Despotism

Despotism is the name of a wide range of ideologies where a nation is led by a single leader. These range from absolute monarchies to theocracies to military dictatorships to centrist dictatorships. Despotism is seen in many countries throughout the world.

Proponents and subideologies

Note: People marked with an asterisk are their countries' starting leaders.

Subideology	Description	Adherents
Default (None)	Despotism is a wide-reaching term that encompasses governmental systems where power is concentrated on a single individual or group of individuals. These people run the nation according to their own will, and almost always make heavy use of the military and the police to keep their citizens from revolting. Despotist governments very rarely tolerate other ideologies and when they do they have systems in place to prevent those groups from ever gaining power. Opposition forces are treated as enemies of the state and heavily repressed, and if elections are ever held they are either completely rigged lies or for positions with no power. Despotist governments also usually wish to establish control or dominance over other nations, and maintain extensive militaries to use in conquest and to protect the regime. While Despotists can use nationalism as a reason for their authority, they are not as nationalistic as Fascists and National Socialists and nationalism is usually more of an excuse than any real part of the agenda.	Reinhard Gehlen
Absolute Monarchy	Absolute Monarchism is an ideology defined by total control by a monarch and the placement of all other government authority under their oversight. Most commonly, the monarch leaves the day to day management of the state to their ministers, but any decision can be overturned or reversed by them. With a history extending back thousands of years, absolute monarchy is one of the oldest and most enduring systems of government. The transition from antiquity to the medieval era across the world saw the control of monarchs diminished in favor of the power of the aristocracy, who in some cases had only a nominal allegiance to their King. As the feudal eras of Europe and Asia waned, however, this arrangement quickly began to change once more. As kingdoms and empires grew in strength around the world, the powers of the nobility were increasingly wielded by the monarch and their ministers, especially in Europe. Even as the powers of European monarchs were curtailed in favor of constitutional governments, absolute monarchies continued to survive in much of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Today, in a world desperate for hope, some might seek to place all faith in royalty once again. As the great French King Louis XIV once said: "One King, one law, one faith."	Boris III* Simeon II Hassan II* Abdullah I bin Al-Hussein Nayef bin Abdullah Saud bin Abdulaziz Al Saud* Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Khalid bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Ahmad bin Yahya* Said bin Taimur* Mohammed Zahir Shah* Jigme Dorji Wangchuck* Omar Ali Saifuddien III Rurik II* Boris Krylov Alexei II Ibrahim ibn 'Umaru Abdullah bin Khalifa* Jamshid bin Abdullah Moshoeshoe II
Military Junta	A Military Junta is a government where the military has taken political power into its own hands without any democratic element. Often this involves a suspension of the constitution of the state, and the rights contained therein. This leaves juntas free to stabilize the country into accepting their rule. An authoritarian oligarchic rule characterizes a junta, with power shared among military leaders rather than centralized in a single person. Sometimes, civilian governmental institutions continue to function as well, but with their activities supervised or even directed by the junta. Other times, the junta rules formally and directly, maintaining legitimacy through a variety of other methods, most often promises of future democratization or of reclaiming lost land. Usually, a Military Junta takes power by coup d'état, though occasionally military leaders are invited to take control in times of crisis. Besides an emphasis on military strength and national security, they tend to differ greatly in their aims depending on circumstance. However, among all juntas, one ideal remains the same: the soldier protects, but he does not serve.	Ulrich Wegener Seán MacEoin Fritz-Dietlof von der Schulenburg Grigore Baștan Cevdet Sunay Sabiha Gökçen* Georgios Grivas Georgios Papadopoulos Mohammed Naguib Ibrahim Abboud Sejima Ryūzō Nguyễn Khánh Thanom Kittikachorn Wendell Fertig Takayama Shinobu Suharto Zulkifli Lubis Bambang Supeno Sungkono Ventje Sumual Mohammed Zaman Kiani Mohan Singh Andrey Vlasov* Vladimir Kirpichnikov* Alexander Medvedev Jānis Mendriks* Stepan Bunkov Konstantin Rokossovsky* Pavel Batov Grigory Semyonov* Nikolay Ivanovsky Hadji-Umar Mamsurov Sarry Karryev Nusratullo Abdulkhakov Ruzi Nazar Émile Janssens Lyman Leminitzer Odílio Denys Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco Artur da Costa e Silva Emílio Médici Ernesto Geisel João Figueiredo Augusto Rademaker Raúl Poggi Benjamín Menéndez Roberto Marcelo Levingston Alejandro Agustín Lanusse Marcos Gándara Enríquez Guillermo Freile Posso Ricardo Pérez Godoy José Toribio Merino Andrés Rodríguez Pedotti Alfredo Ovando Candía René Barrientos Ortuño Rogelio Miranda Baldivia Pablo Moratorio
