Brother You fail to understand my point. All societies are made up of different groups. Who is representing Nurses, teachers, engineers, scientists, transgenders, minorities etc?
Lets not see things in 'black & white'. Its not about Muslims and non Muslims, men and women only. Any nation that ignores its technocratic aspect in its development will not evolve as a society.
Sharia law is fine but only when it is implemented in a way that reflects the will of the people. If it is used as a tool for political hegemony over people it is not Sharia but Malookiat with which Muslims have experienced with and suffered from already. Islamic laws of governance are not dynastical so a King cannot represent the rule of Allah unless people entrust him (representative democracy). My concern is not 'legislation' but the 'political blueprint' if the Amir doesn't represent the people and is using it merely for political control, he's directly nullifying the jurisprudence of Islam.
If Islam was a dynastical system of governance, the closest relatives of the Prophet (PBUH) namely the Caliph Ali (R.A) would have been the first Caliph rather than Abu Bakr (R.A) who was selected by the Prophet (PBUH) after a consultation process with His followers and figureheads. Prophet's (PBUH) bid to nominate the Caliph Abu Bakr (R.A) cannot solely be seen as a Prophetic degree but it also has to be seen in its consultative back drop. If there was no consensus and the majority of people the Prophet (PBUH) had consulted been opposed to the His nomination, the rule of the Caliph wouldn't have been stable.
I hope that i clarified my Op.
Thanks