Witaj GOŚCIU ( Zaloguj się | Rejestracja )
 
 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Islamic Democracy - A Realistic Possibility?
     
paulus
 

VI ranga
******
Grupa: Przyjaciel forum
Postów: 1.256
Nr użytkownika: 8.564

 
 
post 21/11/2008, 20:08 Quote Post

The persistence of authoritarianism in the Middle East remains one of the biggest puzzles in democratization studies. Whilst between 1974 and 1990 more than 30 countries made successful transitions from authoritarianism to democracy in southern Europe, Latin America, East Asia and eastern Europe, the region has largely failed to initiate transition at all, and instead has experienced a profound democratic deficit. This is particularly puzzling as many of the states in the Middle East have very high income levels of GNP. Because democratization in the Middle East did not occur at high income levels, some theorists therefore have begun to stress the cultural exceptionalism of the region: Islam, oriental despotism, patrimonialism, patriarchalism and massive passivity were all suggested as possible reasons for the lack of democracy. But are we really correct in assuming that the cultural factors constitute the underlying cause of the persistent authoritarianism in the Middle East. Is an Islamic democracy a realistic possibility, and if so, how would such a regime differ from the western liberal democratic model? Is democracy a culturally specific form of government unlikely to succeed in a predominantly Islamic society?
 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #1

     
Rado
 

VII ranga
*******
Grupa: Przyjaciel forum
Postów: 2.378
Nr użytkownika: 3.636

 
 
post 21/11/2008, 21:25 Quote Post

There is an important factor to consider: in most open and fastest growing Islamic countries people are very attached to monarchy- and its not just a propaganda. When his highness sheikh Maktoum (ruler of Dubai) died recently you could have seen people closing shops and crying on the streets. In fact I do not think they would even consider democracy (nor would I while living there)- there is nothing attractive in it for them- very little can be gained and much can be lost
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #2

     
florek-XXX
 

Katolik
*******
Grupa: Banita
Postów: 2.227
Nr użytkownika: 15.050

Zawód: BANITA
 
 
post 5/11/2009, 11:05 Quote Post

For a long time I've been watching the situation in Iran and Pakistan. In my opinion it's not possible to create an islamic democracy.

 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #3

     
szoszutek AKA Islam
 

Nowicjusz
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 2
Nr użytkownika: 60.371

Szoszutek AKA Islam
Zawód: uczen
 
 
post 17/11/2009, 16:08 Quote Post

Have U any objections for Islam's democracy? Why are so interested in this topic? Please, give answers confused1.gif
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #4

     
Ryszard Lwie Serce
 

الشيطان
*******
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 2.405
Nr użytkownika: 24.473

Zaurak
Stopień akademicki: magister iuris
Zawód: Mlot na Fiskusa
 
 
post 18/11/2009, 0:01 Quote Post

It's an interesting topic, really worth discussing. As we look closely at political systems and regimes of arabic countries in the Middle East, we can see that they are varied. On the one hand, we have authoritarian regimes like Syria or Libya and monarchies like Saudi Arabia, on the other, some well-developing democracies, like Tunisia. It's an undeniable fact, that the autoritharian countries and kingdoms are in majority. But the range of ideological background on which these system are based shows us, that Arabs (or rather muslims, because talking of Middle East we often mean as well Turkey and Iran, which are obviously non-Arab) can accept any kind of ideology standing behind political system. For example, in Turkey we have a regime based on democratical structures (parliament, elected government), but supported by the army, which obviosly doesn't make Turkey a real democracy. The ideology standing behind this regime is pure secularism. In the opposition, rules and laws of Saudi Arabia are derived from ideology of wahhabism, very strict and fundamentalist islamic movement of XVIII century. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.
These are just two completely diffrent political systems. But there are lots of other examples.
In Syria we have Ba'ath regime based on the secular ideology of wataniyya, which means "nationalism" in arabic. It also have very much in common with socialism, since the Ba'ath Party is call "Arab Socialist Party". The same Party supported Saddam Hussein authoritarian dictatorship in Iraq before the War.
The ideology of secular nationalism also inspired Jaser Arafat's PLO, while the ideas of socialism were adapted by Mu'ammar Al-Qaddafi, leader of Libyan People's Republic.
In post-revolutionary Iran we have a theocratic system based on the principles of shi'ite version of islam. It's islamic, like in Saudi Arabia, but otherwise completely different.
The similar thing is in Oman, where the rules are based on Ibadi law, which is a variation of Kharijite ideology, older than shi'ah or sunni. In Yemen there are Isma'ilis and Zaidis.
Summing up, there are so many complete different ideological basis for political regimes in Middle East, ranging from pure secularism to islamic fundamentalism, from socialism to theocracy. Islam is proven to be susceptible to such diverse ideologies as nationalism or socialism and can thrive under all known forms of administration, including authoritarian dictatorship, republic and absolute monarchy. In fact, it is more "open" than christianity, since Qur'an doesn't say anything about prefered political regime and Islam lacks a main religious leader or an organisation which can publicly condemn certain ideologies, like for example Catholic Church did.
In the world of divided islam, even a democracy is possible. The main reason why democracy doesn't have even a slight chance of working in the Middle East is the presence of the United States and Israel. The feeling of being opressed creates a society susceptible to terrorism, dictatorship and fundamentalism. As long as the West (in the meaning of the US and Israel) will opress Middle East, there will be no chance for marriage between islam and democracy.
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #5

