Democracy on Trial

[Cara.]

So, if democracy is evil, according to this author, what is an Islamically acceptable means of government? Monarchy? Fascism? Communism? Exactly how do you reject something without giving concrete alternatives?

 

The author says that democracy is haram because Muslims are forbidden to follow any law but Allah's. But Allah is not literally ruling people from the presidential palace or the White House. At some point humans have to interpret and enforce his laws. How is a hereditary monarchy superior to democracy in deciding which law complies with Islam and which doesn't?

 

These "scholars" get paid to give opinions that comply with their masters, and there's nothing divine about said masters.

[Blessed]

So, if democracy is evil, according to this author, what is an Islamically acceptable means of government? Monarchy? Fascism? Communism? Exactly how do you reject something without giving concrete alternatives?

The alternative is the Islamic Khilafa and no, I'm not talking about Iran or the K of SA.

 

 

The author says that democracy is haram because Muslims are forbidden to follow any law but Allah's. But Allah is not literally ruling people from the presidential palace or the White House. At some point humans have to interpret and enforce his laws.

That's not what it means, sis /bro.

 

Muslims should follow the sharia law, which is set by Allah (the ultimate legislator).

 

The sharia has room for ijtihad (the Islamic science of individual thought) which comes into practice when there isn’t a clear-cut legislation in Quran / sunnah.

 

According to the sunni methodology, the khalif (muslim leader) has to be either selected or accepted (in the case where he's appointed by the former khalif or a sultanate / monarchy) by the people who are represented by a shura (consultative committee).

 

 

How is a hereditary monarchy superior to democracy in deciding which law complies with Islam and which doesn't?

Hereditary monarchy is actually forbidden in Islam, again, khilafa isn't about Saudi Arabia.

 

 

These "scholars" get paid to give opinions that comply with their masters, and there's nothing divine about said masters.

You don't know that. So, please refrain from making speculations about peoples (scholars)loyalty unless you have concrete prove of any bribery.

[Caano Geel]

Cally, the author of the article is currenlty in a jordanian jail and is rummered to be the spritual mentor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the 'head' of the suni insurgency in iraq. So i think we can safely say that his view are about as constructive to the process as Dubya's.

 

 

B. yes all not ideal things are forbidden, but there it is not explicitly established how the Muslim community was to be governed in scripture. The first caliphs were chosen by their peers based on percieved competence. If that is not the basic of a democracy tell me what is?

 

If instead your talking about a theocracy then its a whole different ball game.

 

Anyhow my point is that if you accept that people are different and hold different views on the same subject. Then absolutetism cannot work without at best sideling the concerns of anything or anyone outside the scope of its adherents.

 

Xiin, the role of legislating to Allah is intersing because its a one sided afair. If anyone comes up to you and says that i've told by allah that .... - u will automatically class them as a Dubya and run for it.

 

Now because we're asked to make judgment based on guidance, whose author we cannot confer with directly, we only have our individual reasoning and collective debate as the markers.

 

This doesnt mean that you get rid of the role of the judgement of allah, but this is something personal between a person and their creator not how people whose what representatives they want to carry their interests.

[Johnny B]

Vary well-formulated inputs Cally and Caano.

 

The idea on disply here seems to be a religious orthodoxy, That maintains and safeguards a way of governance last seen or known 1400 years ago in Arabia.

Hodling to that specefic idea of governance and defending it against any challenges or questions from the outside imperils loads intellectually feasible means of governance.

The more widely a person opens her/his mind and studies, the harder it gets to hold on to traditional,nostalgical orthodox ways of government.

[Blessed]

^Ah! Holding on to the fundamentals of my religion makes me ignorant, eh? Wow, thanks for the look out, it's hard to understand anything with this thick hijaab, you know....

 

Afro baby

 

Many define the Islamic shura as 'representative democracy', so the principles are the same.

 

If instead your talking about a theocracy then its a whole different ball game.

Would I be discussing anything else?