Civilian Dictatorship	Life without authority is nasty, brutish, and short. The past few decades have shown that democracy does not have what it takes to keep the peace and prevent order from falling into chaos. Freedom has been given its chance; more stringent measures are required. Civilian dictatorships usually operate under a thin veneer of respectability. These trinkets and baubles form the carrot side of the regime, examples of which include a dominant political party that serves as a means of control, a constitution either molded to the needs of the dictator or exploited ruthlessly by them to rule indefinitely, and codified laws used to maintain stability. However, these token steps towards real freedom are inevitably seen for what they are, forcing the dictator to use the stick to keep the nation in line. State security is vigorously used to detain and maim any dissent against the government. The rule of law is distorted, when not circumvented entirely, to maintain authority against threats through imprisonment, torture, and execution - all of these being acceptable prices to pay for order and stability. These regimes tend to, but not always, swing to the right-wing when it comes to politics, favoring the maintenance of traditional values and a concentration of economic power towards a friendly establishment. However, these ideological elements are adopted pragmatically to consolidate power further, diluting and discarding them when convenient. Ultimately, while not established solely for powers' sake, most tend to devolve into abandoning the ends they pursue in favor of practicing the means indefinitely.	Seamus Twomey Per Borten Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour* Francisco Franco* António de Oliveira Salazar* Victor Siminel* Fu Zuoyi* Lon Nol Lon Non Norodom Sihanouk Abid Hasan Safrani Sergei Bunyachenko Svetlana Stalina Mikhail Matkovsky Trofim Lysenko* Paul Soppo Priso* Luis Somoza Debayle* Joaquín Balaguer Jorge Prat Echaurren Alfredo Ramos
Theocracy	Explicitly acknowledging a God or other such deity as their supreme authority, a Theocracy executes temporal functions through human intermediaries that are officially purported to receive divine authority or guidance. In order to do this many, most, or all of the nation's highest offices are occupied by clerical or religious officials, and state policy and actions are typically governed by the doctrines, beliefs, and scriptures of the religion that they purport to follow, whatever those may be or call for. Internally, such nations are often characterized by prominent displays of religious observance, parochial institutions, state or otherwise, and a high degree of religious participation by their citizenry, whether voluntary or forced. With regards to foreign nations, the basic cordiality of interactions on the part of the theocratic regime again depend heavily on the character of the religion in question, and on the proclaimed qualities of the deity that the ruling class claim to represent. Whether they actually do, or are only conveniently claiming to do so, is a perennial question.	Tenzin Gyatso* Ghalib Alhinai Mikhail Antipin* Gleb Yakunin
Papacy	Unique among many of its ideological peers, the Vatican exercises a wholly unique system of governance that blends monarchy, theocracy, and a semi-democratic elements into a coherent whole. The Pope is elected for life, though not chosen through inheritance or bloodline, by the College of Cardinals - senior bishops of the Catholic Church - during a Papal Conclave that convenes to choose the next Pope. Upon selection, the Pope becomes head of the Holy See, Vatican, and the Catholic faith itself, imbued with the authority of an absolute monarch. The authority the Pope can exercise is vast, and transcends traditional borders as Catholics live across the world. While this has little practical authority, it gives the words of the Pope more weight than many other heads of state, and few set out to antagonize the Vatican as a result.	John XXIII* Gregory XVII John XXIV Paul VI Pius XIII Clement XV Lawrence Innocent XIV Gregory XVIII
Eurasianism	A focused subset of nationalist thought, Eurasianism is defined by its relation to the proposed Eurasian 'super-ethnos,' the ideo-social concept that the Eurasian peoples, ranging from the Carpathian basin to the Mongolian steppes, must unite into a single social and political grouping in order to achieve national strength and protect against destructive influences from without. Through both preparing for and actually doing so, the 'passionarity,' or overall drive, of this ethnic grouping will be maximized, allowing for greatness to be achieved on a societal scale. Key to this theory is the notion of the historical relation of the Russian nation to the West. Rather than endorsing the idea of Russia as a European nation, Eurasianism defines the Russian nation as one that, due to its relations to the Mongols and other Asiatic peoples, is fundamentally separate from the West, with Eurasian unity encouraged as a both a means of defense from Western influence and a means of cultural development and rejuvenation. Eurasianism encourages close ties between Eurasian peoples, strengthened ties with Asia rather than Europe, and strong rejection of both "parasitic internationalism" and European concepts which are deemed external to the super-ethnos.	Lev Gumilyov
