Are dictatorships the best system of Government for Islamic people?

[Devastatin Dave]

From all the recent events from elections of Hamas, the rioting over cartoons, and many, many other examples, are dictatorships the best way to rule people who follow Islam. It seems there is a need to be "controlled" by someone when you live in these Muslim societies. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Muslims in this thread but it something that should be taken in consideration. Can a large population where the majority are followers of Islam be in a democratic system of government? I'm not sure anymore whether that is possible. Please debate this with how you truelly feel, and hold no punches. Its time to place the cards on the table for everyone to truelly discuss this very serious issue. This debate could honestly chane many minds on the Iraqi war, the war on terrorism, and the view of many of multicultured societies throughout the world. I'm looking forward to this...:2thumbsup:

[Proletariat]

Dictatorships are evil by nature, so I'm saying no. Albeit, most Islamic populations currently seem more accustomed to dictatorships.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The same argument has been made regarding Russia.

The difficulty of finding brilliant and benevolent despots always makes dictatorship a long-term problem.

[solypsist]

no.

[Byzantine Prince]

They seem to be pretty uncontrolable within dictatorships. As long as most of them are in poverty they will continue to be seseptable(sp?????) to fanaticism. That is the real problem. Once people have a steady income and hobbies besides reading the Koran and going to the Mosque the problem will be solved.

So no.

[Devastatin Dave]

Maybe Dictatorship is the wrong word, I think I meant more like an oppressive system of government.

[Papewaio]

Democracies require an educated population that questions the world around them...

[GoreBag]

Democracies require an educated population that questions the world around them...

In order to be truly effective according to its moralistic idealism, you mean?

[ajaxfetish]

I'm under the impression that the many Islamic dictatorial governments in the world today are among the root causes for terror and western-hating, so no. I'd say the golden years for Islam were under the Abassid caliphate, which I'm not sure how best to classify governmentally (monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, ?), but which was not very oppressive. As for the best government for today, I don't know, but not the repressive dictatorships we've got many of now.

Ajax

[Xiahou]

Maybe Dictatorship is the wrong word, I think I meant more like an oppressive system of government.
Most of them have that now.... and I'd say it hasnt been working out too well for us.


Democracies require an educated population that questions the world around them...You know, I had a political science teacher who taught the exact opposite.... the dumber and more apathetic the electorate, the better the democracy functions.

[Watchman]

The Caliphate and its assorted splinters were various versions of monarchies, pure and simple. An extremely commmon and widespread form of state governance in its time, by now badly obsolete.

AFAIK democracy is kind of like the oh-so-terribly-Western universal human rights; however sceptical people may be of them beforehand (although I tend to find it curious how the argumentation against either tends to issue from regimes that practice neither...), practical experience with the things tends to make folks rather fond of them right fast (barring extreme circumstances). Being able to change the idiots failing to run the show at regular intervals is alone a... rather pleasant ability. Perticularly if those idiots don't get to strong-arm you to hide their own shortcomings.

[Tachikaze]

Define "Islamic".

[Papewaio]

I don't think Islam is the hurdle, it is lack of a middle class.

Indonesia and Turkey are potentiates to full democracy... as their economies grow.

[Watchman]

Religion is ultimately what people make out of it. If the adherents embrace democracy (or whatever), they will not have great trouble accommodating their faith to it. Not counting the diehards of course, but I suspect the proportional representation of jerks is something of an universally fixed number anyway so there's not that much that can be done about them.

It's all a question of interpretation.

[Navaros]

As the Muslims say, democracy is an infidel institution.

Democracy is incompatible with the Muslim way of life.

Therefore a dictatorship/theocracy is indeed the best form of government for Muslims.

[Kanamori]

In my opinion, any religion with a central figure (one god, as God) tends to have a strong emphasis on absolute truth and righteousness. Before the Puritans and Protestants in general, there were very central figures for authority of what that absoluteness was. Until people can explore it for themselves without the need of a strong and central authority, I think there will be governments like we see now in the region. How centralized are the clergy I wonder? IMO, christians have become less dependent on their priests and ministers to tell them what the Bible says and people tend to look at the Book/religion as a whole their own way.

Just a theory really.

[Watchman]

IMO Christians have been becoming a lot less dependent on a rigid orthodoxy primarily because it started getting in the way.

[Bartix]

In Algerie, they try democratic election, and un-democratic party wanting religious totalitarian dictatorship gets elected (but not get power due to intervention/"coup").

