Islamic democracy vs Secular dictatorship, which would you choose?

Great Debates
81

Seriously? This bullshit again? Statistically you have a much higher chance of being injured or killed as a secular blogger in Pakistan or Bangladesh than for writing about anything you want in the US. It’s all about the relative degrees of freedom of speech and fear of violent reprisals and if you’re going to seriously try to say that they’re equivalent in the US and Bangladesh then I have nothing to say to you.

Some islamic countries are decent places to live, and I’d choose them over a secular dictatorship, depending on the severity of each, but I’d much rather live in a Hindu, Buddhist or Christian majority democracy if I had that choice (which I do).

82

I’d go with Islamic democracy, why? Because as we’ve seen, any organised religion or secular authority which is controlled by the government, immediately becomes the punching bag for all the citizens grievances and problems, thus hollowing out the appeal and ideology and replacing it with pragmatism, and thus in effect becoming a shell of what it previously was. It’s happened to all the ‘Christian Democrats’ type parties in Europe.

I think the major problem we’re seeing is that this transition will need to go through the cycle where the true believers are in charge in the Middle East, and once their incompetence is revealed, the whole process of governance by technocratic individuals will continue its merry course again. What we keep doing is preventing this kind of transition by repressing it, which just makes Islamic ideology more appealing.

83

Which doesn’t invalidate my point. Or the fact that you moved the goalposts.

You’re right that, by certain metrics, living in some Islamic countries is more dangerous than living in some Western countries. Of course, unless you have a decent sample size for a given metric it’s not really a useful comparison: two bloggers killed by machete for what they wrote is tragic but not statistically significant, any more than 104 people killed using Craigslist or an artist assaulted and threatened with legal action due to a picture she paintedare statistically significant pieces of data about American society. And of course you need to consider more than just one point of difference between the cultures to avoid muddling correlation and causation.

As it is now, when you say “Seriously? This bullshit again?” know that I’m saying the exact same thing about your posts.

I’d rather live in a secular democracy. And I do, state church notwithstanding.

84

I’m not following this debate, but some perspectives are flawed.

Type “police shoot black” at the YouTube prompt. Can you pretend that the U.S. is a decent developed democracy?

85

Ahem.

I have been to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Afghanistan, Khazakhstan, and Kosovo.

And no, I don’t want to live in Kosovo, either.

Please do not cast aspersions with ad hominem attacks if you do not know a single thing about me.

86

I wouldn’t be pretending, but sure the U.S. has a lot of problems, which is in part why I’m not trying to move there.

87

What **septimus **is trying to convey here is that a Google search is not a suitable means of assessing the situation in a country. The internet and the press will always gravitate toward the dramatic, the sensational, the extraordinary. That is ok, because these things are newsworthy. You just should not make too much of the fact that the web has more stories on planes that have crashed than on planes that have safely landed.

88

Where did you note this? Not in this thread, so I assume some other thread-- can you provide a link?

The OP is too vague to answer. “Secular Dictatorship” could be anything from Singapore to North Korea. In general, though, I take the democracy. The worst that could happen is that it turns into a dictatorship, and the other one is already there.

89

They’re talking about this one, I believe.

90

This does have a great deal of appeal, no more BS and blaming everyone ELSE under the sun for your problems but yourself. My only reservation is that in the meantime, a lot of secular people are going to suffer under the strain of living under religious zealots that are given a longer leash. Do we have any examples of secularists wresting control away from Islamists without dictatorship ala Ataturk? I hope Iran does at some point, people say many young people are secular, but I don’t know if that’s legitimate or not.

91

But that’s not the choice here.

92

Well, needless to say, living in a secular dictatorship can be great - if you’re the dictator. Similarly, living in an Islamic Democracy could be great - if you’re confident that a new interpretation of scripture won’t get you pogrommed or tossed out of your school or something.

If were going to imagine ourselves in either a secular dictatorship or an Islamic democracy (and the two terms are still not well-defined), we have to specify how we get there. As a thought experiment, I can imagine:

A) Canada gradually becoming majority Muslim (thus possibly becoming a “Muslim democracy”) with its current Charter of Rights and Freedoms still intact and observed.

B) Canada’s current ethnic/religious mix being unchanged, but the articles of the Charter being gradually stripped away, leaving us with a “secular dictatorship”.

