FANDOM


Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for the article "Politics in the World of Avatar".

  • This space is for discussing changes to the article. Discussion on changing an infobox image or profile quote takes place on the appropriate project page for each. General discussion about the subject belongs to the comments, forum, or blog posts.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

This article is currently rated C-class on the Avatar Wiki grading system.

Theocracy as stated to be the form of government for air nomads, implies the air nomads believed in god. Whereas there beliefs are on the basis of mysticism, Buddhism most likely, Theravda Bhusshism specifically. Anyway without going into the Bodhi tree likeness in the swamp, can this form of government be redefined? I can't come up with one --Piandao Talk 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Theocracy, in this case, is when a nation is governed by persons who are the political and religious authority. But "religious atuhority" doesn't imply that they believe in god. Dcasawang1 - Talk - Contributions 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I may have been too literal but if we expand the word is related to god, divine and deity not only belief in transcendental spirit. We can't put the Pope and the Dalai Lama in the same bracket as the Pope is not progressive. We need another word or I have to invent one. Mysticoracy :D. Interesting point is that an atheist is unlikely to be elected in the USA does that make them a theocracy? Anyway politics and beliefs are big subjects and we should not really take it on here.

  • Conclusion: Rule by belief/believers is theocracy. That redefines a lot of countries. The US will not elect an atheist = theocracy. All the religious leaders (fanatic or not), can be regarded as leaders by theocracy (the voice/hand of Allah, the chosen one etc). Only an atheist(maybe communist) government structure can be considered in the non-theocratic bracket. Hmmm! I think theocracy is too lose fitting in this case.--Piandao Talk 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really. A theocracy is a form of government that controls both state and religious/spiritual affairs. In most nations today, state and church are separate, including the USA. Rule by believers doesn't equal theocracy. Theocracies must specifically have its government not have separation between state and spiritual affairs. There are very few real theocracies in our world, and the Vatican is one of very few examples.
And as a note: in nations where church and state are separate (US, Australia etc. etc.), the president or prime minister, religious or not, must not be biased towards the church in his governmental decisions, particularly when concerning multiple religious beliefs inside the country. I find this a bit of a problem in the USA, where I think a little too much emphasis is placed on the religion of a potential leader. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 10:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Taht's the 'official line'. Truth is what we do not what we say we should do! I'll not lead us all into politics and religion. Theocracey is just something that nags me - I'll live with it (for now) :) --Piandao Talk 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rule by a Council of Elders is a Senate. "Theocracy" is totally inaccurate. No gods or religions are implied in the series. 71.127.254.235 01:15, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the age of the leader is the deciding factor, not the fact that they are religious leaders (they are never stated to be religious leaders, or religious at all. ); any monk could be considered a "religious leader", not just the old ones. Theocracy's etymology is from the greek words theo "god", and cratos "strength" or "rule". "Rule by God". There are no known gods in the series. Senate comes from the latin word senatus meaning "council of elders". -71.127.254.235 02:39, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, it's led by the leaders who are also the highest religious authority the Air Nomads have. That constitutes a theocracy. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 02:47, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Did Dimartino say that the monks had a religion? It's never mentioned in the series. -71.127.254.235 02:54, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
FYI, not all religions are theistic. Buddhism is one example of a nontheistic religion. A nation ruled by nontheistic religious leaders isn't a theocracy, -71.127.254.235 02:56, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
The Air Nomads had a rigid system of beliefs, ranging from the preservation of life to vegetarianism. I'm sure that that constitutes some form of religion, therefore making their government a Theocracy. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 02:57, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Spiritual beliefs do not constitute a religion. Veganism, for example, shares many of the Air Nomad beliefs. It is not a religion. Theocracy is rule by a supposed god, The Air Nomads are not known to have a god. -71.127.254.235 03:02, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
You do understand that the Council of Elders is a Senate, right? -71.127.254.235 03:04, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I do understand, but the form of government remains as a Theocracy. It's not rule by a God, it's rule by the religious authority. In the Vatican (a Theocracy) it's not directly ruled by God himself. It's ruled by what's believed to be his earthly representative. The representatives ruling the government are what constitutes a theocracy. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 03:07, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

You are exactly correct. But what god does the Council of Elders represent? Even if they were religious spiritual nontheists (it's likely that they are), like Bhuddists, for example, they would not be representing a god (theo). This is precisely why calling the Air Nomad government a theocracy is a travesty.-71.127.254.235 03:13, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is twofold. There are no sources confirming that the Air Nomads have a state religion, or that they worship a god. Calling the government a theocracy is highly speculative. -71.127.254.235 03:18, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

