Is Democracy the ultimate form of government?

[Ms DD]

Salaam Aleykum

 

Why should we just swallow the argument that if someone accepts Democracy they are enlightened, and if they don't they need to somehow "catch up"?

Is Democracy so perfect? I say that to attribute the strengths of Western society to Democracy is to be tricked by an illusion.

 

Here is my argument-

 

Western countries are richer, but richer doesn't equal superior. Might doesn't make right, and rich doesn't make right, either.

I assert that the least moral countries in the world are almost always found in Democracies. In democracies, families are breaking down, children are neglected, sexual perversions are widespread.

Due to the principle of "voting" definition of right and wrong, Democracies lack the capacity to provide moral leadership. Morality is dictated by the "mob"; mob mentality is primitive and bestial.

Is that really a superior form of government? In fact, hasn't history shown us that Democracy always leads to the self-destruction of the culture, to be promptly replaced by much more efficient and effective dictatorial governments? (Greece, Rome, etc).

This doesn't mean I condone dictatorships, I am trying to point out the long-term weakness in Democratic-style government.

In fact, I posit that every truly Democratic society is doomed to implode under the weight of societal breakdowns brought on by the "outlawing" of moral enforcement (and of moral instruction).

The only good contribution Democracy makes is to force politicians to be afraid of oppressing their own people (not other people, just their own). That's it.

The real contribution of Western society isn't Democracy and the Western governmental system, but the Rennaissance concept of capturing human potential and the hyperdevelopment of the social sciences (Economics, Sociology, History, etc).

This is my view.

 

Therefore, perhaps we should start questioning the automatic assumption that "some day" everyone will "grow up" and become Democratic. Maybe some day the whole world will grow up and employ the Western economic model (and even that needs a few improvements). In fact, I strongly feel that if the whole world were Democratic, our race would be doomed to self-destruct.

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

I assert that

the least moral countries in the world are almost always found in Democracies. In democracies, families are breaking down, children are neglected, sexual perversions are widespread.

Due to the principle of "voting" definition of right and wrong, Democracies lack the capacity to provide moral leadership. Morality is dictated by the "mob"; mob mentality is primitive and bestial.

Is that really a superior form of government? In fact, hasn't history shown us that Democracy always leads to the self-destruction of the culture, to be promptly replaced by much more efficient and effective dictatorial governments? (Greece, Rome, etc).

 

Not sure that you’ve given a coherent critique of Democracy there, Cambo.

To start with, what other method of governing are you comparing Democracy to? Almost all countries in the world claim to be democracies of sorts. Are you talking about Western democracies only? What will you regard African countries like Uganda and Zimbabwe as? With their high occurrence of Aids and other sexual diseases, would you still assert that they’re more moral than democracies? With their torture, abuse of human rights, abuse of women, cruelty to animals, promiscuity and the dozen other faults that they have, would you still say that their form of government is what determines their morality? How about China, North Korea or even the Arab world?

 

Maybe we need to agree on the definition of democracy and morality first. I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re getting at there.

[Ms DD]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

 

To start with, what other method of governing are you comparing Democracy to?

Sharia led governance. Of course I advocate Islamic state. In an Islamic state, people do have a free voice in their government. What they don't have is the power to overrule policies that protect, preserve, and strengthen society.

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Almost all countries in the world claim to be democracies of sorts. Are you talking about Western democracies only? What will you regard African countries like Uganda and Zimbabwe as? With their high occurrence of Aids and other sexual diseases, would you still assert that they’re more moral than democracies?

Surely you cant accuse Robert Mugabe's govt of democracy. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Mr Mugabe is becoming a cartoon figure of the archetypal African dictator. Lets discuss western style democracy.

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

would you still say that their form of government is what determines their morality? How about China, North Korea or even the Arab world?

Lets leave those despots and dictators aside. We all know who propped up them there.

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Maybe we need to agree on the definition of democracy and morality first. I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re getting at there.

Speaking for myself, I am discussing this with Islamic principles in mind. We all know where we should derive our morality from. There is no way to derive morality outside of God because God is, means, expresses, and verifies morality.

 

As for democracy defined by Westerners, it isn't purely the concept of giving everyone a free voice in their governance, but actually letting any person, whether they be illiterate, ignorant, obsessive, imbalanced, poor-intentioned, selfish, greedy, or etc. influence society (Bush anyone?)

 

Furthermore, the electoral process is one of the biggest problems with Democracy, as elections become a testament not to strenght of ideas but of how much money someone has to get elected. This puts national policy in the hands of the wealthy or the most committed, active special interest group.