Given those choices, I’d prefer (A), though with a bit of unease (enhanced perpetual vigilance, I guess) that the Charter will not remain intact if the newly-Muslim population begins voting along the lines of what they think best suits Islam, rather than what best suits Canada. This is of course proportional to how Muslim the population is - if Canada ends up filled with Muslims who are not observant or only lightly observant… cool - I’m less concerned that irrationality will guide their votes or that demagogue politicians will appeal to them.

But consider starting from scratch, from behind a classic “veil of ignorance” situation, where one is about to be born into a culture without any idea of the nature of the culture or the circumstances of one’s birth. Consider the possibilities:

  1. Will you be born male?
  • even in the liberal democracies, there remains a lingering social advantage to being male. Iceland, according to the World Economic Forum’s 2015 report, scores highest at 88.1%, where they’d consider 100% to be true equality. There may be isolated matriarchal pockets here and there where being born female is advantageous, but I don’t like the odds. The United States and my own Canada are tied at 74%. Unless I misread the list, the highest-ranked country with a Muslim majority population is Kazakhstan, with a score of 71.9%. Turkey got a 62.4%. Saudi Arabia got a 60.5%. Iran scored a 58%.
  1. Will you be a member of the society’s favoured ethnic/racial/religious group?
  • if you are, great. If not… good luck. You may end up being a black person in the U.S., or Jewish in Saudi Arabia.

2a. Related to above, assume you will develop some kind of personal opinion on religion, ranging from firmly devout to firmly antitheistic. If that happens to more-or-less match the opinions of your immediate family, fine, or at least you’re likely to avoid a lot of hassle. Where is it safest to have a strong deviation from your family, i.e. if born into a family of American C&E Catholics, you could probably go either atheist or devout without too much trouble. You might be able to marry a nonCatholic without causing too much strife. In what places would it be safest to completely abandon the views of one’s parents, possibly replacing them with the views of another faith? I think it safe to recognize that there are places on Earth where this could be quite hazardous to one’s health.

  1. Will you be heterosexual?
  • most people will be. If you’re not, then I foresee at least the potential for a great deal of misery. Landing in a liberal democracy is probably your best hope, though even then, no guarantees.
  1. Will you be born into privilege, or at least economic stability?
  • I take for granted this is a major factor in the likelihood of one’s personal happiness and success. It’s easy to imagine being born as a Saudi Prince, or into a family of British aristocrats, but in what societies is it relatively safe to be born into poverty?

If you’re born a white Christian hetero male into a wealthy American or European family… the odds of you having a good life are pretty high, or at least you’re starting with the fewest possible disadvantages. If you’re born a Persian Muslim hetero male into a wealthy Iranian family… same deal.

But what if you’re not? In what societies is it safest to start with a less-than-optimal set of conditions? Where is it safest to be:

a) poor
b) atheistic
c) female (possibly lesbian)
d) a racial/ethnic minority
e) some combination of the above.

I admit personally judging societies based on how they treat less-than-optimal cases, because I could empathetically picture myself being one of those cases, and the various Muslim-majority nations look like risky places to have a less-than-optimal circumstance.

93

OK I apologise for that. Were you in the military? Because somehow you’ve managed to go to all the most unpleasant islamic countries and none of the decent ones. I can fully understand your viewpoint with that collection under your belt, but those countries are nothing at all like Morocco, Malaysia or Indonesia.

94

Islamic ‘democracies’ tend not to be all that democratic for 50% of the population, namely, women. Religion and politics should not mix. It’s a recipe for disaster. In my opinion ‘[Any Religious] Democracy’ is an oxymoron!

95

If that’s a reference to vote, most countries in this list granted suffrage to women before Switzerland did. And if by “democratic” you mean “egalitarian”, nowadays dictionaries are available for free on the Web, please try using one.

96

The recent honour killing of the Pakistani blogger Qandeel Baloch compelled me to do a little digging. And I admit, what I have found is mostly from news articles. It may not be the most accurate info.

Her brother admitted to killing her. As reported by The Guardian, he was arrested and faces the death penalty. Not surprising, about what would happen in the US, for example:

That last sentence came as a surprise. Apparently, those who commit honor killings can be set free if the family of the victim declines to press charges - in this case, the father of both parties.

Apparently, just posting “shameful” pictures on the internet is sufficient grounds to justify a murder that could result in no consequences for the murderer. And apparently, this is not an isolated incident:

In the US, we are told that ISIS represents “radical” Islam, that “traditional” Islam is nothing like that. I think that’s why things like these seemingly common honor killings in a traditional Islamic state are a bit disconcerting to some conservative Americans.

Forgive me if anything in my sources is incorrect, that’s why I’m open to correction here.

97

Perhaps you can start your understanding with that the Muslims are not one huge hive mind.

The cultural habits in the IndoAfPak area are the cultural habits of that region (or the honor killings of say christian arabs, of african christians [witch burnings] etc). Some how the americans only notice muslims and ignore non muslim honor killings (or gender violance) in this region and extrapolate out to all muslims - ignoring the hundreds of millions of others where this is absent.

There is nothing in the religion that justifies these practices, but of course as in all such things, the people are able to invent their cusotmary explanaitons or create pseudo hadith to support.

The problem you have is you mix completely different ideas: (1) what is the normative islam, that is the traditional mainstream theology, (2) the traditional and the neo-traditional customary practices of the specific regions or sub cultures, and (3) the new takfiri theology of the terrorist organizations like the DAESH or al Qaida. It is like commenting on all the Chrisitanity based on the practices of the snake handling people in the americas or the witch burners in the Kenya, etc.

Your gross ignorance is noted.

The prejudice as Nava also remembers is that people wrote in both her and my living memory about the fundamental incapacity of the latin catholics (like the Latin americans) to achieve democracy.

The same bad history, the same bad logic, the same rhetoric as you have trotted out for the muslims was applied - it reflects the error of taking the historical moment and making stupid conclusions from it in ignorance.

YEs, indeed since those decades the Latin catholics have shown what stupid ill informed bigotted prejudice was behind the white Protestant supramacist views that were (are in a barely transformed way) so prevalent in the certain quarters.

This makes me laugh in disgust.

A royal dictatorship with only a bare façade of democratic participation, with an economy subsidized by the Americans by USD 1 Billion per year for a population of 6.5 millions is your example of a democratic hope.

So the trained circus monkey slave that hops to its master’s tunes is the vision of democracy.

Any number of muslims countries are genuine examples, from the regional examples of the Morocco or the Tunisia to the Africans like the Senegal to the Asians like the Indonesia. Where the Turkey goes we shall see. The imperfections and the challenges of the current moment are stupid as bases for conclusions as the history of the Latin America and even the continental Europe shows if one knows the actual history.

98

That’s why I was addressing a poster from Pakistan about the practices in Pakistan. I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that Pakistan is a traditional, mainstream Muslim state. Gaining an understanding of this one culture is my current goal, not witch burning snake worshipers at this particular time.

99

If the human rights, civil rights, political rights, etc are the same in both situations I prefer the secular dictatorship.

However, a secular dictatorship in an Islamic nation could result in all the anger over the regime being directed into religion, which means the secular dictatorship could be overthrown and replaced by a religious dictatorship (like Iran).

100

You mean there aren’t nascent democracies in Central and South America?

I remember the stereotypes too, but… so? It wasn’t an opinion I held or expressed.

I suspect you are possibly so reflexively sensitive on this issue, that you’re not reading what I’ve written, or more accurately, you’re jumping to unsupported conclusions. I’m willing to cheerfully recognize that at least one nation with a majority Muslim population has formed a (young) democracy - Albania. I genuinely hope for them, though, that at no point do they try to make Islam the country’s official religion, nor that they try to govern along Islamic lines. Among nations where Islam is the state religion and laws are written with scripture in mind… I have my doubts about stable democracies, or at least ones with a standard of civil rights I’d find comfortable. Is it legal in any of these nations to commit blasphemy? To be an apostate? Sounds pretty problematic to me - being subject to punishment for not believing what the majority believes.

Well, anything for a laugh, of course, but as I said, Jordan does seem to be doing fairly well, better than most of its neighbors, as I said, though this isn’t exactly high praise when the neighborhood includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria.

And, sure, it gets significant economic support from the Americans, which recently has become more important in light of the influx of Syrian refugees. With any luck, that situation will resolve (though I couldn’t offhand speculate how) and regional stability will improve.

And I look forward to all of them improving their economic lot and the lives and freedoms of their citizens, though I maintain this is best done by reducing the influence religion has on civil government.

Well, one you tire of dishing out scorn, feel free to enlighten us on the lessons of “actual history.”