They have no God, but they have a centralized system of beliefs that clearly meant something to them. Aang was genuinely conflicted to take a life, something someone without religious teachings against that wouldn't worry about. And Theocracy is rule by religious authority. They don't need to represent a God, just a centralized religion. In a Buddhist temple, wouldn't the Monks running it be a Theocracy? Yes, they would be since they are the highest religious authority at the temple. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 03:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Definition of Theocracy: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. That shows that since they are the leaders of a religion, and of a nation, that makes them a Theocracy. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 03:26, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Lacking religion does not mean that one lacks morality. No, Bhuddist monks "running a temple" does not constitute a theocracy. A theocracy is "the government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided" (- Merriam-Webster). The Air Nomads don't have a state to speak of (hence the name "Nomad"). As far as we know, they don't have any beliefs in the "divine". All they have is their spiritual beliefs, and a Council of Elders. A Senate. -71.127.254.235 03:26, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there is no air nation. Assuming that they have a religion is speculative. What god divinely guides the monks? -71.127.254.235 03:28, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
They are enough of a nation to be categorized into one of the Four Nations, and their beliefs are in the Spirit World, along with the other Nations. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 03:30, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
They are not a nation. At least they aren't at any time during the series. Technically, they are a nation. A nomadic nation, but a nation nonetheless. A theocracy, as you said yourself, requires a divine guide. Or leaders that believe they are led by a divine guide. And for the record, they don't "believe" in the Spirit World; the Spirit World is actually known to exist (ask Sokka). There is never stated to be a divine guide in the Spirit World that guides the Air Monks. Remember divine spirit = god. -71.127.254.235 03:37, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
What's the reason that they aren't a nation? And a theocracy just is a form of government that is divinely led, divinely led means that the people following them think that there is a spiritual reason behind that person. If I was to form a religion tomorrow, and start a form of government following me, based on my new religion, that would would be a theocracy. A monarchical theocracy, but still theocracy. And they also have the belief of detachment. They believed that they must meditate and detach themselves from the world to achieve spiritual enlightenment. That, to me, is a solid religious belief and I believe their entire society centered around it. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 03:43, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
They are a nation. My mistake. You are mistaken in your thinking that a spiritual nation is a theocratic nation. Spiritual does not mean "divine" or "religious". If your religion did not believe that you were divinely led, by definition, you would not be a theocracy. The Air Nomads may have a religion, but we cannot say that they are (or believe that they are) divinely led. By calling them a theocracy, you are saying just that. Bhuddists, for example, do not believe that they are divinely led. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a Bhuddist theocracy, even though they are religious, There is no theo, so there can be no theocracy. -71.127.254.235 03:50, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
What's the reason for them not to be divinely led, or at least believed to be? I think that more evidence is for them being divinely led than not, because why else would they be elected to their positions higher than the other monks? The rest of the Nomads must have trusted them for a reason other than their wisdom, and being a highly spiritual society, I would think that being led by a higher spirit would be something that the Air Nomads would recognize. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 03:54, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
A better question is, why should we speculate that they are (believed to be) divinely led? They aren't elected to their positions, Bos. They're the eldest monks in the temple, hence the name "Council of Elders" That sort of government is called a Senate. A higher spirit is never mentioned in the series, and a higher spirit still isn't a divine guide. Let's not speculate, and let's go with what we know. -71.127.254.235 04:01, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
"Religious authority" doesn't imply that they believe in a God, or divine spirit. I think they do, but that's my opinion. And the Council must be elected, because as stated in Pasang's article, it says that he was the head of the Council, but not the eldest. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 04:14, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
That's true. But being led by religious authorities isn't enough to qualify a government as a theocracy. If the religious leaders do not believe that they are divinely led, ie. led by god(s), it isn't a theocracy, by the very definition you posted earlier. A nontheistic theocracy is an oxymoron. Granted, the head monk is elected. Even if they were all elected, your reasoning in asserting that they may be theists, as you acknowledge, is pure opinion. We shouldn't present opinions as facts. We do not know if the Air Nomads have a god (or gods). We do know that they have a senate. - Mudbender (talkcontribs) 04:27, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
I decided to register. This is my username. ->-Mudbender (talkcontribs) 04:31, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it doesn't say Pasang was elected, only that he wasn't the oldest. It doesn't say anywhere that any of the elders are elected, though they may very well be. -Mudbender (talkcontribs) 04:37, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