[Captain Xalane]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

 

Is Democracy so perfect?

 

[/QB]

No Cambaro,Democracy is not perfect at all,thats my view ofcourse.Other than the Islamic system of governance,i would say that a mixture of all of them i.e. Democracy,dictatorship, oligarchy and etc,would be the ultimate form of governance.

[NGONGE]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by NGONGE:

 

 

To start with, what other method of governing are you comparing Democracy to?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sharia led governance. Of course I advocate Islamic state. In an Islamic state, people do have a free voice in their government. What they don't have is the power to overrule policies that protect, preserve, and strengthen society.

What’s the point of having a free voice if that free voice does not allow you to change things? And, these ‘policies’ that ‘protect, preserve and strengthen’ society, what are they exactly? Are we talking policies introduced by the government here or the rules of god?

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Maybe we need to agree on the definition of democracy and morality first. I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re getting at there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Speaking for myself, I am discussing this with Islamic principles in mind. We all know where we should derive our morality from. There is no way to derive morality outside of God because God is, means, expresses, and verifies morality.

You don’t think goodness is a characteristic of humans regardless of whether they believe in god or not?

 

You see, my contention is that morality is not something exclusive to me, you or the next-door Jew. Goodness, ethics and morals can be found anywhere and amongst any people. Morality existed before Islam and the faith (as the prophet pbuh) told us came to complement these. Nonetheless, that’s neither here nor there in our discussion. You are advocating for the complete Islamic state and nobody (who is Muslim) can disagree with you there. However, when you set out to compare existing democracies to phantom Islamic states one wonders if it’s a fair comparison.

 

 

As for democracy defined by Westerners, it isn't purely the concept of giving everyone a free voice in their governance, but actually letting any person, whether they be illiterate, ignorant, obsessive, imbalanced, poor-intentioned, selfish, greedy, or etc. influence society (Bush anyone?)

 

Furthermore, the electoral process is one of the biggest problems with Democracy, as elections become a testament not to strenght of ideas but of how much money someone has to get elected. This puts national policy in the hands of the wealthy or the most committed, active special interest group.

This can be remedied if these people tried a bit of honesty and transparency. How can we guarantee that the same problems that are damaging democracy will not raise their ugly heads in an Islamic state? What is there to stop an Islamic ruler (are we talking Khalifa here by the way?) from abusing his powers? What will stop his chosen ministers, civil servants and governors from abusing their powers? Is it a case of total trust from our side? Is it because ‘waxa la yedhi’ so and so is a good man? Isn’t that the same as PR/Propaganda for interest groups to have their chosen ‘mullah’ installed as Khalifa/ruler/governor?

 

Lets take a break from the argument for a bit and let me talk to you about shopping. Ever bought something for IKEA? A table, a cupboard or a cabinet?

 

When I normally get one of those, I try to put it together first, stand back to admire my handy work and then invite others to pass judgment on my purchase. I might forget a bolt or two (as you do) but, usually; you can assemble these things without using all the bolts and screws anyway. The people looking at it might like it or dislike it but they can’t at all deny that this cupboard or table has been well constructed.

 

 

Now back to your argument above. This table of yours is probably well constructed but, to me, it looks like the legs are pointing upwards.

[Khayr]

You see, my contention is that morality is not something exclusive to me, you or the next-door Jew. Goodness, ethics and morals can be found anywhere and amongst any people. Morality existed before Islam and the faith (as the prophet pbuh) told us came to complement these.

 

Goodness is not found anywhere and to say that cheapens it. It devalues it. Its like saying anyone can get a PH.D. While then what is the value of a PH.D. if everyone can get one.

 

Morality is inextricabley tied to Revelation. For how else would we know what is Sin? What is Good and What is bad?

If you take Revelation out of the picture, then what you are describing is Moral Relativism. Wherein Morality is something relative to someone's understanding or societal taboos and values. What is Good today can become defined as Evil tomorrow and this is decided by the Individual or the social collective.

 

How can we guarantee that the same problems that are damaging democracy will not raise their ugly heads in an Islamic state? What is there to stop an Islamic ruler (are we talking Khalifa here by the way?) from abusing his powers? What will stop his chosen ministers, civil servants and governors from abusing their powers?

 

Shariah and the Ulema-those are the guidlines and the Policy Makers and we are to abide by them in dar-al-islam. Those are the elements that keep rulers in check. There is no perfect Imam/Khalifah and no perfect dar-al-islam (save in the time of the RAsul (sallahu calihye wasilm).

[Socod_badne]

Shouldn't this thread belong in Poetry section? Your question is utterly meaningless, epistemically worthless. It's like asking, "Is apple pie the ultimate pie?" Like poetry, it answers/solves no problems... just more idle chatter.

[ansaar17]

socod_badne

 

why is it that you trying to push what is good asid. why is that you trying to close good argument? is it because you trying to blind yourself or cover up what is right.

[Khayr]

Don't mind SB,

 

he really is a real SB

[Honesita]

Salaamu Aleeykum

 

Khayr, brother allow me to disagree, it is not only the rules set by revelations that tell humanity what is wrong and what is right. When Allah subhannahu wa ta'ala created mankind, there was that fitrah he created us with... Remember the ayah that says Allah took bani Adam and asked them Am I not your Lord and we replied Yes. (7:172). According to what i know, this fitrah is the same reason why in every society and culture on the face of earth certain things are looked down upon, such as stealing, killing and disobedience to parents.

 

Sista Cambaro....you mentioned the only good contribution democracy has is making sure polititions dont opress the people. Today i was watching the news and i guess this one official at the Pentagon is being blamed for saying that the US had proper knowledge that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam had ties with AlQaeda. The CIA obviously had information opposite of that but regardless the USofA decided to go to with Iraq according to the claims of this 'one' guy!! This is democracy, and if the way with Iraq was not oppression, I don't know what is!!

 

Fii Amaani'Laah

[cynical lady]

Yes I do believe that once an individual accepts democracy then one is enlightened. But I also do need u to explain to be what u means by democracy, because democracy is a very inconsistent concept, which means various things to various people in various circumstances. As evidence shows through out history it has been used by governments to serve there political interest but that does not mean they are indeed a democratic state.

 

If we accept the classic definition of democracy i.e. governments by the people, were the majority rule and supreme power is held by the majority. Then its fairs to say majority of the western states are not indeed democratic, as Aristotle once said “ in a democratic country the poor will have power than the rich, because there many of them and they will be the majority supreme” since such is not the case and we constantly see governments disregarding the majority view and their more influenced by their own interest and the minority pressure groups i.e. be trade unions etc furthermore they have managed to place there citizens on a constant fear bubble while they erode there civil liberties and influence there decision making power do come the election date. I believe this is oppression in new shape, so cambaro when u say the good thing about democracy is it has managed to make the politicians afraid of oppressing its own people I rebut that, I mean one only has to look at the current situation i.e. Blaire refusing to acknowledge the million people petition against road charge, the million people who voted against the going into Iraq. Politicians don’t fear their people I believe they have succeeded in raising the common man threshold of tolerance and power is ultimately at the politicians now which in true democracy such should not be the case i.e. they should fear us not the other way around.

 

 

Countries that are governed or rules by the rich as Plato defined is oligarchy democracy and I don’t believe such democracy exist in this day an age anyway, so am I safe to assume cambaro when u talk about the western countries being rich and mighty and supreme idea youre not drawing analogy to this form of democracy?

 

Also am I right to assume that you are saying that democracy and morality cant stand side by side, but former deminishes the other? Because I fundamentality believe that’s they do indeed stand side by side if true democracy is achieved, since democracy upholds the will of the majority and its those majority morals that will be embeded in one country. Morals comes from variouse places if youre talking about the ones aserted by reliegions then yes they will be upheld in a country where the majority come from that specific reliegion ie there is uninimouse code of conduct. But does this make the west least moral I don’t think so.

 

As for this argument “In democracies, families are breaking down, children are neglected, sexual perversions are widespread.” Come on now cambaro. We know Somalis have also a high number of family breakdown and they do neglect there kids whom they send them packing to some distant relative with the hope of them taking care of there offspring’s, as for sexual perversions come on now…. You can blame this on democracy, when democracy has nothing to do with it for start it does not even play a role into it.

 

Furthermore, I disagree on the fact democracy leads to self-destruction of the culture… but I want u if its possible to explain to me how did u get to this conclusion? By the by democracy did not cause the Roman Empire to decline.