Interim Government	An interim, or caretaker, government is an intrinsically temporary one that exists in between more formally defined governments, whether those be the result of democratic elections, military imposition, or some other method. Typically rapidly formed in the aftermath of the fall of a previous government, however that fall may have been characterized, their inherent perceived legitimacy is generally low. Therefore, should they not be quickly replaced, national disorder and unrest is sure to follow. Such interim governments tend to be relatively authoritarian even if apolitical, if only to ensure that the status quo as it relates to state institutions is maintained until such time as their successor is properly established. At the same time, they are very unlikely to possess either the political will, or the physical ability, to execute policy of any real significance. The nation, in essence, remains 'frozen' until the interim government is replaced.	Claus von Stauffenberg Adolf Heusinger Ian Paisley Seyfi Kurtbek Konoe Fumimaro Zhou Longxiang José Avelino y Dira Ramón Magsaysay y del Fierro Alexander Altunin Mikhail Baganov Anatoly Sobchak José René Román Fernández Dominican Governance Council Ranieri Mazzili Auro de Moura Andrade José María Guido Isaac Rojas José Sepuíveda Galindo
Colonial Government	The very definition of an empire is predicated on the idea of one nation ruling over others. Sometimes, local collaborators or noblemen are able to step up and help their new overlords manage things smoothly. But oftentimes, there may be a dearth of willing assistants from the local population, or they may simply not want to be ruled over. Enter the colonial government. Staffed from top to bottom by bureaucrats, magistrates, and governors from the mother country, they take no orders from those they govern and would be loathe to do so. Their justifications for doing so may be myriad: the natives are uncivilized and not ready for home rule, doing so will harm their ruling country's political interests, or they simply don't trust the occupied nation enough to justify freeing them. If the governor is not a military man himself, they often have a close link to the military anyway, since it is the only institution the government can fully trust in event of an anti-colonial insurrection. Opportunities for a native under this regime are slim and none; if they are lucky, they will be able to get a job in the government's rank-and-file, with no hope for advancement beyond the lowest echelons of power. That is why these regimes so often tend to inspire fierce resistance; lots of angry, disenfranchised and disillusioned military-aged men with everything to gain and nothing to lose make for a wonderful anti-colonial rebel army.	Luca Pietromarchi* Enrico Mattei* Georgios Bakos* Amedeo di Savoia-Aosta* Yamamoto Moichirō* Baba Masao Dwight Edward Beach Alain de Sérigny* Pierre Bolotte* Georges Nyo Paul Maerten* Elie Groleau* Douglas Hall* Gerald Creasy* William John Peel* Ferdinand Cavendish-Bentinck* Frederick Crawford* Robert Perceval Armitage* Evelyn Baring* Percivale Liesching* Alexander Grantham* Silvino Silvério Marques* Gabriel Teixeira* António Jorge da Silva Sebastião* Vasco António Martins Rodrigues* António Lopes dos Santos* Faustino Ruíz González* Mariano Gómez-Zamalloa* Charles Swart* Hector Allard* Kenneth Blackburne*
Ba'athism	"One Nation, Bearing an Eternal Message." The brainchild of Michel Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi, Ba'athism is a revolutionary Arab nationalist movement, aimed at creating a 'renaissance' across the Arab world by means of revolution against foreign oppressors. Ba'athist ideology combines notions of pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, and secularism into an ideological platform that aims to mobilize and subsequently unify the whole Arab nation through revolutionary struggle, regardless of faith or region. The Ba'ath party functions as the universal vanguard for the Arab nation, accelerating its development in order to bring about the renaissance into all aspects of life. Its ostensible goals are progress, liberty, and socialism as defined by Aflaq, within a context suited to the Arab world. Dedication to modernization and progress means that the party opposes not only foreign rule but also all the forms of feudal and noble reaction across the Arab world. Liberty in the Ba'athism sense does not necessarily mean liberal parliamentary democracy, as it may subvert the revolution, and socialism here substitutes the Marxist notion of class struggle for a national struggle against colonialism. 'Arab Socialism' is considered an important means of reaching the renaissance, but not its ultimate purpose. In reality, the ideological purity of Ba'athist parties across the Middle East is incredibly varied and intrinsically linked with local culture and tradition, as well as an influx of foreign political theories. The policies followed by the Ba'athist movements range from the rampant militarism of some branches to promises of representative democracy and socialism by others. Their only common goal is the creation of a united Arab state, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Gulf.	Hafez al-Assad
