Proponents of their moral legitimacy may variously emphasize either their ethnic or democratic character in attempting to derive a base of legitimacy: arguments of the former type tend to argue that the preservation of the ethnic character of such states is paramount, and defend it even when it infringes upon democratic ideals; conversely, arguments of the second type emphasize the right of self-determination as a moral imperative.
On the other hand, critics of the moral legitimacy of such states argue that there is a fundamental incompatibility between such values, contending that ethnic democracies are especially objectionable because they are in fact intrinsically undemocratic but present themselves as having a democratic façade, thereby "legitimating the illegitimate".
[2] It was subsequently and independently used by University of Haifa sociologist Professor Sammy Smooha in a book published in 1989,[3] as a universalised model of the nature of the Israeli state.
[4][2] However, unlike Linz, Smooha and a number of other scholars have used the term to refer to a type of state that differs from Herrenvolk democracy (or ethnocracy) in having more purely democratic elements: they argue that Israel and other purported ethnic democracies provide the non-core groups with more political participation, influence and improvement of status than is typical under a Herrenvolk state.
[1] Besides Israel, the model has since been used by political scientists to describe a number of other governments, including those of Northern Ireland, Estonia, Latvia, and Slovakia.
[11] British researcher Neil Melvin concludes that Estonia is moving towards a genuinely pluralist democratic society through its liberalization of citizenship and actively drawing of leaders of the Russian-speaking communities into the political process.