Humans have been struggling for peace and harmony through out time and mostly adhere onto beliefs, theories and ideologies to attain that ambition. Nowadays, it is believed that Democracy can help people, bring peace in the region and make humanity equal. So, what do you think when you see wealthy and powerful with the means to manipulate the ‘democratic’ system that suits them? Most citizens who follow and believe in democracy only understand the most basic aspects of the revolution and follow in hopes of a better future.
If simply putting a tick mark against a name on a ballot is democracy then that is not enough, it needs more involvement on the part of the Citizens about issues and current affairs, knowledge of history and a free and unbaised Media for democracy to benefit all.
it is a really subjective thing - democracy.
social theorists have said, i have every right to be and live life as i desire, as long as i my actions do not infringe upon the rights of others.
& that is a tough call.
perhaps, political transparency is much more important to have first and then the establishment of some 'democracy' can be implemented.
unless the citizens and public officials are not honest to themselves and to each other, for the greater good of the nations, in which
do me, from western political thought and the concept of the republic - it merely means, a govt by the people, of the people and for the people. this comes with responsibility of civic duties as well and they must be fulfilled first .
The thing is Democracy should be the opposite of Theocracy and Monarchy but when you see in Democratic countries, mostly wealthy and powerful rule the country and the citizens have to wait for them to really touch the issues they want, I do not see them really in control of the country like they are made to believe with the voting system. Although, they have the power to vote down a leader, but mostly the choice is between people that are wealthy and powerful who care about their issues. I have not seen a normal and standard citizen becoming a leader of a Democratic country, something that should be the main result of Democracy.
If that is the case, where is Democracy better than Dictatorship and Monarchy?
If you guys have detailed information on Islam & Democracy, plz post it here.
I don't have enough info but I do know that the Khilaafat after Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was democratic (in a way). I mean the whole public wasn't included in the decision making process when Hazrat Umer or Hazrat Ali were given the Khilaafat. But it was surely discussed. And we know that Hazrat Ali & Hazrat Usman had to deal with some issues too.
As for Hazrat Abu Bakar, our prophet made the decision.
so my question is, what is the concept of democracy in Islam?? ofcourse the answer to this question will be the answer to this thread :)
yes. thats what I mean. In the current democracy process, we 're missing something.
Howcome everyone be educated/well informed to choose the right person.
Thats why i want to know, what was the process at that time. How the team was selected at Khilaafat time.
I can understand the concept of Direct Democracy where people are involved and vote on all issues but the Representative Democracy seems like a sham. Most of them are wealthy and powerful and almost all of them work for each other and do favors to get their point across, which results in public being ignored. This is how most of the democracy exists in current world and so far it has done nothing for any country. Just look at America, centuries of Democracy but the civil rights only given when majority agreed to it.
I guess it only looks attractive because these countries are powerful but what if they are not, would public still see the process as smart as they do now?
Ok, let us take the example of United States that claims to be the longest running Democracy in the world. Why did it took them so many years to free slave, give women and blacks right to vote ? We can expect a Dictatorship or monarchy doing this to their minorities but for a Democracy it takes the argument of 'people rule' away.
I do not think Americans at that time were neither dumb or racits as it had a lot to do with money than prejudice. So if we were living at the time, we also had to wait for the majority to listen and agree to our demands, until than wait and see.
Democracy is misunderstood. A free and fair election is a beginning. But the following "Pillars of Democracy" are necessary for the democracy to thrive.
A system of Governmental checks and balances.
A free and open Media.
A government reasonably free from corruption.
Minority Rights.
A functional and fair judiciary.
A functional and fair police system.
Freedom from dominant outside influence.
An election system free from corruption
You could go on with a list like this, but, Democracy is dependent on the will of the people to establish something higher than warlords and corrupt politicians. An election is a start, but a blossoming democracy is a fragile thing. It is apparent to me, that certain cultures do not have the values that are necessary for democracy to work. The leaders pay lip service to *their *rights while ignoring or battering the rights of others.
Lastly, democracies are a human invention. At any given moment a democracy can be woefully wrong in it's policies and it's approach. Over time the democracy is self correcting. There has never been a war between two true democracies.
Minority rights, government that is transparent and freedom to criticize your government. I agree, a democracy is all about this and mostly in Dictatorships these rights are ignored as compared to a democratic country, but it mainly depends on leaders and representatives that choose to correct the system. There are several democracies in the world that are in stalemate about just providing basic rights to their citizen. I think if you have country that is based on religion or theory and a leader that is chosen based on representing principles of their religion, these rights and laws are attainable.