 

 

As a Muslim I don't take on board the concept of separating religion and politics, which is the basic tenet of a democracy and the system advocated by Bush and co for the Muslim world.

 

This is what this writer and many Muslims are resisting. It’s also the reason that he and many of the scholars that speak up on this subject are jailed by the current Islamic leaders….

 

 

Anyhow my point is that if you accept that people are different and hold different views on the same subject. Then absolutetism cannot work without at best sideling the concerns of anything or anyone outside the scope of its adherents.

Off course, there are challenges as is apparent in Iraq with the sunni/ shia conflict and in many other occasions.

 

Yet, despite sectarian differences and conflicts of interest the majority on both sides (in Iraq) want to be governed by the sharia law. Therefore, the argument that there isn’t an Islamic alternative to secular democracy is absurd.

[Baashi]

^^^FYI

 

------

 

Essential Features of the Islamic Political System

 

The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency). It is difficult to appreciate the different aspects of Islamic polity without fully understanding these three principles. I will therefore begin with a brief exposition of what they are.

 

Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use.

 

This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law.

 

The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The combination of these two elements is called the Shari‘ah.

 

Now consider Khilafat. According to the Arabic lexicon, it means ‘representation’. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah.

 

Take, for example, the case of an estate which someone has been appointed to administer on your behalf. You will see that four conditions are invariably met. First, the real ownership of the estate remains vested in you and not in the administrator; second, he administers your property only in accordance with your instructions; third, he exercises his authority within the limits prescribed by you; and fourth, in the administration of the trust he executes your will and not his own. These four conditions are so inherent in the concept of ‘representation’ that if any representative fails to observe them he will rightly be blamed for breaking the covenant which was implied in the concept of ‘representation’. This is exactly what Islam means when it affirms that man is the vicegerent of Allah on earth. Hence, these four conditions are also involved in the concept of Khilafat.

 

A state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah’s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in accordance with His instructions and injunctions.

 

This is a new and revised translation of a talk given by the author on Radio Pakistan, Lahore, on 20th January, 1948.

 

Democracy in Islam

 

The above explanation of the term Khilafat also makes it abundantly clear that no individual or dynasty or class can be Khilafah, but that the authority of caliphate is bestowed on any community which accepts the principles of Tawhid and Risalat. In such a society, each individual shares the Allah-given caliphate. This is the point where democracy begins in Islam.

 

Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of the caliphate of Allah and in this respect all individuals are equal. No one can deprive anyone of his rights and powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state will be established in accordance with the will of these individuals, and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individual delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in the formation of the Government, which will be run with their advice and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their confidence will carry out the duties of the caliphate on their behalf; and when he loses this confidence he will have to relinquish his office. In this respect the political system in Islam is as perfect a democracy as ever can be.

 

What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy is that while the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty the former rests on the principle of popular Khilafat. In Western democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. In the former the people make their own laws; in the latter they have to follow and obey the laws (Shari‘ah) given by Allah through His Prophet. In one the Government undertakes to fulfil the will of the people; in the other Government and the people alike have to do the will of Allah. Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is subservient to the Divine Law and exercises its authority in accordance with the injunctions of Allah and within the limits prescribed by Him.

 

Purpose of the Islamic State

 

The Holy Qur’an clearly states that the aim and purpose of this state, built on the foundation of Tawhid, Risalat and Khilafat, is the establishment, maintenance and development of those virtues which the Creator of the universe wishes human life to be enriched by, and the prevention and eradication of those evils which are abhorrent to Allah. The state in Islam is not intended for political administration only nor for the fulfilment through it of the collective will of any particular set of people. Rather, Islam places a high ideal before the state for the achievement of which it must use all the means at its disposal. The aim is to encourage the qualities of purity, beauty, goodness, virtue, success and prosperity which Allah wants to flourish in the life of His people and to suppress all kinds of exploitation and injustice. As well as placing before us this high ideal, Islam clearly states the desired virtues and the undesirable evils. The Islamic state can thus plan its welfare programmes in every age and in any environment.

