Why Democracy is Falling in Muslim World

[HRK]

I do not deny there is a problem here. But does that mean the entire 'Muslim World' will legally deny rights? I also disagree this is derailing. Democracy is intrinsically tied to people's rights. And people includes women.

Who said muslim world deny the rights of women or any other......dear it is a separate debate.....which should be started with three basic questions.....

What are the definition of rights....???

Who would define it....???

How would he/she/they (or anyone) define it...???

If you are hesitate to go that previously mention thread....open new one we may discuss about this topic there......

 

[gambit]

when a dictator ship fails, it's the failure of the dictator; When a monarchy fails, it's the failure of monarch but when a democracy fails, it's the failure of people and not the failure of system. No other system gives as much importance to the common citizen as a democracy does. Fact is most countries doesn't have true democracy only puppet democracies.

Very good, sir.

That is what the Americans here have tried to explain in various forms to people critical of democracy in principle, its institutions, and its methods in practice.

 

[gambit]

Can you show me a democracy that worked like instant coffee anywhere? you are not failing because of democracy, you are failing because of lack of it. The conflicts are between Islamist and the secular nature of democracy.

That expectation is from what these people are used to. A dictatorship is the most efficient and direct execution of political power, of which the Muslims naturally respects to start regardless of such execution is for 'good' or 'evil', so as long as it is swift it is a thing to admire. In contrast, a democracy inherently demands a held suspicion of governmental power to do 'evil' unless the people redirect that power to do 'good'. Such suspicion naturally forces any process to be deliberative and require patience to allow all sides to speak their pieces. The ME, as a country and as a people, will require dictatorships for a very long time.

 

[JayAtl]

partially agreed with you my dear......at highlighted point....but does this thing give right to opposition to adopt undemocratic solutions for the problem .......killing of thousands of protesters.....or inviting military coupe???

Why the democratic rights does not belongs to "Islamist"......are they only exist to listen lectures from west and some others....??

democracies have revolutions too . they tend to have one over things like the constitution. Take US for example, if we go about gutting our constitution . You will see a revolution in America- and I am NOT talking the kind the tea party in the US talks about over healthcare. I mean a serious gutting of the rights and constitution.

Morsi was changing the constitution where his was the last word and elected officials could not overrule in a democratic way. It was making a democracy in name only.

and Islamist are religious terrorists. they can't be the purveyor of a democracy

 

[HRK]

Again its nothing to do whom west support. Its the lust of powers in muslim elites which is responsible. People/majority intellects choose a head and the west supports it. West just need one guy to deal with and do business. But if the greed of this choosen guy/head exceeds the welfare of its own people then I wont consider west responsible. West will deals and supports monarcy as well as democracy. Its none of the west business how one leader leads the country. If you are friendly with west, they will do business and make you rich (ex: turkey, SA and others) and if you are against them then they will not do business and may lead to difficult life (see: iran, NK, cuba etc). Difficulty because west invents, produce and control most of the modern technology which makes life easier. Its the NATIVE leader and people living under them who is responsible to their state of lifes.

Dear i think we are circling around the same corner......you say its lust of Muslim Elites and I ask who has played role to established that elite from South Asia to Middle East.....moreover what make you think Elit of muslim world represent muslim majority....???

You say west just do business......but sir what business....slavery and freedom.....blood and lives...???

Dear I believe you know that after 2nd world war West has initiated more or less 90+ wars and arm conflicts out of which more than sixty were in muslim world......

Dear your examples of Turkey and Saudi Arabia are not relevant here........we all know SA is need of west for certain reasons....and we are aware of Turkey's position till 90s......

Dear i find myself in partial agreement with you at your last point It's the people of Muslim world responsible for their conditions and sufferings but to a certain extent.......we can not give blank cheque to west as a whole as well......

 

[HRK]

democracies have revolutions too . they tend to have one over things like the constitution. Take US for example, if we go about gutting our constitution . You will see a revolution in America- and I am NOT talking the kind the tea party in the US talks about over healthcare. I mean a serious gutting of the rights and constitution.

Morsi was changing the constitution where his was the last word and elected officials could not overrule in a democratic way. It was making a democracy in name only.

and Islamist are religious terrorists. they can't be the purveyor of a democracy

My dear do you have the copy of that proposed constitution by Morsi.....???

 

[Mootaz-khelifi]

it's not falling here in Tunisia

 

[HRK]

it's not falling here in Tunisia

We still have exceptional examples.....good for you and for your nation.....may Tunisia progress....

 

[TruthSeeker]

In the history of mankind, successful constitutional republics are very rare. Most societies have not achieved a beneficial balance between individual rights and democratic politics. The key to success is a constitution which does this, and then the actual loyalty of the human beings involved to that constitution. The reason this situation is so rare is because of the inherent shortcomings of human nature, for example, as described by Christian ethics (in English) as: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. All human political and economic systems struggle to bring these human failings into some sort of workable balance. Most fail.

 

[Wright]

Islam suggests a system similar to a monarchy. That could explain why the Arab nations under monarchies are more stable.

 

[gambit]

In the history of mankind, successful constitutional republics are very rare. Most societies have not achieved a beneficial balance between individual rights and democratic politics. The key to success is a constitution which does this, and then the actual loyalty of the human beings involved to that constitution. The reason this situation is so rare is because of the inherent shortcomings of human nature, for example, as described by Christian ethics (in English) as: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. All human political and economic systems struggle to bring these human failings into some sort of workable balance. Most fail.

That would require individuals to subordinate two volatile factors of race and religion to said document and we have seen on this forum how difficult that can be. We have racists and religionists demanding higher stature for these allegiances over anything else.

 

[Panther 57]

Islam suggests a system similar to a monarchy. That could explain why the Arab nations under monarchies are more stable.

This is a misconception, had this been true Holy Prophet PBUH would have declared himself as King. Yes, God's defined system is selection and not election. Had it been election 124,000 prophets would have been elected and not selected.

Though, system suggested by Islam is very different and would spark an absolutely uncalled for discussion on the forum, but on the face of it Arabia after Holy Prophet adopted democracy.

Islam is not a line it is a corridor, with room for its followers to adjust accordingly. Therefore, space to maneuver is available at many places. With regards to governance, Islam has clearly defined the qualities of a ruler. Now it depends what is the mode of appointment in a particular country, essence would be selection of right people. Certainly, none of the Islamic rulers of this era meet those standards.

As regard stability due to Monarchies in Islamic countries is concerned, it is not the monarchy but singularity of command and vision. This can very well be achieved in democratic countries also, provided there is will to maintain one policy. In 66 years of Pakistan's history there have been more than 15 policy shifts. Each successor has bulldozed policies of his/ her predecessor and started a new line. Taking a micro example, Punjab government of Musharaf era did extensive home work on underground trains for Lahore. But Previous and present Punjab government just scrapped it and went for commonly known as Jangla Bus. It is not difficult to envision what would be happening at macro levels.

Thus, it is not the type of system, but the people who run the system. Or in other words, its not the gun but man behind the gun which matters.

 

[HRK]

Islam suggests a system similar to a monarchy. That could explain why the Arab nations under monarchies are more stable.

dear kindly revisit your thoughts about "Islam Suggest Monarchy or similar to monarchy system"....... fact of the matter is Islam does not Instruct its followers to adopt any particular sys.....neither in Qur'an nor in Hadees.....it only provide fundamental standards which need to be adopted for any system of governance.......muslims are free to adopt whatever the Governing system they want or to establish any new system in accordance with changing environment and political conditions.....

In fact Islam provides Karbala as an example of struggle against the monarchy system......hope you will revisit your argument