Same thing would happen many other countries, such ugly mood there is now.:help:

[Bar Kochba]

yes

look what saddam hussain did for iraq he might of hurt the people but they were growing pains and now iraq was the strongest in the middle east (besides Israel)

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Power corupts, any dictator would surely eventually be corupted by the power at their disposal. Ive always thought of power as like the ring in lord of the rings, you may take power in order to do good but eventually you will be corrupted by it, therefore i vote for world president Frodo! :laugh4:

[Watchman]

I believe the symbolism is rather glaringly obvious, and meant to be. Anyway, democracy doesn't actually promise all that much beyond the ability to swap the idiots in power at regular intervals, but practical experience suggests that alone is a Very Good Thing. And then there's the numerous beneficial spin-offs...

[Devastatin Dave]

Define "Islamic".
Those believing that Muhammad and the Koran should be the law of their society, regardless of whether they are African, Arab, Persian, etc.

[Devastatin Dave]

So is it a theory that some here hold that Islam is currently in a sort of "Dark Age" and can mature like Christianity and other beliefs and can be molded into and evolve into something that will be open to Democracy or some form of government resembling many within Western culture.

[Proletariat]

Yes, it's in a Dark Age. Dunno if it can change. It wasn't easy for the West during the Reformation, but at least the Islamic world has that as a precedent.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that Islamic countries can change. ook at Iran a few years ago. The students were protesting at their increasingly out of touch leaders. Then what happened? America attacked Iraq, igniting hostility again, and making the leaders look good in that they were always against the great Satan. If the west (and yes, as it is the most powerful) especially Americal backs off atttacking Muslim countries they are far more likely to come to a more free society.

If you really want to piss of the leaders. offer free satelite broadband with unrestricted web access. If you give them the information and let them make up their own minds (as did Europe during the Reformation) then there s a high change they will become a freer system. Bully and scare them and it'll only get worse.

We don't really have democracies. America loves its plutocracy where money rules the government. The rest of us have a choice of several sweping option and then no more: British people didn't want to go to war, but we did as the government we elected many years previously said we had to. :wall:
~:smoking:

[Meneldil]

Democracies require an educated population that questions the world around them...

Democracy requires a small group of educated people that will lead the brainwashed masses (and that's arguable, many 'backward' cultures worked as real democracies without any educated people).
That is of course if this ruling elite has the power and the will to help their fellow countrymates, and aren't there only to get money (ie. the current situation in muslim countries).

[Byzantine Mercenary]

So is it a theory that some here hold that Islam is currently in a sort of "Dark Age" and can mature like Christianity and other beliefs and can be molded into and evolve into something that will be open to Democracy or some form of government resembling many within Western culture.

No, im afraid i disagree heavyly with this for a number of reasons.

1. While we (the west) were still in our dark ages the muslim world were way ahead of us, inventing technologys and advanceing knowledge. Read about the ''Chivilrous'' behaveure of the crusaders compared with the mercy of the muslims during the crusades.

2. Iran and the other muslim countrys were the cradle of civilisation and the idea that they have gone backwards somehow and need to remature strikes me as odd. The empires of Turkey, Persia, Egypt and the rest were very powerful and long lasted as all of us know from games like rome.

3. Islam like chirstianity and so many other groups suffer from the image presented by an overly vocal minority, Islam literally translates as ''way of peace and submission to the will of God'' the Jihad is primaryly a private battle against your own personal deamons and only secondaraly as a war agains the pagans (which originally did not include Jews or Christians).

[ajaxfetish]

I do believe the Islamic world to be currently in a dark age. I agree with BM on all his points but don't think that changes the issue. Islam was once the most advanced society on earth, but that has changed. I'd say the change took place around the time of the crusades, and for a number of reasons, including a conservative backlash against the Abassid openness (primarily a conflict of whether to trust reason or revelation if the two conflict) and invasions by Christians and Mongols. I think this reset the balance of power for centuries to come as Arabic science, mathematics, culture, and their preservation of Ancient culture were simultaneously transferred to western Europe by returning crusaders.

There have been high points since then, but never to the same level, and today things are very grim, again for multiple causes including the effects of western Imperialism, the stranglehold of corrupt, secular dictators, and the power and influence held by violent fanatics. The Islamic world has not been making great contributions to world culture of late, and most of the people within it are severely repressed, poor, and unhappy. One of the biggest things that I think is restricting the progress (however you'd like to define that loaded term) of the Muslim world is the marginalization of half the population. The limits placed upon women are seriously restraining the possibility for advancement.

