Theocracy": Can it even be defined as an authoritarian type of rule, or just as a rule by a religious class? Regarding to "Third positionism", I think it's not directly related to authoritarianism (at the same level than other items like "Police state" or "Despotism" could be), as it is a philosophical position in the political spectrum rather than a general "type of rule" that could be tagged as "authoritarian". Respects! 190.48.127.37 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from with regards to ba'athism and Peronism, as well as socialist state. However, I put socialist state under authoritarian rather than totalitarian. But those should go, you're right. Dictatorship of the proletariat should stay because not every communist state has identified with the term. Theocracy has different meanings, but in its general sense it denotes a society ruled by religous law with a powerful clergy. It could be either "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" but there's no real line between the two. Third Positionism should stay because all of the ideologies that it encompasses are at least authoritarian.

Keep in mind there are problems with the concepts of authoritarianism and totalitarianism themselves, in addition to there not being a clear line between them. For example, is their use partisan towards democracy, and are they simply illiberal? Each regime is different, and they change over time. This isn't really a scientific exercise. Nolan135 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK. Respects! 190.48.111.157 (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]