In your above arguments, you said that the monks on the council were appointed by seniority. That would make Pasang, not the oldest, not be head monk. And this whole discussion will have to be put on hold for more users in the community to decide upon. Two users can't decide what to change and what not to. Please leave the articles the way they are until the community decides to change them. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 04:45, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

The Council is appointed by senority. The head monk (apparently) isn't. Consider that I did not start this topic. Read the comments of Piandao and the 888th Avatar. Both opposed the usage of "theocracy". I proposed "Senate", a much more applicable term. Until you changed the Air Nomad Page, it was tentatively agreed (on that page) that "Senate" was more appropriate than "theocracy". I had actually changed it back to "theocracy" until the dispute was settled, and another user changed it back to Senate. It seems that you acknowledege that there is no reason to call the Air Nomad leadership a theocracy; by definition it is not a theocracy. There is no need for a consensus amongst every member of the community, Why not change it? -Mudbender (talkcontribs) 05:01, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I have read the comments of the above users, and The 888th Avatar was not oppossed to using Theocracy. If so, why did it remain? In the words of 888: "A theocracy is a form of government that controls both state and religious/spiritual affairs." The head monks would imply that they are the spiritual authority, and they clearly had enough quasi-political influence to govern the Nomads, and had enough to send Aang away. That would constitute a theocracy. And I'm not asking for a full community consensus. I'm asking for more people than are currently in this discussion. --I'm The Bos - Talk - Guardian 12:10, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
The 888th Avatar said that "Rule by believers doesn't equal theocracy." I'd say that's opposition, but we could always ask for clarity's sake. I think I understand your reasoning better than I did before: I may be mistaken, but it seems that you want to put emphasis on the fact that the monks are the spiritual leaders of the Air Nomads, as well as the decision makers. I agree with this. They can justifiably be called religious leaders. But they aren't theocrats, because they don't have a known god. I don't know exactly what you would call that, but theocracy is certainly a misnomer. I'll respect your wishes, I won't be touching the article until we come to a decision. -Mudbender (talkcontribs) 17:32, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sandbenders

Based in Earth Kingdom, but tribal - should it be added? Piandao Talk 10:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 10:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ba sing se government

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Ba Sing Se was actually an Orwellian police state for a significant amount of time? TrayC 98.17.237.122 03:29, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

if you want to explain what Orwellian means since most people dont knowCourage the CowardlySokka-sprite 03:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Current Avatar Vote

Please vote here for who should be listed as current Avatar:


Korra:

  1. Ty Lee's Biggest Fan, AFTy Lee sprite 03:38, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Courage the Cowardly UserSokka-sprite 03:39, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 17:20, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Seth-218: Still standin'! ^.^!!! (talkcontribs) 21:26, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Aang:


Hm...I'm somewhat neutral. I personally think we should wait until the actual series premieres, but that's just me. I mean, by listing Korra as the Avatar, we'd be be contradicting the timeline by also listing Kuei, Zuko, Arnook, and Hakoda as the other current rulers, despite the fact that Korra is an entire generation behind them. Vaznock - Talk 03:50, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
That can easily be resolved by putting "most recent" instead of "current". Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 17:20, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

So... I guess we change it then. And we change current to "Most Recent Known". Sound good? Ty Lee's Biggest Fan, AFTy Lee sprite 06:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

All done. Ty Lee's Biggest Fan, AFTy Lee sprite 06:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Good job Acrobat Fan!Courage the Cowardly UserSokka-sprite 21:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Territorial divisions

I believe the proper term for those is "administrative divisions." General Admiral (wallcontribs) 01:31, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

Earth Kingdom Governance

I have some issue with the Earth Kigndom being assessed as a 'constitututional monarchy'. it may have been established as one by Kyoshi, and may have continued as such until the invasion by the Fire Nation, but from Hou-Ting was certainly either an absolute monarch or a cult of personality. This is primarily indicated by the fact no federal authority besides her is know to exist in the Earth Kingdom, she is appears to have a far greater authority over her citizenry than a genuine constituional monarch (vis a vis the rounding up of airbenders), and the attack by the Red Lotus targets her as the authority and results in the collapse of order in Ba Sing Se. Further, there is no evidence of the installation of a constituional monarchy following her death, as the following years consist of the rise of the Earth Empire. The restoration of the Earth Monarchy at the end of Book 4 is not enough to prove the re-establishment of the constitutional monarchy enforced by Kyoshi. As a final note, just because it is called a consttutional monarchy doesn't make it so, look and the 'Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea', which is not democratic, the people's, or a true republic.M.Fauch (wallcontribs) 18:09, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.