When Bush, Brown and westerners generally talk about democratically, human rights etc. in the Muslim - what is it that you mean?
Do you actually want democracy in the Muslim world?
In Algeria, Muslims were all ready to try out this new and alien (in the muslim world anyway) system - they went out and they voted like good citizens.
The Islamic parties were the choice of the population and just before they came into power, the army - which western goverments eventually backed - blocked all election results, arrested all political leaders of the winning party, killed many protestors and took power for themselves.
Rather than shun this undemocratic murderous coup, many western governments came to support the actions of the army - is this the type of democracy and human rights you want Muslims to have?
You can chose whom you like as long it serves our interests?
In Palestine, Muslims it seems were once again willing to give YOUR system of goverment a chance - but once again you dont like who they chose and hence economic sanctions, imposed starvation, and political isolation were what the west ordered for Hamas.
In Chechnya, Muslims -rather naively - thought this democracy lark is worth a go.
They went out, they voted - an islamic goverment came into power and what happens?
First sanctions and backing out of deals by Russia which refused to recognise an Islamic goverment, and then the same political isolation from the rest of the world.
Then they are deemed terrorists, the country is bombed back into the stone age, the democratically elected leader is killed and his body paraded on T.V.
This is what has happened to some of the countries that decided to try this "democracy" business - what about those that havent?
Saudi Arabia, a country run by kings and princes that have robbed the wealth of the land whilst keeping the people under lockdown - not even allowing verbal criticism of itself (something bin laden got thrown out of saudi for) - is a major ally for the leaders of the western world.
Leaders like Bush treat this goverment like a friend and partner.
Uzbekistan - a country run by a madman - is another friend and partner. Only yesterday i was reading a letter from which the U.N obtained from a woman inside an Uzbek prison. She and her family were in prison for showing to much "islamicness" - she wore hijab - and her husband was a member of an islamic political movement. She described the situation of the prisons where women are regularly raped and beaten, sometimes in front of family members - their only crime being for wearing islamic dress.
The male prisoners are treated much the same except sometimes they have to watch a family member being abused in front of them.
Craig Murray - former British ambassador to Uzbekistan - wrote about the various torture methods applied by Islam Karimov's regime - including the technique of boiling Muslim dissidents to death.
I could go on about Uzbekistan, but i wont - i just wondered why this despicable country isnt under sanctions and put under isolation like chechnya was and later palestine - why is Islam Karimov an acceptable friend and partner when Aslan Maskhadov - an elected leader - is not?
Theres various other dictators in the Muslim world supported by the West - i'd be here all day if i went into the crimes of all of them.
So whats it all about? Muslims that have tried democray have been punished -countries that have had dictators placed over them have largely been supported.
When you talk about "human rights" and "democracy" for Muslims - don't you feel just that little bit hypocritical?
^ How about respect the choice of the people who chose that gov.
---------
World leaders just care about power and how to control resources things like democracy is nothing to them and they fool their people with these phrases so they support them. The biggest example if this is what happened to Iraq.
^ How about respect the choice of the people who chose that gov.
---------
World leaders just care about power and how to control resources things like democracy is nothing to them and they fool their people with these phrases so they support them. The biggest example if this is what happened to Iraq.
100% agree with you. As long as the govenrment democratically elected by the people are not against the western imperialism and as long as they will do what ever america tells them to do, america will support them but if not then they will be called brutal terrorists and their brutal regime will have to go down in order for america to bring true "democracy" to their country.
If democracy did in fact exist in the middle east, then israel would not exist.
Democracy - in its present, diluted form - is the sham we choose to live with.
It's kind of a joke how, in the US especially, there are the few choice familial 'Houses' who always seem to run because only they have the resources to do so.
In the UK, every politician worth his salt has at least tried snorting the stuff, then proceeds to condemn drug taking in all its forms (apart from the shrooms in his boarding school dormitory - they're groovy). We have the same class divide problems, with the masses being led by a cabal who, for the most part, have never led the kind of lives of the people they claim to represent.
Heck, in the US, the 'ivory tower' is embodied by a White House.
How does democracy work in the present world, in everyday terms? We elect an official every four years or so, throngs of us gathering to worship at the Temple of Does It Really Matter, and then, if we're lucky, we get the occasional referrendum or two. Democracy, in its present, severely restricted form, is simply citizens choosing the most preferable benign dictatorship.
Is all this really so far removed from the elitist, out-of-touch systems of caste and monarchy that revolutionaries of all types fought so hard to destroy? Or is it simply human nature to corrupt the beauty borne of others' backs?
But maybe it's not a problem with democracy as a concept. Maybe it is the concept that certain forms of government are inherently better than certain others that is flawed. Maybe it simply comes down to different strokes for different folks. Some peoples prosper with a democractic government. Other peoples prosper with a non-democratic government.
Ironically, the underlying assertion in a lot of so-called democratic thought that 'democracy is better than all other systems, and if you don't agree, well you just hate freedom' counters the very precepts on which democracy is based - freedom of association, freedom of thought. Such arguments are as flimsy as a mattress salesman telling a customer who wishes to purchase a firmer mattress that 'Some people are just afraid of comfort'.
Just to clarify my position, I'm essentially neutral - people will choose and gravitate towards the system of government they deem best for their people, democratic or not. As long as the people are not being systemically oppressed by their chosen system (be it democratic or non-democratic), then, frankly, the whole debate becomes as trivial and useless as arguing over whether a blue fence is inherently better than a green fence.
I'm pro-liberty and freedom, and anti-oppression. Democratic states often (but not always) embody and contains these qualities. Other forms of government may also embody and contain these qualities. But when it gets to the state that people are arguing over the design of the box rather than the chocolates inside, it's really rather ridiculous.
As the Wachowski Brothers once wrote, 'To be free, truly free, you cannot change your cage. You must change yourself'.
Anyway, it's no good trying to find logic in political history. One might as well try reading palms or tea leaves. I doubt those pursuits would pay as well though.
I'll just tick off my crazy rant of the day. These quotas don't fill themselves, you know.
Yes, sometimes democracy is overblown. What is important is whether a leader is fair and good to his people, not whether they voted him in or not. Democracy does often lead to good leaders, but it is not the wonder-machine that some people think of it as. Even Hitler was a democratically elected leader.
I'm not saying that democracy is bad, all of the other government types have problems too, I'm saying that too many people forget the system's flaws.
The primary flaw in democracy, if you want to call it a flaw, is partisan gridlock. Meaning it is a very slow and tedious process to pass any substantive legislation. That is by design of course, but sometimes it moves way too slow.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Re: Is Democracy a Sham?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks