Go to ISLAMIST VIOLENCE
- Add a comment
- Go to THE POLITICS OF DEMOCRACY IN THE ARAB WORLD
just thought of another possibility...
...in response to argee's comments regarding democracy's "weakest link," what do people think about this: At least some aspects of religious interests, plowing through in the form of a popular democratic vote, seem to hinder monied interests (or is it survival interests, the currency of which is money?).
To wit: the fight for oil in the middle east.
Monied interests frequently go against ethical behavior, so some religious beliefs are good and act as a valve to balance this but can get too dogmatic and tyrannical when married to government.
posted by
BrWiSk
on October 23, 2003 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
and to DL...
...it's interesting that you brought up obsessions about good vs. evil. I wrote about this about a week ago in a post titled "Lies, honestly speaking" at my blog "The Pondering Sage."
It seems that all this good vs. evil stuff does nothing but create scapegoats for problems that arise from institutional failings of the poltical, social, or religious kind. In other words, yes, we know evil when we see it, but that knowledge does not necessarily equip us to fix the problem or even to know where to look for answers or the problem's root.
posted by
BrWiSk
on October 23, 2003 at 12:54 PM
| link to this | reply
at the expense of sounding simplistic....
...I will simply say all organized religion is fascism, a way of thinking and being that is diametrically opposed to the concept of democracy. In fact, real democracy may not be possible precisely because what seems to be a "phenomenology of spirit," which Hegel speaks about -- and about which I am woefully ignorant, to be sure -- and that apparently can't help but manifest in the form of organized religious belief systems.
I realize that the aforementioned may flare sentiments surrounding recent "conversations" regarding various religious beliefs (and one in particular), but any such controversy simply further confirms many of the ideas I've broached at my two blogs here.
Also, the idea that religion is fascism in no way negates the validity of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or the myriad other beliefs that exist; it simply shows that the organized activism or institutionalization thereof may very well be anathema to harmonious living on a populous planet.
posted by
BrWiSk
on October 23, 2003 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply
You and I always seem to see the same thing very differently, DL...
Perhaps this is why the world is interesting. From my point of view, Washington is not being taken over by right-wing religious interests. It is just currently occupied by people (some of them, anyway) who happen to follow certain religious beliefs. I know some of these people personally, and know them to be honorable people who would NEVER put their religious beliefs before the interests of the country. On the other hand, because their religious beliefs suffuse every thing they do, it is natural for some of their actions to take on a religious sheen.
I see this in sharp contrast to Islamist fundamentalists, who are faith-bound to inculcate Islam (their version, of course) into every facet of government. For them, Islam and government are inseparable.
posted by
arGee
on October 22, 2003 at 7:24 AM
| link to this | reply
OK, Leaving...
...the dictatorship issue to one side, how do your concerns about a religious element dominating politics elsewhere in the world square with the fundamentalist Christian agenda that is clearly taking over in Washington right now? Not to mention in Iraq with General Bunion (sp?) spouting off about fights between good and evil, and Muslims being idol-worshippers?
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 22, 2003 at 7:15 AM
| link to this | reply
DL--You just put your finger on Democracy's "weak link"
I've thought about this a lot--the idea that a popular religious element can dominate the politics of a democracy, because there is a danger of this happening anywhere that popular vote reigns supreme. I think our founding fathers had this in mind when they set up the College of Electors. If the constitution clearly prohibits this, AND if the country genuinely respects the rule of law, I think it can be avoided.
And, NO, I don't think America is even close to becoming a dicatorship. I see our country as the most free on the planet. I already understand that you don't agree, and I don't wish to get into a discussion about this. Let's just agree to disagree on this.
posted by
arGee
on October 22, 2003 at 6:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Voice...
I think I indicated that these three were effectively run by "Strong men." In any case, I agree that they are not "democracies" in any way we would normally recognize them.
posted by
arGee
on October 22, 2003 at 6:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Couple of...
...points, argee.
"Interestingly, of those few nations that have adopted the American model, most have evolved into a dictatorship of one kind or another." And you see no evidence of this happening to America? At ALL??
Also, have you thought about this? In 'giving' the Iraqi people the power of democratic self-rule, then presumably this means fair and open elections without any interference or force being exercised, right? So what happens if those fair and open conditions are achieved, and the people vote for an Islamic, or even a fundamentalist Islamic, party / leader?
Just wondering.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 22, 2003 at 3:20 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree with a lot of this, Argee,
Except for the part about Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan having any claim to being parliamentary democracies. Turkey is fact (if not in word) ruled by the military; Pakistan's president got into office via a coup, and Egypt is virtually a one-party state.
posted by
Shockvalue
on October 22, 2003 at 3:01 AM
| link to this | reply