 

The constant demand made by Islam is that the principles of morality must be observed at all costs and in all walks of life. Hence, it lays down an unalterable requirement for the state to base its politics on justice, truth and honesty. It is not prepared, under any circumstances, to tolerate fraud, falsehood and injustice for the sake of political, administrative or national expediency. Whether it be relations between the rulers and the ruled within the state, or relations of the state with other states, precedence must always be given to truth, honesty and justice. It imposes obligations on the state similar to those it imposes on the individual: to fulfil all contracts and obligations; to have consistent standards in all dealings; to remember obligations as well as rights and not to forget the rights of others when expecting them to fulfil their obligations; to use power and authority for the establishment for justice and not for the perpetration of injustice; to look on duty as a sacred obligation; and to regard power as a trust from Allah to be used in the belief that one has to render an account of one’s actions to Him in the Hereafter.

 

Fundamental Rights

 

Although an Islamic state may be set up anywhere on earth, Islam does not seek to restrict human rights or privileges to the geographical limits of its own state. Islam has laid down universal fundamental rights for humanity as a whole, which are to be observed and respected in all circumstances irrespective of whether a person lives on the territory of the Islamic state or outside it and whether he is at peace with the state or at war. For example, human blood is sacred and may not be spilled without justification; it is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded; woman’s honour and chastity must be respected in all circumstances; and the hungry must be fed, the naked clothed, and the wounded or diseased treated medically.

 

These, and a few other provisions, have been laid down by Islam as fundamental rights for every man by virtue of his status as a human being, to be enjoyed under the constitution of an Islamic state.

 

The rights of citizenship in Islam, however, are not confined to persons born within the limits of its state but are granted to every Muslim irrespective of his place of birth. A Muslim ipso facto becomes the citizen of an Islamic state as soon as he sets foot on its territory with the intention of living there; he thus enjoys equal rights of citizenship with those who are its citizens by birth. Citizenship must therefore be common to all the citizens of all the Islamic states that exist in the world; a Muslim will not need a passport for entry or exit from any of them. And every Muslim must be regarded as eligible for positions of the highest responsibility in an Islamic state without distinction of race, colour or class.

 

Islam has also laid down certain rights for non-Muslims who may be living within the boundaries of an Islamic state, and these rights must necessarily form part of the Islamic constitution. According to Islamic terminology such non-Muslims are called dhimmis (the covenanted), implying that the Islamic state has entered into a covenant with them and guaranteed their rights.

 

The life, property and honour of a dhimmi is to be respected and protected in exactly the same way as that of a Muslim citizen. There is no difference between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens in respect of civil or criminal law; and the Islamic state shall not interfere with the personal law of non-Muslims. They will have full freedom of conscience and belief and will be entitled to perform their religious rites and ceremonies. As well as being able to practise their religion, they are entitled to criticise Islam. However the rights given in this respect are not unlimited: the civil law of the country has to be fully respected and all criticism has to be made within its framework.

 

These rights are irrevocable and non-Muslims can only be deprived of them if they renounce the convenant which grants them citizenship. However much a non-Muslim state may oppress its Muslim citizens, it is not permissible for an Islamic state to retaliate against its non-Muslim subjects. This injunction holds good even if all the Muslims outside the boundaries of an Islamic state are massacred.

 

Executive and Legislature

 

The responsibility for the administration of the Government in an Islamic state is entrusted to an Amir (leader) who may be likened to the President or the Prime Minister in a Western democratic state. All adult men and women who accept the fundamentals of the constitution are entitled to vote in the election for the leader.

 

The basic qualifications for the election of an Amir are that he should command the confidence of the largest number of people in respect of his knowledge and grasp of the spirit of Islam; he should possess the Islamic attribute of fear of Allah; he should be endowed with the quality of statesmanship. In short, he should be both able and virtuous.

