Everybody knows about democracy. It’s originally a Greek word, formed by “demos” (common people) and “-cracy” (power). You’ll find the suffix “-cracy” in a number of places, from “aristocracy” to “autocracy,” and quite a few more. “Ariso” means “the best” in Greek, and although we now use “aristocracy” in a way that doesn’t imply actual governing, the original kind of “aristocracy” was an approach to government. “Autocracy” is usually found in the form “autocrat”, which means all the power is invested in one person — and that person would be the autocrat.
More recently the word “kakistocracy” has been floating around; it’s literally the opposite of the original meaning of “aristocracy,” or “rule by the best;” “kakistocracy” is rule by the worst. It seems sometimes like the available choices for governing are pretty limited, doesn’t it? Well, not etymologically they’re not. Another approach that’s actually in use in places around the world is “hoplarchy”, which is government by the military. You’ll notice a different suffix there: “-archy.” Where “-cracy” means power, “-archy” means to rule. Most of the forms of government that are labeled with a single word — and by the way there are at least 169 of these — end with one or the other suffix. The Greeks clearly had the whole thing figured out thousands of years ago.
You might also suggest a couple of “-ism” words, like “communism” or “socialism.” Those aren’t forms of government; they’re economic systems. The distinction is clearer if you include “capitalism;” nobody mistakes that for a form of government. The closest you can come is probably “argentocracy,” which is government by money. The best match for a socialist economy might be “isocracy,” which is governing where there is equal power.
An attractive option (at least around here) is “logocracy” (government by words), but this is probably impossible in the age of YouTube. We’re much more likely to get “videocracy.” I just made that one up, but it fits right into the list, doesn’t it?
But let’s say “autocracy” seems much too restrictive, though at the same time you’re not ready to turn power over to just anybody. Well, if there are two people in charge, that’s “binarchy” (or “diarchy”). Add another person and you get “triarchy.” The progression continues just as you might expect, all the way up to “septarchy” (7 rulers) and even “decarchy” (10 rulers). After that you’d think it was time to just give up and call it “polyarchy” (many rulers), but in fact you can also find “dodecharchy” (12), and a few others. For a real experiment in near anarchy, try “chiliarcy,” which is rule by one thousand people. “Anarchy” is rule by nobody; zero people.
There are plenty of alternatives if you want to be a bit more picky about your rulers than just “8 people” though (octarchy, if you’re still interested), and don’t want to go so far as “pantarchy,” which is rule by everybody in the entire world. People who own mills seem like fine upstanding sorts for the most part; there’s such a thing as “millocracy” that puts them in charge. Or maybe people who already made governing-like decisions as part of their job would be a better choice; a “kritarchy” is government by judges.
Other kinds of people who might take the reins include heroes (heroarchy), shopkeepers (“capelocracy”), bishops (“exarchy”), squires (“squirocracy”), and even the Whigs (“whiggarchy”). “Kleptocracy” is government by thieves, which seems like it could be bested even by “paedocracy” (rule by children) or even “infantocracy”, where an infant is in charge.
Given the way certain governments have been operating, though, maybe we should just go back to a completely different species of authority. The Greeks had a word for this, too: “hipparchy” is government by horses.