Of course, none of these problems are limited to Islamic nations, as the west has faced pretty much all of them in its past, but it has, to one degree or another, overcome them and moved on. There is certainly hope for Islam, and once its people have the same level of lifestyle as people in the west (and not in the sense of being materialist or secular, but of being satisfied, valued, and able to participate positively in their communities and the world), jihadists will lose most of their base of support.

Ajax

[master of the puppets]

islam as a whole is broken into many groups, one will always be oppressed, i say compremise, a large senate with 2 great leaders with massive powers, each checking the other.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

i think that the problem varies between nations, extremism is dangerous, of course, but it is made more so when it is taken to be the main belief. The only people who can tell of represion would be the people themselves and since there have not been many popular upriseings in favour of democracy im inclined to think that at the very least they are contented.

Democracy should be available but it should be their choice perhaps there could be referendums or something...

[Ironside]

In Algerie, they try democratic election, and un-democratic party wanting religious totalitarian dictatorship gets elected (but not get power due to intervention/"coup").

Same thing would happen many other countries, such ugly mood there is now.:help:

As long as elections and media is kept open and free those fanatics usually dies of after one or two terms.
Fanatics aren't usually good leaders and after some time under thier rule, the people realises that to.

[rory_20_uk]

What those societies need be it Palestine, North Korea or anywhere else is an enemy, someone that will do unspeakable things to the people's reliion, way of life etc etc and so of course there are hardships now, but we are in a religious war here people! To slack now is against your country and against your God... :director:

the formula works time and time again. Bush is using it in Iraq to "finish the job". In WW2 Japanese civillians were so afraid of what the americans would do to them that they in many (and in some theatres most)cases chose death than capture.

With israel and America both being big in the region it is relatively easy to bring in this mentality, when the state can ban all sorts of freedoms as they are at war. If they were left in peace, they would self destruct far more quickly.

~:smoking:

[Sjakihata]

Democracies require an educated population that questions the world around them...

no, democracies just allow its population to chose among their oppressor, whether they are educated or not.

No, to the original question.

[rory_20_uk]

Panem and circundas is as true now as it was 2,000 years ago.

Most don't want freedom, they want safety. true freedom is farto scary. They'd rather whinge whilst someone else makes all the hard choices.

Those that truely try to make a difference are usually so warped by the very system they are trying to change by the time that they can that again the status quo is maintained.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

It's panem et circenses AFAIK, but anyway. I would personally rephrase "most don't want freedom, they want safety" into "most don't want too much freedom and excitement, they want predictability and stability and a prospect of raising their kids and living to old age without being bothered by anything too serious."

That doesn't mean they'd be hostile to the idea of getting a say in just who exactly runs the show so they don't have to worry about it.

[rory_20_uk]

In terms of the British populace the Powers That Be have managed to reduce "democracy" to voting for about 3 people who often they don't hear anything about for months or even years, who then suddenly start kissing mre kids than a released paedophile prior to the next elections.

They all go off into a big hall where they practice the democracy called "do what you're told and you might get a promotion"

As in Terry Pratchett and Ankah Morpork our leaders follow the Patrician: people want to know that tomorrow will be the same as today.

The really depressing thing is that I know I'm exactly the same! The amount of effort to change anything is so monumental that it's far better to get ahead in the way things are than try to change them. :embarassed:

For those that would like to see where I get my daily uplifting message from, try www.despair.com :idea2:

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

meh. I dont think it really maters. There are bad forms of goverment everywhere and all are just as capble of manipulating there populace.

[Incongruous]

Islamic dark arge?
No, all that has happened is that the west i.e Europe has progressed and thrown off it's religous yoke. Islam is still the same institution it was five hundred years ago. The problem is that it hasn't moved on, indeed if the Europe had not spread it's ideas across the globe Islam would still be fine but the times call for evolution. Something the powerful and ignorant do not wish for.
However if "Westerners" wish for this their often demeaning attitude towards the Islamic world needs to dissapear. Islamic nations are alsways treated as second rate, when in reality they are first rate the fact that they own the oil should progress that argument.
It's the same as post war Germany in the 1920's, everyine treats you as a lesser being, like a child. Germany raised Hitler and the only option for Europe was war. It seems that in relation to the moddle east American and British governments have chosen war. Which goes to show that "Western" countries are just the same as everyone else, we never learn from our mistakes.