Corporatocracy	While private capital exists in a tense relationship with the public interest in every developed country across the world, in almost every instance the public interest remains firmly in control of the levers of political power, with corporations being just one of many interest groups. However, this polity's unique circumstances has led to this normal state of affairs being reversed. Whether by regulatory neglect, corruption, or deliberate design, the political role of the state in a corporatocracy is dominated by corporate interests and representatives. Whether they rule indirectly via bought men and regulatory capture, or more directly by the outright seizure of political power, a corporatocracy operates for the benefit of its corporate denizens, their shareholders, and investors first - and for the betterment of its people a distant second.	Matsuzawa Takuji Matsushita Masaharu Ibuka Masaru
Technocratic Corporatism	Corporatism advocates the organization of society by groups on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, body, and describes an explicitly collectivist system of thought. Its ultimate aim is the construction of a society whereby classes cooperate with one another under the aegis of the State, as opposed to the class conflict inherent in systems such as communism. The technocratic strain of corporatism is explicitly opposed to unions, calling them a roadblock to true class collaboration, and traditionally right-wing in its implementation of policy. Rather than appealing to leftist strains of thoughts it predicates itself more upon traditionally corporatist ideas. However, technocratic corporatism also stops short of fascism; it eschews hardline nationalism as a cornerstone of its societal implementation.
Vanguard Anarchism	Freedom is something too precious to be in the possession of the people. Vanguard Anarchism attempts to combine the decentralized anarchist society with a standard, disciplined army to defend the society, often with a central, dominating leader of that army acting as the final voice when it comes to matters of survival of the society. Supporters of this style of anarchism argue it is fundamentally necessary in order to prevent more organized and stable external threats from overwhelming the communes. On the other hand, detractors consider this a fundamentally corrupt interpretation of anarchism, as the needs and will of the people are often subordinated to the army's authority in the name of defense and protection, and even besides, the sheer amount of individual power held by whoever runs the military makes them little better than any other tinpot dictator.	Ivan Stepanov Androniy Mishurenko
Aristocratic Conservatism	A state - be it republican or monarchical in nature - is not necessarily a democracy, and few socio-political schools of thought represent this idea in a subtle, yet insidious way more than Aristocratic Conservatism. A state so governed nominally possesses a constitution, and enjoys all of the structural institutions of a democratic polity. However, large portions of the representatives, bureaucrats, regional leaderships and perhaps even the head of state are under the favors, payroll, or threats of the "silent rulers" of the country. These could be nobles from young democracies or the old guard of a monarchic government, adapting seamlessly to what is just a more abstract court. Or they could be wealthy ranchers and landowners, making sure the taxation system and government projects don't hurt their bottom line, and ideally, even increase their profits. To say that this rule has no opponents is inaccurate. After all, an opposition is essential to keep up a democratic appearance. But said opposition is either backed by different patrons or is neutered, having no political backing. Political reaction is the rule; for those in charge, the situation of the country currently is the best it has ever been. Whoever disagrees can be simply labeled an enemy of the state or branded a subversive revolutionary. All men have their price, after all, and nobody understands this better than the true rulers behind the veil of this government.	Charles Haughey Muhammad VIII* Kawashima Shōjirō Aisin Gioro Pujie Demchugdongrub* Dugursulong Nguyễn Phúc Minh Đức Teungku Muhammad Daud Beureueh Minoo Masani Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah* Mir Ahmad Yar Khan* Nawabzada Shahabuddin Khan* Feroz Khan Noon Jahanara Shahnawaz Vladimir III* Lydia Krylova William Tubman Ahmadu Bello Issoufou Saïdou Djermakoye Joh Bjelke-Petersen Herbert Fuller* Roland Theodore Symonette* Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez* Mario Oscar Aguerrondo