 

A Shura (consultative council), elected by the people, will assist and guide the Amir. It is obligatory for the Amir to administer the country with the advice of his Shura. The Amir can retain office only so long as he enjoys the confidence of the people, and must resign when he loses this confidence. Every citizen has the right to criticise the Amir and his Government, and all responsible means for the expression of public opinion should be available.

 

Legislation in an Islamic state should be within the limits prescribed by the Shari‘ah. The injunctions of Allah and His Prophet are to be accepted and obeyed and no legislative body can alter or modify them or make any new laws which are contrary to their spirit. The duty of ascertaining the real intent of those commandments which are open to more than one interpretation should devolve on people possessing a specialised knowledge of the law of Shari‘ah. Hence, such matters may have to be referred to a sub-committee of the Shã r~ comprising men learned in Islamic law. Great scope would still be available for legislation on questions not covered by any specific injunctions of the Shari‘ah, and the advisory council or legislature is free to legislate in regard to these matters.

 

In Islam the judiciary is not placed under the control of the executive. It derives its authority directly from the Shari‘ah and is answerable to Allah. The judges will obviously be appointed by the Government but, once appointed, will have to administer justice impartially according to the law of Allah. All the organs and functionaries of the Government should come within their jurisdiction: even the highest executive authority of the Government will be liable to be called upon to appear in a court of law as a plaintiff or defendant. Rulers and ruled are subject to the same law and there can be no discrimination on the basis of position, power or privilege. Islam stands for equality and scrupulously adheres to this principle in the social, economic and political realms alike.

 

Source

[Baashi]

d/p.

[juba]

^^ Baashi that was an interesting read but im still in the dark as to what exactly is an ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT. Would you say its just a CONSERVATIVE democracy? All the freedoms expressed in Western democracy which cause conflict is not present in an Islamic deomocracy correct?

 

Xinn you best articulated what i think about Islam and Democracy. Although we cannot innovate our religion to our liking, it is in our best interest to "assimilate" democracy into islam. Where is the harm in that?

[Yeniceri]

^^

 

"Assimilate" what parts of democracy? And when you say "democracy," from who's perspective are you coming from: Western-style "democracy" or a "democracy" that fits into Islamic doctrine? You see, its all relative.

 

I don't think Islam goes against electing a government. After all, Abu Bark (rc) was elected by the Companions because of the level of his piety and experience. Isn't that democracy or does having pink ink on one's figures represent "democracy"?

 

The biggest point Islam has against "democracy" - as preached by the West - is that in Islam, the law of Allah SWT must always be above that of mankind (the Shariah is the law of Allah). With Western-style "democracy," its the exact opposite. Why else would they tramp on their own Scriptures? :confused:

 

p.s. Blessed two thumbs up! Bashi, excellent article.

[xiinfaniin]

Baashe, that was very informative article, and it supports, if I read it right, what I have been saying all along; legislating is a function preserved for Allah, an accepted sovereignty, which a Muslim can’t dispute. It injected a dose of clarity in to this discussion and I liked it.

 

Camel Milk, I am not sure what you meant by one sided affair. Laws that govern our societies come down on us from above, and the role of law-knowers is to interpret them. That does not mean the door of sound Ijtihaad is shut closed. It just means their role is limited to interpreting the law, and not making it..

 

Johnny boy, here you go again. As always you fail to understand that the virtues and values that sustain Muslim societies today are as old as that system of governance, which you deemed incompatible with our age. When will you appreciate the robustness of Islamic governance, or Islam for that matter, good JB, and give its dues? The issue here is not about how old Islamic system of governance is; rather it’s about if democracy is compatible with it. To safeguard the principles of our faith is not a matter of choice for us; it is a duty, saaxiib. Get that saaxiib.

 

Juba, I see no harm in incorporating democracy. We just need to be little cautious, and know what we getting in to. With knowledge of fundamental principles and our history democracy will be beneficial tool for pleasing Allah.

[Khayr]

Topic discussed on SOL

 

A similiar topic on SOL-CM's responses and Mutakalims as well as J11 are interesting

 

Freedom and Democracy-Another post on SOL

 

Xinfiin,

 

Its interesting that you use the 'My ummah does not Unite on what is wrong' hadith.