[Divinus Arma]

I have to say no.

Let them elect Hamas, Ahmadinejad, and even Bin Laden.


Then the west will destroy them after they show theocratic military expansionism.


Then, maybe, they will elect somebody who won't get them killed.:2thumbsup:


I think Democracy will work. But only after they see that Theocracy won't work.

[Watchman]

Nihilist.

[rory_20_uk]

Unless (and I am only stating this for the sake of completeness) you were to kill absolutely everyone in an area, it is highly likely that the survivors will fight against those that committed genocide. An example close to home is Ireland: thanks to efforts many centuries ago we have the current situation. Personally I would have advocated for the whole island to have been left alone (rather than all catholics on the isle exterminated as Cromwell was aiming for).

The idea of leaders is to lead, to make the hard choices and take the flack for pushing the country in a direction that is unpopular for the sake of a future that the masses can't see. One good example is America assisting the allies prior to joining the second world war. The masses may have only thought of the short term cost and the dead GIs, but the powers that be could see a world divided between Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan was not a good thing (I realise I am airbrushing out the fact this also led to the rise of the USSR which in many ways was worse than Nazi germany).

Bush appears unable to do this act of long term oversight onto problems, trying to fight battles as Daddy would have done (or Eisenhower for that matter). Times have changed, and unfortunately he is too blinkered to move with them.

Blair is in many ways worse as he can't even plead stupididy on the issue, being by all accounts extremely clever.

Yes, the West is in many ways causing this, and the crying shame is that we would all benefit if things were taken down a different course. :wall:

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

The question is not without some interesting possibilities. However it is misaligned. The point is that any poor or pre-industrial/industrialising country has great difficulty maintaining a democracy. There just isn't enough spoils to go around.

Democracies are really a variation of a dictatorship. The work in the interests of the economic elites, under the guidance and consent of the middle class, while shafting the working class.

In a place such as, say Jordan. There simply isn't the wealth to create a large stable middle class. So the only option is a smaller ruling elite who suppress dissent. The same is true of many poor countries.

When you get democracy in poor countries where the middle class are greatly outnumbered by the working class you get fairly obvious results. Parties that the ruling elites hate, but the working class love - Chavez, Hamas, that bloke in Bolivia.

[Devastatin Dave]

Good points Idaho, thanks...

[master of the puppets]

lets all cuddle up tonight with a book of Hobbes and Locke:book:.

a government is there to protect the people be it that they like it or not, the islamic theocracies are not doing this, there people are dying and fighting and corrupting there culture. so then is it not the right of those disillusioned people to revolt and take back there country.

i think it is but the mullahs have brainwashed em into thinking that it would be far better to please there god than aid there country or themselves for that matter. Theocracies do not work, a monarchy may work only if it is more clever and powerful than the people (middle-ages anyone?) and a democracy...will not work without some forceful prodding, with the masses dancing to the mullahs songs they will always get there way.

look at Iraq, it may look like a perfect democratic election, but did not the shi'a vote for shi'a as they religious teachers taught them, and the same for sunnis, and kurds.

[Tachikaze]

Dictatorships and other forms of autocracies, work best in a crisis.

I don't believe there is ever a government organization that is right for everyone. Each culture has its own needs, abilities, attitudes, ethics, experiences, religious allegiances, etc. Governments work best when they develop within a country through a natural process and not imposed from outside.

The "Islamic" world is having to adjust to a world that's changing around them. Many of them have systems that have acted successfully for centuries. The Ottoman Turkish Empire was stable and relatively safe for many years. Now the peoples within the former empire don't fit in well with the changing climate of increased globalization.

Often, dictatorships arise in nations suffering from a variety of ills. When they don't "work", we blame dictatorships. But no political system is going to "work" painlessly in a nation in chaos. Chaos includes things like famine, drought, epidemic diseases, and fallout from warfare or a revolution.

Dictatorships should be considered transitory, but they have their place.

[GoreBag]

Nihilist.

More like pragmatist. A Nihilist would just say that it doesn't matter who leads these people or how they do it.

[Adrian II]

Dictatorships and other forms of autocracies, work best in a crisis.Quite the reverse, actually; dictatorships cause most crises.

[Watchman]

It is true they are often more capable of fast and decisive decision-making than for example democratic systems that need to reach onsensus. Too bad they also seem a fair bit worse at coming up with the correct solutions...

