Why most of Muslim majority countries don't have democracy?
“Islam” means obey. It is an inherently a monotheistic monoculture - the most extreme form of theocracy - that is antithetical to the kind of opposition one finds in a democratic society.A functioning democracy is predicated on the ability to reach consensus between opposing parties. So the higher the percentage of Muslims, the more likely a country is to be ruled by a monarch, dictatorship or other quasi-democratic authoritarian system that is often allied with Islam with laws based on or derived from Sharia - not democratic principles or secular laws.Even in some democratic countries with minority Muslim populations such as Thailand and Ethiopia, the majority of Muslims want Sharia to be the law of the land, ie. they aspire to being a Muslim theocracy.In majority Muslim democracies, the political divide is often on how Muslim the country should be - Egypt and Turkey for example - with the alternatives typically being “a lot” vs “a lot more” - which makes them theocratically authoritarian or oligarchic, not true democracies, which are by definition, are prima facie non-theocratic, non-sectarian.The irreconcilable differences between theocracy and democracy is not a unique phenomena to Islam. The original monotheistic theocracy, Judaism, is already showing signs of reverting to a de facto theocracy in Israel - via Jewish “sharia.” Likewise, certain American politicians pander to theocratic voters - to the very peril of democratic ideals. The American Constitution was written by deists of the Enlightenment to create a rigorously anti-clerical form of government.
Mention any four limitations of drawbacks of democracy.?
The people may not always have enough information to make a proper choice. A minority can be discriminated against just because they don't have enough voting power. Views are typically so diversified that democratic politics either becomes fragmented among many small time political parties leaving no clear ruler, or skewed to only a few very large parties that hold a lot of power but only offer vague and unclear platforms and ideologies.
Do you really belive in "exporting democracy"?
to pachl@sbcglobal.net = you seem to have a liberal approach to international relationship...and that's fine..but i'm not arguing with that. In theory..i do hope too that other countries will reach democracy system(because i think is the better system we know till now)..and i too belive that war between democratic countries is less common thanks to democracy...i know that because is the results of the observations and studies of history of international relationships...but..waht i'm arguing is the etnocentric point of view from which the problem is seen...(and u seem to have it too)which is misleading and intellectually wrong. We behave as our society and system is "right" and the other people are asking us to "save them"...(slave did ask to be free and we did't force them to be free we just satisfy their instances)which is deeply wrong and completly not true. But american institution use this false ideology to justify their aggressive foreign politic which is not expoting democracy
Honestly, can the US " create democracy " in Iraq?
No. This whole "democratic" Iraq issue is an exercise in futility. You are absolutely correct about how true democracy must be homegrown and spring up from within a nation and the hearts of its people. It cannot be imposed upon them from outside. They will resist, at all costs, they will resist. You would have thought we'd have learned our lessons in Vietnam. Ho Chi Min originally wanted to make Vietnam a western-style democracy, basing its constitution on our own. He spent several years in the late 1950s in Paris trying to get western governments (including the US) to support him in this quest. He was rebuffed and ignored. All he (and most Vietnamese) wanted was to throw off the chains of colonial rule (French, at the time) and be a free and independent nation. When the West balked, he turned to the East and ultimately embraced communism, alas. The Viet Cong sent the French packing and you-know-who stepped into the breach. You also know the rest of that sad story... Well, the circumstances are somewhat different (no threat of communism in Iraq, but plenty of even worse threats) but the end result will be the same. We will ultimately bring our soldiers home (and God knows they deserve to come home from that living hell) and Iraq, like Vietnam before it, will be left in utter chaos. Had we supported the uprisings against Saddam Hussein, which occurred naturally, even spontaneously, after the first Gulf War, NONE of this would be happening now. That swine would have been deposed and a representative government would have taken power (the Iraqis, particularly the Kurds, are an intelligent and capable people). It may not have been exactly what the US wanted, and oil contracts might not have been quite as sweet for Exxon-Mobil and the rest, but this insane nightmare of an endless bloodbath would not be continuing as it is now. I'll stop now. Except to say that I really do hate bush and his arrogant advisers for dragging us into this no-win situation. *sigh* No wonder everyone hates us so much....
Why are countries that are primarily black so chaotic, violent and corrupt?
Please don't take this to be racist question. (If it was, I wouldn't ask it as the answer would be obvious!) But it seems like while non blacks have always been able to organize, together, to form functional governments, infrastructure and society (even if it means totalitarian or evil societies, but organized nonetheless), black counties (primarily Africa, of course) are in perpetual disarray, chaos, warlordship, poverty, with no semblance of functionality. What account for this? Did the African continent just get a late start in the modern world and will catch up? Or is there some other sociological reason?