 

Is the definition of UMMAH restricted to a

 

Nation i.e. Majority of Palestenians voted for Hamas. Are the Palestenians the UMMAH or Part of the Ummah?,

 

to a Community,

 

trans-historical-meaning the Ummah is what makes muslims from the day the Risalah/Message came untill the Qiyamah.

 

 

Cally said:

How is a hereditary monarchy superior to democracy in deciding which law complies with Islam and which doesn't?

A Hereditary monarchy establishes Hierarchy (the idea that ALL CITIZENS are EQUAL is abloshed, thus establishing DEFINED ROLES for the CITIZEN and decreasing ILLUSIONS in peoples mind), creates stability i.e. who will lead;

sets LIMITS on the CITIZEN i.e. NO BE ALL that YOU CAN BE, rather BE WHAT YOU CAN BECOME. The former serves peoples self-delusions and feeds their egos, the later shows them realistic parameters to work with.

 

A Democracy or the IDEA of a Democracy feeds on people's SELF-DELUSIONS that they can DO WHATEVER THEY WANT (as long as no physical harm is done to another or today's latest laws are not broken. Tomorrow that action might be legal, who knows-as long as people DEMAND for IT.)

 

If ALL ELSE fails, hey why don't you let the PEOPLE DECIDE who should GOVERN them-thats the DEMOCRATIC/POPULAR SENTIMENT.

 

In Islam, the preference is for Stability and that which is MOST in Congruence with Revelation. What feeds MAN'S XAWA/EGO and puts it as the APEX of INTELLIGENCE(I think, therefor I am) is to be rejected. You are BEING first and thinking is a result of Being.

 

Its a case of the Lesser of the TWO evils.

 

As I type this, I hear the ayats in sura Al-Maeda (Sura #5), about Muslims wanting the Hukm al Jahilyah. SubhaALLAH!

 

Surah 5, v.49-50

And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors.

Is it then the judgment of (the times of) ignorance that they desire? And who is better than Allah to judge for a people who are sure?

Caano geel said:

Cally, the author of the article is currenlty in a jordanian jail and is rummered to be the spritual mentor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the 'head' of the suni insurgency in iraq. So i think we can safely say that his view are about as constructive to the process as Dubya's.

And the Author also reads Quran and Hadith and presents them, does that mean that we should Reject Quran and Hadith too? Or if the Author prays salat and his student prays salat too, does that mean that we should stop Praying salat too? :confused:

[Cara.]

Blessed and Baashi, very informative, thank you.

 

Blessed, you wrote that,

 

According to the sunni methodology, the khalif (muslim leader) has to be either selected or accepted (in the case where he's appointed by the former khalif or a sultanate / monarchy) by the people who are represented by a shura (consultative committee).

So in your system, the shura would be elected by the people, and they in turn would appoint or approve the khalif? Are the shura members individually appointed, or as a body? Can any person run for this position, or would he have to demonstrate competence, and to whom? Would the shura or the khalif have limited terms?

 

Khayr, as always, interesting reasoning. A quick peek at history books will show kings claiming to be god, claiming to be the sons of god, killing all their relatives to limit opposition, expecting people to prostrate before them, amassing obscene amounts of wealth and personal power, and so forth. But really as far as feeding people's egos/xawa, it is "the Lesser of the TWO evils" when compared to democracy.

 

And your argument that monarchy is more stable than a democracy is also interesting, considering the bloody history of monarchies. If world history is too distressing or expansive, just check Islamic history. Tell me how long the first hereditary dynasty lasted and how it ended.

 

If you still think that a hereditary monarchy is the preferred system in Islam, then you think that Ali bin abi Talib should have been khalif after the Prophet?

[Caano Geel]

B, darling

why is secular democracy absurd

 

Baashi, u know saaxiib that i cant read lectures, but having now done so.. The above is an interesting article, but its still a theological statement. It says more about what some one believes, not how a system that includes people that have difference should functoin.