[rory_20_uk]

Dictatorships do more often cause crises, but even democaracies become to resemble dictatorships (war cabinets or the like). Both take extremely difficult choices to win and do not shirk from causing masses of lives. The only difference is that Democracies can cope in peace.

~:smoking:

[Slyspy]

Hey, a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government for anyone. Unhappily they are also very unlikely.

[Watchman]

They also have a nasty tendency to be of rather limited duration, after which they return to the default unpleasant type of dicatorship.

[Tachikaze]

Quite the reverse, actually; dictatorships cause most crises.
I think you'll find that, historically, crisis precedes dictatorships in most or maybe even all cases. Whether or not they cause more crisis must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

[caravel]

http://www.cominganarchy.com/images/cartoon.jpg

[Watchman]

:rtwyes:
Approved! :grin:

[Adrian II]

I think you'll find that, historically, crisis precedes dictatorships in most or maybe even all cases. Whether or not they cause more crisis must be judged on a case-by-case basis.Nah, it's all been researched, the numbers are in, and it's the dics what cause trouble. Sorry, m8.

[Divinus Arma]

http://www.cominganarchy.com/images/cartoon.jpg
(picture wrapped in spoil tags to reduce size but still reference in reply)

AGREED.:2thumbsup:

[rory_20_uk]

ROFLMAO!!! That's got to win the "picture most likely to get me fired if I disseminate it" - but I... can't... help.... it!!!

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

Re: The dictators are good in a crisis topic.

So you would agree that we need to give GWB dictator powers in order to deal with the global islamic fundamentalist boomskis (damn I love that word- Thanx Crazed Rabbit)?

Who's dictator would be better? Our GW or your Billary?

I also disagree with Idaho's statments, althogh I can understand how that perception can come about.

In the United States, the poor are NOT "getting the shaft".

The poor are poor mostly because they lack vision, commitment, or ability. Essentially they are too lazy or too stupid. Hell I WAS poor. I picked friggin cans out of a trash can in order to recycle them and held two jobs (one of which I walked 5 miles to at 4am before the buses ran).

I'm sick of this "woh is me I'm poor" BS. GRANTED, there are exceptions like the disabled and the elderly who got shafted by corporate crime. But everyone else: Sorry! ITS YOUR OWN FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have too many kids? Who's fault is that?
Didn't go to school? Who's fault is that?
Got wrapped up in gangs? Who's fault is that?
Have a felony background? Who's fault is that?
You're an alcoholic or drug addict? Who's fault is that?


When LEGAL immigrants come to this country and build businesses from nothing, then I just laugh at stupid naturally born citizens who piss and moan about what a "raw deal" they got.

I got a raw deal too. And I made piss poor decisions. But now I'm kicking ass in this life.


It's about personal responsibility. End of friggin story.

[/rant]

[Watchman]

Yeah yeah, we know already you're a skinflint social-darwinist. You're also well off topic, and pointlessly so.

[Tachikaze]

Re: The dictators are good in a crisis topic.

So you would agree that we need to give GWB dictator powers in order to deal with the global islamic fundamentalist boomskis (damn I love that word- Thanx Crazed Rabbit)?

Who's dictator would be better? Our GW or your Billary?

I also disagree with Idaho's statments, althogh I can understand how that perception can come about.

In the United States, the poor are NOT "getting the shaft".

The poor are poor mostly because they lack vision, commitment, or ability. Essentially they are too lazy or too stupid. Hell I WAS poor. I picked friggin cans out of a trash can in order to recycle them and held two jobs (one of which I walked 5 miles to at 4am before the buses ran).

I'm sick of this "woh is me I'm poor" BS. GRANTED, there are exceptions like the disabled and the elderly who got shafted by corporate crime. But everyone else: Sorry! ITS YOUR OWN FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have too many kids? Who's fault is that?
Didn't go to school? Who's fault is that?
Got wrapped up in gangs? Who's fault is that?
Have a felony background? Who's fault is that?
You're an alcoholic or drug addict? Who's fault is that?


When LEGAL immigrants come to this country and build businesses from nothing, then I just laugh at stupid naturally born citizens who piss and moan about what a "raw deal" they got.

I got a raw deal too. And I made piss poor decisions. But now I'm kicking ass in this life.


It's about personal responsibility. End of friggin story.

[/rant]
This is too offensive to respond to any of the points.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is too offensive to respond to any of the points.

Huh?