Warlordism	When people speak of power, they speak of man's control over the minds and actions of other men. Among the nations of the world, this control is often political. Leaders exert power through some combination of orders, threats, and persuasion, mediated through institutions that seek to restrain the real use of violence. Warlord states lack the interest and the capacity for such subtleties. Cruel and brutal, warlords are leaders of armed bands who rely on violence to exert power over lands ravaged by war or crisis. They terrorize civil authorities, plunder resources, and exterminate uncooperative populations. Those unfortunate enough to live in a warlord state are often forced to contend with marauding bands of fighters, unpredictable and unrestrained from the rules of decency. While individual leaders can have complex goals and motivations, the bloated military apparatus they lead tends to be extractive, seeking to enrich itself at the expense of others.	Sepp Dietrich Otto Weidinger Xia Wei* Lu Han* He Yingqin* Liu Wenhui* Jaba Ioseliani* Soslanbek Apayev Ivan Nikishov Ivan Melkikh Nikolay Abramov
Personalistic Dictatorship	Autocrats have come in many forms throughout recorded history. Whether ideologues or lawgivers, saints or tyrants, the greatest among them had something in common: a vision, pursued to the utmost with every means at their disposal. From the republic-turned-empire of Augustus to the continent-spanning revolutionary ambitions of Napoleon, the mark such individuals have left upon history is truly indelible. Of course, those tend to be exceptions, rather than the rule. Most autocrats have far less high-minded motivations. Forget ideology, nation-building, or anything of that sort. For these men (and occasionally women), power is both the means and the end; "All for me, and none for thee." Egoism defines both their rulership and their personalities. They rule not by popular mandate or under the guidance of a higher cause, but by and for themselves. Extensive use of nepotism, brute force, and criminality can make their regimes, no matter how unpopular, exceptionally difficult to remove.	Adnan Menderes Subhas Chandra Bose Amiya Nath Bose Anil Chandra Chatterji Mitchell WerBell III Vladimir Kuroedov Sher Muhammad Léon Cantave François Duvalier Jean-Claude Duvalier José Antonio Remón Cantera* José de Magalhães Pinto Juan Domingo Perón Alfredo Stroessner Rafael Franco
Partisan Movement	Freedom earned through blood is better than tyranny enforced through blood. That is the thesis of a partisan movement - if war is necessary to free their people from foreign occupation, then let loose its hounds and cry its chants. Besides a devotion to the cause of liberation and a general use of guerilla warfare, partisan movements can hold nearly any ideology, be made up of any class or nationality, and can be organized in nearly every way a movement can be. They can fight in the cities, in the fields, in the forests and in the mountains. From any place a person can hide, a partisan can fight. As the jackboot continues to press on Europe's neck, as the rising sun's rays of oppression shine over Asia, as the colonies of Italy languish under the Roman eagle, partisan movements have exploded in size and diversity to combat these evils. From the UPO in the Reich's "Model Colony" to more ideological groups like the UMAJF in Malaya, partisans across the globe continue their struggle. The oppressors will fall, the tyrants will burn, until the partisans reach the beautiful light on the horizon, the promised land they so desperately march towards. Hope for their people, who have lost it long ago. Justice for those that caused all of the pain and misery. And most of all, what every partisan fights for above all: Freedom. For their people, for all time.	Kazimierz Piechowski Ulrike Meinhof Willy Brandt Maxwell Knight Gurzhap Ochirov
National Catholicism	The intersection of statecraft and religion goes back for as long as statecraft and religion have existed. Since time immemorial, matters temporal and spiritual have not only existed side by side, but both have crossed over and influenced one another to degrees so profound that it simply cannot be overstated. In the modern age, it is no different with the Catholic faith. The National Catholics believe firmly that the best way to run the country is in accordance with traditional Catholic values and the enforcement of such, giving them a distinctly authoritarian and quite conservative character in general. Rather than merely encouraging adherence to tradition and the upholding of values, rigid adherence is something that must be enforced instead, separating them from other political Catholics. Rather than putting leadership directly in the hands of the faith as in the case of a theocracy, National Catholics typically push for a cooperation with another arm of governance that would allow them to enforce their laws more effectively. Usually, but not always, it is a military force that provides the enforcement part of a National Catholic regime, especially in countries where Catholicism is a dominant religion in the country's populace- and therefore, its armed forces as well. Such a thing is, of course, necessary to prevent any backsliding into decadent, depravity and entropy.	Mario Scelba Juan Carlos Onganía Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez Alfonso Uribe Misas
Managerial State	Managerial State refers to a political system where the country is controlled by and serves the interest of a selected group of elite bureaucrats. The leader of such a system, usually a group of technocrats selected via meritocracy as opposed to a personalistic dictator, seeks to maximize the efficiency of the state apparatus by micromanaging every aspect of the society through the hands of experts. While managerial states are not completely apathetic to their citizens' demands and needs, those concerns for citizens' welfare are nevertheless a variant in the technocrats' formula. The demands of the citizens are heard and responded to solely for the purposes of preventing revolts and maximizing economic outputs. Leaders of managerial states tend to believe that the system they profess avoids the inefficacy of electoral politics and believe that experts are best-positioned to lead the country to prosperity. However, history has proven that they often fail to account for the unpredictability of human emotions, and such failure could easily lead to their downfall.	Harold Wilson Reginald Maudling Jean Bichelonne Chatichai Choonhavan Yem Sambaur Sim Var Indira Gandhi Juan Carlos Onganía
Institutional Despotism	A person touching down in a country such as this might look at the assorted trappings of liberal democracy it keeps around and conclude that the government is democratic—but they could not be further from the truth. Far from pursuing democracy, Institutional Despotism aims to create and maintain a 'Perfect Dictatorship' that successfully convinces people they are not, in fact, in a dictatorship. As the new decade dawns, the most obvious case of this is the PRI rule in Mexico. In this state institutions are all controlled and subverted by a single, incredibly-entrenched oligarchical party or other such group occupying the political bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the government has dictatorial powers to enforce its will, powers enshrined in laws that give the state massive oversight and the faculties to intervene anywhere it pleases. Furthermore, even most of the organized opposition is likely directly controlled by, or a satellite of, the ruling party to give an illusion of political pluralism. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine their displacement from power without an immense broad-front effort directed specifically towards that goal. Every action, inaction, use, and abuse is justified by a single unified goal or purpose inseparably tied to the ruling group or ideology—no matter how vague or logically incoherent said goal may become. The result is a despotism institutionalized and camouflaged, and a national ideology and civil society forced to revolve around an abstract goal absorbing everything that it touches—which is very frequently used to justify the self-interest of the political oligarchy that sits at its head.	Adolfo López Mateos* Gustavo Díaz Ordaz Raúl Salinas Lozano Carlos Alberto Madrazo Fidel Castro
Wang Jingwei Thought	Dr. Sun Yat-Sen once founded the Three Principles of People that guided the Kuomintang since its foundation, where it called for the independence of the Chinese people, eventual democratization of the government, and the establishment of a comprehensive welfare system that addresses each citizen's needs. When Wang Jingwei and his followers proctaimed their rival government in Nanjing against Chiang, it became necessary to them to propagandize their version of the Three Principles of People compatible to Japan's vision for Asia. And so was Wang Jingwei Thought born - an interpretation of the Three Principles that calls for corporatism within, anti-Western sentiment without, and achievement of national welfare via cooperation with other East Asian countries, independent from any Western interference. Initially, Wangism is treated as none but a perversion of Dr. Sun's ideals, nevertheless within the Nanjing Government there are true believers of Wang's sermoning. Japan's victory in the Great East Asia War has made Wang's ideals be deemed appropriate and become more influential. Regarded as the pioneer of Asia, the words of Wang Jingwei even starts influencing other Sphere countries, where Wangism becomes more popular among populace and politicians. Following Wang's death in the late 1950s, many competing interpretations of the Three Principles of People began to secretly circulate within different cliques of the Kuomintang. However, Wangism is nonetheless the interpretation that remains as the most influential among the populace; years of youth indoctrination and the initial economical growth under Wang's Presidency have allowed the peopte to take Wangism as it is. Needless to say, Wang Jingwei Thought is seated firmly atop the throne of the nation's ideological orthodoxy in China - one that would take a truly alluring alternative to dislodge from.	Lin Baisheng* Chen Gongbo Zhou Fohai Gao Zongwu Zhang Lanfeng* Hu Nim Hafizullah Amin