 

Phrase such as:

' In Western democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives'

 

Says it clearly. What this author is claiming is the same thing that pope says to sanctify his possition and the a monarchy use to sanctify their power. If you didnt know the phrase 'god save the king' comes from the divine right they see in their place. I dont think i want to start saying 'god save the caliph'. -- Replace each occurance of islam in that arricle with 'the catholic church' and u pretty much have the sanctimonious position of the catholic church.

 

My point is that it is too easy to idealise - either by saying a theocracy can save us or theocracy will ruin us. The truth lies some where in between. But theoracry is about absolutism and in my view this has no place in the state. Where it is valuable is in the home. How you conduct your life, what u observe, respect, -- but all in your own private life and if you want it to be more powerfull, those that you choose to asssociate with, -- its not about the state telling you how to live.

 

Another intersting point is that by deligating this right to choose what values represent you, you are saying i dont know what i need. That guy over will tell it to me. And i have no power over their choices in this life.

 

Yeniceri i think u're getting messsed up here between shariah and scripture. I wont start that debate but look it up and you will find as many scholors that disagree with each tenant of shariah law as agree.

 

Kharyn many other people read the quran / pray / ... I dont have to agree with them just cos they do.

 

Actually what gets me is the blinkered outlook its like as soon as an arab name comes along, we disengade the brain.

 

I know that you dont believe all that arcticle says, if you did you wouldnt be sitting on your comfy sofa with your broadband viewpoint of the world.

 

Anyhow the point of democracy is representation - mind the cliche -- And delegating that responsability to the few has not had a good track record in any society, now or in the past.

 

 

-

[xiinfaniin]

^^Now you yourself is messed up, saaxiib. It’s not clear if you have issue with sovereignty of Allahs laws, which is what this article noted, or you’re one of those Muslims who believe the marriage between the mosque and the state is unhealthy one.

 

I think my comprehension is failingme but I am left to wonder where you going with this. So come back good CG and tell us if your argument is a one of secularizing Muslim society, and you see democracy as suitable platform to do that. Or, like me, you see the benefits of democracy and its compatibility with Islam but you also see the need to customize it so it does not contradict with our basic beliefs.

 

Kheyr, I see no confusion in that hadith. It clearly states that Muslims, the people and their learned scholars, will not agree on a clear deviation. Though stability is very important it should not be used to preserve and justify the rule of monarchy. Islam does not endorse monarchy as it contradicts the concept of Shuura. Though there are concerns about democracy(like Kashafa eloquently stated) but I see no reason for us to be uneasy about a system that provides the means to vote, a platform to debate, and a framework to check and balance the excess of human greed. If the Saudis vote to day do you have any doubt that the outcome will be a fairer and more representative government that not only reflects Islamic values and upholds our principles but also has the legitimacy and confidence of Saudis?

[Socod_badne]

Democracy on Trial

 

I find the title of this thread morbidly surreal. How can Momma Democracy be ON TRAIL? For what?

 

For feeding, housing, educating, employing, making peace and facilitating development and progress?

 

What political ideology in practice TODAY can seriously compete with Momma Democracy? I'm not talking about what MIGHT in the future but what is extant TODAY.

 

I look around the world today and people are literally throwing themselves at Momma Democracy's feet. In their lands they tend to gravitate towards principles espoused by Momma Democracy.

 

Here we're talking about Democracy on trail. If that is not misplaced priority, I don't know what is.

 

Since most of you live in democracies, you'all are living, eating, breathing proof that democracy IS better than all else that exists. Because you live in peace, are fed, sheltered, educated, employed with unmatched and undream of personal liberties. This is not to say it is perfect or it's flaws shouldn't b. But considering the fact as Somalis we have clanism, ignorance, woeful illiteracy rates, worst WHO, Unicef and UN statistics... all that you guys deem worthy of lengthy serious discussion is the shortcomings of the ONLY political system today that can redeem itself.

 

I'm lost for words!