Ethnocracy means ‘government or rule by a particular ethnic group’ or ethnos , specified by language, religion, ‘race’ and/or other components . It has been developed from a general imprecise label into an analytical concept sometimes contrasted with democracy or rule by the demos, the people in general. Primarily it was developed as national ethnocracy for regimes in contemporary national states which claim to be ‘democratic’, and it was mainy pioneered by the Israeli geographer Oren Yiftachel to analyse ethnically-biased policies and the asymmetrical power relations of Israeli Jews and Palestinians. However, it can be extended to several other contexts each of which has its own particular dynamics. Yiftachel himself extended it ‘down’ to city level and specifically urban ethnocracy; and we can further explore how cities and city government can moderate state ethnocracy. But going beyond the national and the urban, and the particularities of the Israeli case, the concept can be enriched in other ways, and I suggest three further extensions: firstly, ‘back’ to imperial ethnocracy which often preceded and gave birth to national ethnocracy; secondly, and more speculatively, it can be extended ‘forwards’ to the (usually mis-named) ‘post-conflict’ or power-sharing stages of ‘peace processes’, to what we might call shared or ‘ post-conflict’ ethnocracy; and thirdly, it can perhaps be extended to contemporary religious-political conflicts which are at least partly trans national in character, to what could be called religious or ‘ post-national’ ethnocracy. The five variants of ethnocracy and their varied inter-relations can help tie together different features of ethno-national conflicts. However questions remain: about, for instance, the variable and relative importance of ethnicity’s different components; about where to draw the boundary between ethnocracy and democracy; and about possibly rival concepts such as ‘ethnic democracy’ on one side and ‘apartheid’ on the other. Keywords: national, urban, imperial, ‘post-conflict’ and ‘post-national’ ethnocracies; democracy; majoritarianism

中文翻译：

---

民族学：探索和扩展概念

族裔制是指“由特定族群统治或统治”或由语言，宗教，“种族”和/或其他组成部分规定的民族。它已从一般的不精确标签发展为有时与一般民众的民主或统治形成鲜明对比的分析概念。最初，它是作为声称具有“民主”地位的当代民族国家的政权发展为民族种族主义，它主要是由以色列地理学家奥伦·伊夫塔切尔（Oren Yiftachel）率先分析种族偏见的政策以及以色列犹太人和巴勒斯坦人的不对称权力关系。但是，它可以扩展到其他几个上下文，每个上下文都有其自己的特定动态。Yiftachel本人将其“扩展”到了城市层面，特别是城市民族制。并且我们可以进一步探索城市和城市政府如何调节国家的民族制。但是，除了国家和城市以及以色列案件的特殊性以外，还可以通过其他方式丰富这一概念，我建议进一步扩展三方面：首先，“回到”帝国族制，这种帝国化往往早于并产生了民族制。 ; 其次，更具有投机性，它可以被“向前”扩展到（通常被错误命名的）“和平进程”的“冲突后”或权力共享阶段，我们可以称之为共享或“冲突后”民族制; 第三，它可以扩展到至少部分具有跨国性的当代宗教-政治冲突，也可以扩展到所谓的宗教或“后国家”民族主义。种族主义的五种变体及其相互关系可以帮助将民族－民族冲突的不同特征联系在一起。然而，问题仍然存在：例如，关于种族不同组成部分的可变性和相对重要性；关于在哪里划清民族制与民主制的界限；关于可能相互竞争的概念，例如一方面是“民族民主”，而另一方面是“种族隔离”。关键词：民族，城市，帝国，“冲突后”和“民族后”民族政体；民主; 多数主义 关于可能相互竞争的概念，例如一方面是“民族民主”，而另一方面是“种族隔离”。关键词：民族，城市，帝国，“冲突后”和“民族后”民族政体；民主; 多数主义 关于可能相互竞争的概念，例如一方面是“民族民主”，而另一方面是“种族隔离”。关键词：民族，城市，帝国，“冲突后”和“民族后”民族政体；民主; 多数主义