 

As for my opinion I simply believe that there has never been a nation or state that has fully achieved democracy, due to the fact democracy is constant evolving philosophy that change with time, people, circumstances and a lot of the western countries do aspire to achieve it but that does not necessarily means they have achieved it. The problem with striving for democracy is capitalism gets in the way and this is when things start getting blurred, western state have only recently stumbled on democracy and there still trying to find a balance and since human nature is greedy such is proving difficulty. But the west have come close to democracy and for that I say it’s a step towards enlightenment, west values individual and collective opinions, upholds human rights this are some of the many fundamental principles that are embedded in the western philosophy and we see that on daily basis, other government don’t even give its civilians the chance to simply discuss an idea let alone engage in public gatherings to demonstrate against there governments and that’s says a lot about the west than its counterparts. One only needs to ask oneself what is the opposite of democracy and would they like to belong to such state?

 

 

As for you saying that you are advocating against Islamic states please gal Islamic states don’t have democracy let alone allow its people to have free voice in their governments. Pray do tell what Islamic country are u talking about? Because they have the highest number of human rights violations and they ranking high on the oppression of the civilians, a lot of this countries are not ruling under sheria law hence they are not deserving of an Islamic state title. We all know through out the industrialization and colonialism Islamic law was replaced with common law, French law etc and prior it was there Islamic public law that was eroded and now even private law is eroded.. There all hybrid law not fully Islamic so u cant compare there conduct with a western country should u choose to draw analogy to Islamic state (hybrid law countries) u stand a better chance reviewing it with another hybrid law state not with a western country.

 

 

“the electoral process is one of the biggest problems with Democracy, as elections become a testament not to strenght of ideas but of how much money someone has to get elected. This puts national policy in the hands of the wealthy or the most committed, active special interest group.”

 

Ohh do come on its quite insulting to suggest the majority of the people when they get to the polls they are going to be swayed by the adverts? No some people do actually look into the referendums the political parties produce I mean come on even now at the current state if we follow the current findings produced yesterday labour is trailing behind the conservatives and this shows dissatisfactions and people executing there fundamental right. They are waiting for the general election to VOTE.

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

I say that to attribute the strengths of Western society to Democracy is to be tricked by an illusion.

The strengths of Western society have little or nothing to do with so-called Democracy. In what regard is the West strong? Economically. How did the West achieve it? Through slavery, colonialism, imperialism, exploitation, opportunism, iwm.

 

Democracy is a very flawed system. The wishes of the majority aren't respected nor fulfilled. Instead, it's the wishes of the few filthy riches (corporates, lobbyists, interest groups, iwm) that are respected and fulfilled. In theory, there's little difference between Democracy and Dictatorship. Both have different means and methods, but share one critical aspect; the wishes of the majority aren't respected nor fulfilled. For instance, in Democracy, protests or demonstrations are regulated, but hardly achieve anything. With Dictatorship, protests or demonstrations aren't allowed because it can change something. In Democracy, select high class people rule (also rotate the rule between themselves) the country. In Dictatorship, there's a sole ruler and his inner circles who rules a country until there's a coup d'etat. In short, both systems have the same goal.

[xiinfaniin]

^^How do you explain then the democratic phenomenon in which masses peacefully change unpopular regimes, Latin America, may be case in point, and secure a fair representation of thier choice of gonverment?

 

Cambarro, good of you to have started this very challenging topic.

[Abu-Salman]

If we are to have a meaningful debate, the question should rather be re-formulated as "Is democracy a la Western the most ethical political framework according to their own standards?".

 

Clearly, underneath the thin veil of mass participation, political decisions ultimately benefits powerful corporations and Western establishments as epitomized in the USA considered as a "democracy model" (irresponsible agriculture, indecent health and income inequalities, Drugs advertizing to the public allowed thanks to powerful lobbies, racial inequalities ect).

 

Even more catastrophic in terms of human costs, US sponsored economic exploitation, pollutions, insecurity caused by unilaterism and constant violation of International Laws as well as political hi-jacking through direct/indirect interventions and armament race, not least nuclear proliferation, will likely expose humankind with exceptional challenges and possible extinction.

 

hence, just by enumerating few of the endless list of crimes perpretated against humanity as a whole, not mentioning those against ignorant US citizens whose 2/3 rate of death is easily avoidable, one can have a glimpse of the results of such "democracies"...

[Johnny B]

Khayr,when you say:

"Morality is inextricabley tied to Revelation. For how else would we know what is Sin? What is Good and What is bad?"

 

You sound very convinced, yet you're un-intentionally denying your senses that collect all emperical data available to you to enable you make a reasonable conclusion.

 

It's fallacious to deny the very senses that enable you to derive that fatuous conclusion.

 

and if you succeed in removing the relativeness in the Good and the Bad ( sin is another term for Bad)

you'd for once defeated moral relativism.