     
florek-XXX
 

Katolik
*******
Grupa: Banita
Postów: 2.227
Nr użytkownika: 15.050

Zawód: BANITA
 
 
post 25/11/2009, 16:41 Quote Post

Ryszard, I understand that Iraqi society could be feeling opressed but I think that intervention of United States in Iraq have gave to Iraqi society bigger chance for democracy than Saddam's regime before.
 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #6

     
Net_Skater
 

IX ranga
*********
Grupa: Supermoderator
Postów: 4.753
Nr użytkownika: 1.980

Stopień akademicki: Scholar & Gentleman
Zawód: Byly podatnik
 
 
post 26/11/2009, 2:13 Quote Post

Ryszard Lwie Serce:
QUOTE
The main reason why democracy doesn't have even a slight chance of working in the Middle East is the presence of the United States and Israel. The feeling of being opressed creates a society susceptible to terrorism, dictatorship and fundamentalism.

OK, let's assume that Yanks and Israel are not a factor, first is internationally passive and timid, second is not present. Therefore, two main reasons for holding democracy in Middle East countries are off. In this situation, can we witness rise of democracy in any of Islam countries ? No chance. There is not one country where internal forces are strong enough, visible enough and accepted by society to proclaim and implement democratic principles in politics and day-by-day life. Biggest obstacle is society with it's tradition, religion, lack of education and inability to feel any urge for a change. They just like the way things are around them, they do not trust foreign idea, they suspect entrapment instead of progress. Look at the mess Americans created in Iraq with their naive quest for transplanting some (not all) concepts of democracy. First minute after last GI Joe will depart, this pathetic "republic" will go like Hindenburg over Lakehurst. Back to the topic: it doesn't matter if US and Israel do there, Islamic democracy is daydreamer's concept.

N_S
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #7

     
gregski
 

Pirat of the Carribean
********
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 3.067
Nr użytkownika: 12.159

Stopień akademicki: mgr inz
Zawód: ETO
 
 
post 26/11/2009, 8:23 Quote Post

I don’t think that Arabs are dreaming about democracy. They are dreaming about ruler. Strong but fair!
In Mideast reality democracy means ruling of the strongest tribe or strongest family in the country. They don’t have a concept of the choices made on political basis. They are obliged to support people they are connected by bloodline or by family ties and they are also expecting help from these relatives.
Remember about old Arabian proverb: Me and my cousin against stranger, me and my brother against my cousin”. It is not important who is right, important is who is closer to me and this person I am supposed to support.
So, considering circumstances I can’t see how democracy supposes to work in this region.
 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #8

     
Stolem
 

Pies Pawłowa na banderowców i banderofili
*****
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 724
Nr użytkownika: 47.298

Stopień akademicki: Obwieszczacz
Zawód: Rozbieracz i Scalacz
 
 
post 9/12/2009, 12:33 Quote Post

QUOTE(gregski @ 26/11/2009, 7:23)
Remember about old Arabian proverb: Me and my cousin against stranger, me and my brother against my cousin”.


and finally "Me, my brother and my cousin against the world" - attributed to Pashtuns.
QUOTE
It is not important who is right, important is who is closer to me and this person I am supposed to support.

Fully agree - just look at the high occurrence of consanguineous marriages in the Islamic countries - loyalty to the clan is of paramount importance
*




@Ryszard Lwie Serce
Napisano 17/11/2009, 23:01

Could you elaborate on what you really mean by the below quotation, especially the bold parts

QUOTE
Islam is proven to be susceptible to such diverse ideologies as nationalism or socialism and can thrive under all known forms of administration, including authoritarian dictatorship, republic and absolute monarchy. In fact, it is more "open" than christianity, since Qur'an doesn't say anything about prefered political regime and Islam lacks a main religious leader or an organisation which can publicly condemn certain ideologies, like for example Catholic Church did.

taking into account that in Mohammedanism there is no separation of state and religion, the separation existing in Christianity and derived from the words "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s".
In any case saying that Catholic Church (I assume here that you really mean the pope as the head) can pronounce verdicts on behalf of the whole Christianity is simply a factual error.

Stolem
 
User is offline  PMMini Profile Post #9

     
Ryszard Lwie Serce
 

الشيطان
*******
Grupa: Użytkownik
Postów: 2.405
Nr użytkownika: 24.473

Zaurak
Stopień akademicki: magister iuris
Zawód: Mlot na Fiskusa
 
 
post 9/12/2009, 21:18 Quote Post

florek:
QUOTE
Ryszard, I understand that Iraqi society could be feeling opressed but I think that intervention of United States in Iraq have gave to Iraqi society bigger chance for democracy than Saddam's regime before.

Intervention of the US in Iraq didn't help Iraqi people to introduce democracy, because instead of peace and freedom it caused civil war on the streets of every major Iraqi city, especially Baghdad. Under such circumstances democracy is impossible. Practically, the intervention of 2003 changed nothing. Instead of Hussein’s dictatorship we have now in Iraq a puppet government, totally loyal to the US.

Mr. Net Skater:
QUOTE
OK, let's assume that Yanks and Israel are not a factor, first is internationally passive and timid, second is not present. Therefore, two main reasons for holding democracy in Middle East countries are off. In this situation, can we witness rise of democracy in any of Islam countries? No chance. There is not one country where internal forces are strong enough, visible enough and accepted by society to proclaim and implement democratic principles in politics and day-by-day life. Biggest obstacle is society with it's tradition, religion, lack of education and inability to feel any urge for a change. They just like the way things are around them, they do not trust foreign idea, they suspect entrapment instead of progress. Look at the mess Americans created in Iraq with their naive quest for transplanting some (not all) concepts of democracy. First minute after last GI Joe will depart, this pathetic "republic" will go like Hindenburg over Lakehurst. Back to the topic: it doesn't matter if US and Israel do there, Islamic democracy is daydreamer's concept.

I think you didn't go far enough analyzing possible benefits of US and Israeli noninvolvement in the Middle East. A famous Polish arabist, prof. Danecki, claims that growing support for Islamic fundamentalist groups in the Middle East is a reaction to Israeli and American presence in this region. There was a chance in early XX century and maybe even in 40's, that Islamic modernism will become a main ideology in the Arabic world. Rise of Israeli state undermined that possibility, making Arabs sworn enemies of Western civilization. All the factors that you described, such as ‘inability to change’ are simply the results of massive brainwash made by fundamentalist movements. And fundamentalists’ chief weapon while capturing followers is the presence of Jews and ‘Crusaders’ in the Middle East. That is why Islam and Arabic world is so resistant to democracy and all Western ideas.
Speaking about Islamic democracy and about cultural and traditional factors preventing ‘transplanting’ it in the Middle East, we must bear in mind one important thing – democracy is not an opposition to monarchy. Arab attachment to monarchy doesn’t exclude a possibility of implementing democracy in the Middle East. Take a look at Persian Gulf countries. All of them, except Saudi Arabia, are constitutional monarchies. They have working parliaments with certain prerogatives and relatively strong representation of women (which is the results of so called ‘parities’, but that’s other story). Of course, in comparison to UK and other European monarchies, they don’t even look like democracies, but first and most important steps on the way of democratization were made. Obviously, there remains a lot of work to do and complete democratization is possible only under certain circumstances, but, as I’ve said, ideologically and even practically Islamic democracy is possible.
The example of what’s happening in Iraq shows us only that such thing as democracy can’t be enforced. It should be a result of certain process which Arabic countries are just beginning. The presence of the US military forces just makes things worse, supporting arguments of fundamentalists and creating martyrs.

Stolem:
QUOTE

Could you elaborate on what you really mean by the below quotation, especially the bold parts: […]

taking into account that in Mohammedanism there is no separation of state and religion, the separation existing in Christianity and derived from the words "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s".
In any case saying that Catholic Church (I assume here that you really mean the pope as the head) can pronounce verdicts on behalf of the whole Christianity is simply a factual error.

Of course, Islam doesn’t separate state and religion, but it doesn’t explain as well, how a state should be governed: by people or by king, prince or caliph. For each Arab it’s obvious, that the law and political regime must be based on Qur’an. But it doesn’t mean, that it must be an absolute monarchy or theocracy. Clannish structure of Arab society, which Mr. Gregski have mentioned, even enable Arabs to create some kind of oligarchy, which may prevent authoritarianism and allow them to create some basic, democratic structures.
Regarding Catholic Church, what I’m trying to say is that Catholic Church practically decided on behalf of the whole Christianity for about X centuries. In Islam there wasn’t such institution as the Papacy in the whole history of this religion.
 
User is offline  PMMini ProfileEmail Poster Post #10

 
1 Użytkowników czyta ten temat (1 Gości i 0 Anonimowych użytkowników)
0 Zarejestrowanych:


Topic Options
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

 
Copyright © 2003 - 2023 Historycy.org
historycy@historycy.org, tel: 12 346-54-06

Kolokacja serwera, łącza internetowe:
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej