Paper short abstract:

This paper makes a distinction between two types of religious politics. Theocracies invoke the rule of God yet mediate this rule through humans. Anthropocracies valorize the rule of humans yet mediate this rule through God. Might these distinctions result in a reframing of research projects?

Paper long abstract:

There has never been a theocratic society or theocratic rule, if we take the meaning of the term literally. The rule of God in practice has always been devolved to humans. Accordingly there are two core features of any really existing theocracy - first its open acknowledgment that political rule, order, legality or legitimacy is derived from God; and secondly its social processes whereby humans through political institutions mediate God's rule, law, guidance or lore.

By contrast, there is another type of politics, one that also politically articulates God and humans, but which is radically different in intent to theocracy and in its defining political rationality. The opposite of theocracy is not secularity. Its opposite is anthropocracy, literally the rule of humans. Really existing anthropocratic regimes or episodes also comprise two core components. The first is an open acknowledgment that political rule, order, legality or legitimacy is humanly instituted. The second is the functioning of constant (or intermittent) institutions and social processes whereby God or the divine is instrumentalized and mobilized to shore-up or legitimize [some] humans' rule over others. This paper presents a case study of a political regime that might constitute an almost ideal-type of anthropocracy, the Kemalism of the Turkish Republic.