Chiang Kai-Shek Thought	Chiang Kai-Shek Thought asserts that the Three Principles of the People as promised by Dr. Sun will only be brought any closer to reality through struggle. Struggle permeates every aspect of life; survival in the proverbial vale of tears that is life is a constant struggle of mind and body. An individual must thus maintain constant readiness, and a state must regard order and security as its highest priority at all times. To an adherent of this thought system, national weakness is the result of organizational and psychological weakness. So the people must accustom themselves to national consciousness and revolutionary doctrines in order to grow a sense of collective responsibility. The political establishment represents the united vanguard of society defending against the mounting national crisis. All the nation must adhere to the leadership of this unified political apparatus. Chiang Kai-shek Thought emphasizes Germany and Italy as epitomes of a united nation, though rejecting their racialism. Also strongly emphasized are anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, suspicion of foreign influence, and a great emphasis on self-reliance in both people and country. Unlike in the Nanjing Government, the importance of a leader is neither embraced nor negated. Some Party democracy is encouraged to ensure the Party always runs on principles rather than on personality cults or factionalism—at least on paper. Through these measures, the Generalissimo's remaining adherents believe, the successful realisation of Tridemism will be achieved. The result will be a revived nation and polity based on justice and order serving as a model of liberation for the other oppressed races of the Earth.	Zhu Shaoliang* Zhang Zhizhong* Hafizullah Amin
Aristocratic Republicanism	The national identity is a beautiful thing, one born from the fight against alien royals who seek to oppress the common man and enslave him to work for foreign capital. But in the hands of this common man, its flame has dampened as petty squabbles leave it cast in darkness. It now falls upon an almost aristocratic grouping of capitalists, landowners and political elites to raise the torch to new heights. To an outside observer, it would seem naive at best and blatant contradiction at worst. To these loyal sons of their republican founding fathers, it is only natural that those who have benefitted the most from their noble sacrifices carry on the Republican Revolution. For only they can unite each member of society, regardless of class or creed, against their historical oppressors who lie in wait for an opportunity to strike. Only they can ensure their protection from famine and poverty, ensure the upkeep of a culture and language that have been stamped into the ground by imperialism and allow each citizen their stake in the land's national wealth. But actions speak louder than words. The honeyed words of a landlord born with a silver spoon in his mouth have never put food on the table for a family of eight languishing in his almost-tenement domicile. Patriotic songs and dances celebrating ethnic massacres disguised as romantic strife show no love to the descendants of those survivors, alienated and targeted in speeches castigating them as parasites. These nationalists cast aside the concerns as minor quibbles of red rabble-rousers and enriched noblemen who have not yet learned to love the national unity of their sacred flag. However, as these concerns find a spotlight in the headlines of dissenting newspapers or interfere with the day-to-day running of government, questions arise over its power. Only time will tell if this unity will fix more divides than it will create.	Neil Blaney* Kevin Boland Mumtaz Daultana Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
Islamic Nationalism	The Prophet Muhammad once said, "Whoever fights under a banner of foolishness, supports tribalism, or gets angry for the sake of tribalism, he will die in a state of ignorance," condemning nationalism as something to be left behind. But for some, their devotion to Islamism can not be separated from their commitment to the nation, allowing the two opposing forces to blend into one ideological cocktail. Distinct from other forms of nationalism that seek to weaken the importance of religion in favor of a secular identity, as seen in Iran or Turkey, Islamic Nationalism places pride upon their Muslim heritage as a core tenet of their national identity. However, while this may be one of their primary principles, it is not their only trait. Typically, these communities tend to be racialist and xenophobic, with ethnic and religious minorities not part of the ruling class being subject to discrimination, persecution, and violent repression. In these nations, the military holds a secondary reverence, viewing themselves as both the guardians of the nation and the shadow of God, willing and ready to exercise their ability to supersede civilian governance if deemed necessary. From more traditional Islamists, this ideology invariably meets the criticism that it goes against the fundamental teachings of Muhammad by professing petty sectarianism instead of striving towards a unified community of believers. However, these nationalists are content to rationalize their deviations from this doctrine, believing that their warm embrace of national identity is a far more authentic expression of Pan-Islamism.	Mohammad Nabi Mohammedi Gholam Mohammad Niazi Abdul Kahar Muzakkar Mawlawi Hindustoni Turdakun Usubaliev
