JW refs Scholars will likely agree that in Russells day and for many decades congregations of Bible Students were unmistakeably congregational It was not unheard of for a congregation to simply ignore a teaching which a majority of congregants didnt like For example as early as  smoking was said to disqualify a man from appointment as overseer or servant yet reportedly that behavior was widely tolerated for at least another decade The question is whether the changes since then have moved JWs out from under their historic classification Im insufficiently familiar with the various forms of polity to know which features are inextricably linked with each Additionally does each form imply legal and ownership principles which may or may not have repercussions My thoughts on each  Presbyterian polity  No the layers of elected committeemen are dissimilar to JWs  Episcopal polity  Id thought likely incorrectly that episcopalism implied central ownership of places of worship and that each bishop is a successor to the apostles JWs dont do or believe that IMHO JWs have pointedly structured themselves so that they have arguably only two levels GBJW and local Multiple references show that EVERY branch committeeman and EVERY traveling overseer is a direct appointee and direct representative of the GBJW each acts under specific assignment rather than on his own ordinal authority which to my understanding is different from the authority of a bishop or other episcopal layer Furthermore the section Ecclesiastical polityEpiscopal Polity says episcopal polity is not usually a simple chain of command yet that seems to be the PRIMARY basis for applying the term to JWs  Congregational polity  Of the three Id have guessed that JWs would be listed with a Congregational polity since they dispense with titled positions and the local body of elders in each congregation is actually recognized to have remarkably broad authority over local that is nondoctrinal matters While a branch office or traveling overseer may push a particular issue on the mere basis of organizational unity the fact remains that local elders do have wide latitude and are expected to present many practical matters to a congregation vote In practice a JW branch office mainly influences a local congregations nondoctrinal affairs by appointing andor deleting particular elders the obvious parallel is that other congregationalists also look outside the local congregation for ministerial ordination and they typically respect authoritative deordinationPrimarily JWs differ from traditional congregational polity only in that unappointed congregants cannot recommend the appointment or deletion of their elders and deacons Technically that is legally a majority of local congregants probably COULD do what it wanted with its house of worship and appointments admittedly with those involved then considered as disassociated I think that scenario is altogether impossible in an episcopal organization Incidentally JW literature seems to pointedly refused to allow the religion to be categorized in any of the three polities Consider  The Watchtower April   page  Christian unity is the eighth requirement of true worship Many divisions have sprung from differences of doctrine or church government for example Presbyterian Episcopalian Congregational By implication none of those three is true worship  Awake May   page  Should the true religion be identifiedby the form of rule it employs such as Presbyterian Episcopal Congregational No is the implication true religion is none of those three Without a better suggestion Id recommend Congregational polity centralized or modified or similar