Rowdyism at Afghan-Millat party meeting

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

^^He is kind of saying the same thing as mostafa that democracy is secularism which is not true. Pashtun tribes practice democracy, the girga system is democratic.

mostafa is right. the modern comprehensive definition of democracy consists of several aspects. one of its major aspects is secularism.

Go and open an introductionary textbook in political science and learn.

[khushal]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/

1. Democracy Defined

To fix ideas, the term “democracy,” as I will use it in this article, refers very generally to a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which I mean decisions that are made for groups and that are binding on all the members of the group. Second, this definition means to cover a lot of different kinds of groups that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight to it. It is quite compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to an assembly where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct participation of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.
The function of normative democratic theory is not to settle questions of definition but to determine which, if any, of the forms democracy may take are morally desirable and when and how. For instance, Joseph Schumpeter argues (1956, chap. XXI), with some force, that only a highly formal kind of democracy in which citizens vote in an electoral process for the purpose of selecting competing elites is highly desirable while a conception of democracy that draws on a more ambitious conception of equality is dangerous. On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762, Book II, chap. 1) is apt to argue that the formal variety of democracy is akin to slavery while only robustly egalitarian democracies have political legitimacy. Others have argued that democracy is not desirable at all. To evaluate their arguments we must decide on the merits of the different principles and conceptions of humanity and society from which they proceed.

Where does it say its secularism or anything of the sort?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

as I will use it in this article

its merely a definition used by the author of the piece in order to explain what he intends.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

^^He is kind of saying the same thing as mostafa that democracy is secularism which is not true. Pashtun tribes practice democracy, the girga system is democratic.

@ Khushal

the Jirga system is secular and doesn't have a religious motive behind it. So this wouldn't prove your claim

@ Shamlawar, the Modern COMPREHENSIVE definition, by who?!?!?!?!

You're confusing what people WANT Democracy to be; and in this case Mostafa wants it to be a open, plural and just society with liberty for and equality for everyone

with what the word Democracy states; This is why many Political Philosophers shunned democracy because they know that it doesn't necessarily turn out as pretty and fair as Mostafa or similar people would like it to be

WITH THAT Said; you have a GREATER LIKELIHOOD of a fair society WITH democracy than without it ...but not necessarily.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Democracy as I have learned can be descriptive, prescriptive or normative.

The modern generally accepted definition tends to be more or less prescriptive and normative.

You are merely limiting it to a strict definition which is correct but limited in its scope.

We cannot ignore the reality of what democracy means to people today. Democracy as we know it since the time of ancient Greek doesnt really exist. Neither do people want a democracy as such when they talk about it.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I nwouldn't say I limit it in scope

Most of what we call the Democratic World is not following true Democracy; They follow Republicanism.

They do this because of the potential for mob rule; So they use certain checks and balances to make sure it doesn't happen.

This is more of a balance between Democracy and Socialism.

[MostafaM]

This is theory is on paper mostafa. That is why they allowed democracy to take hold in Egypt because they believed this would be the outcome. But as you can see what they did in Egypt, they realized its not practical. A democratic country does not have to be secular since its the will of the majority that rules.

The will of the majority rules on day-to-day politics, laws etc.
But a democracy is a man-made system itself so how can it not be secular if any god given system is per se and per jure not man made?

A democratic state is accomplished when people come together and set rules for social and political life. They agree on a framework that must be pluralistic and secular because those people aren´t 100% alike aka not robots.

[MostafaM]

That's an idealization, democracy simply means "power of the people" In theory; it is possible for people to democratically want a Theocratic government and be antiplural.

Implies.....no there is no implication of that. Do not confuse the fact that most promiinent democracies are secular and plural to mean that democracy means secular and plural, because it does not.

If a sociaty consists of robots who all think, feel and act the same way, then such a democracy you are talking about is possible.
But we know that not even two people can be found on this planet who share the same values 100%.

This definitly implies pluralism if for example 1000 people in a model sociaty come together and build up a state:
if they aren´t robots modelled by the same engineer, then they will have different opinions on different subjects, which means that pluralism must be implemented as a functioning framework for that democratic system to function.

And a "theocratic government" must act on the guidelines of "God´s Law".
How can a man-made guideline like democracy be theocratic?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Mostafa, even in societies where people don't think "exactly" alike they generally hold to certain precepts which is what unites and governs them

for you it is Pashtunwali; and it is that premise which would alienate people who think Pashtunwali is absurd and ridiculous if there was a democratic election in its favor.

The reason why countries like America, Canada and even Germany have socialist tendencies is to prevent exactly this from happening.

A Real democracy can either be a Utopia or a Fascist Nightmare