Radical Kemalism	The will to power gives the nation its strength, the great men and women of yesterday who gave the masses a reason, a doctrine to follow lockstep, heel and toe behind. The great man in Turkey is Atatürk, and like the great men in Germany and Italy, his vision inspired a nation and gave a society a united vision of what our world was meant to be. If the nation is to continue to prosper, his ideals must be carried out with ruthless fanaticism and without compromise to the little people. The primary tool used in this war of will is the state, a spearhead in the assault against reaction and regression, assailed and condemned at every waking moment in our society's endless stomp towards progress. The party will be a phalanx, a vanguard of Kemalist values undeterred by momentary fluctuations in opinion, prepared to hold tightly onto the instruments of government for as long as necessary to prevent the revolution from being reversed in a foolish fervor. The workers will work for the nation, given their just rewards not for acting as a slave to servile materialism but as the fruits of their labor earned in a righteous devotion for the cause of strengthening Turkey against its enemies. It is for all Turks, in all of Turkey, that this mission is taken for. There must be no weakness against those who undermine our hallowed national unity. The Republican ideal must be upheld to allow the white crescent to continue flying proudly in every corner of the country. And if these principles continue to be affirmed, the Turkish revolution will live for more than a thousand years, unstoppable in its march.	Falih Rıfkı Atay Şevket Süreyya Aydemir Şükrü Sökmensüer
Military Socialism	The world today finds itself increasingly directed from the top, rather than moved by the people below. In conservations of the status quo, and revolutions to wipe the slate clean, control is held by a select few to usher in this change. Nothing exemplifies this trend more than the doctrine of Military Socialism. Forged in South America as the creation of Bolivian dictators Germán Busch and David Toro to easily assuage their people, Military Socialism acts less as a cohesive ideology and more as a way for regimes to maintain control in the face of popular discontent. The army, labor movements, and left-wing elements are fused together into a big tent grouping, neutralizing radicals within these groups in favor of a corporatist outlook, as their desires are smothered under a broader populist agenda. This tripartite alliance functions to alleviate the reconcile the classes in favor of the nation above all, eliminating the evils of regionalism, unpatriotic oligarchism, and dangerous anarchical extremists. In practice, these regimes tend to be ardently opposed to socialist measures, preferring to instead adopt its rhetoric to act as an anesthetic against revolutionary action. And as fervor fades, more often than not, a new oligarchy of military men and puppet politicians eventually forms to take the place of the old elite. Those looking for real change can only despair, as their revolution appears to be hollowed out for a naked power grab.	Gustavo Rojas Pinilla Gualberto Villarroel López Juan José Torres
Antarctic Administration	Ever since the scramble for Antarctica began in the 1950s, the continent has been divided by several competing territorial administrations. What started as a border dispute between the Chilean and Argentinean regimes morphed into an international incident requiring the mediation of the Organization of Free Nations. Not to be outpaced by the forces of liberty, National Socialism reared its head in the form of Nazi-controlled Neuschwabenland, attempting to enforce a policy of colonization by the pure, Polar, Aryan race. Finally, the Japanese arrived, ignoring all pretense of legitimate claims, seizing their slice of Antarctica through force of arms. While each administration adheres to its specific ideological convictions, the harsh realities of life in the Great White Nothing, and lack of a notable civilian populace, has induced a measure of conformity amongst the regimes. All operate under some form of military governance, be they in direct control, in the case of Japan, or working alongside civilian partners, as with the OAA. Under these hierarchies, many thousands of personnel labor in the bitter cold and biting winds, trying to justify their presence on "the Exiled Continent". Each power attempts to wrest some modicum of value from their slice of ice, however many observers have named this struggle the ultimate in sunk cost fallacy. None of the powers can back down while the others remain, regardless of their losses in money, material, or men. It would take a colossal shift in fortunes to make the Antarctic ventures profitable...	Ishida Suteo* Xavier Charles Richert*
Other/Unknown		Florestano Di Fausto