Rowdyism at Afghan-Millat party meeting

[randolph85]

This is understandable in the nascent democracy. Democracy is not just counting votes and quest for power but a way of life and a name of tolerance, human rights and mutual respect. Things will improve with time.

A decades old political party that doesn't know who its leader is isn't understandable at all...

[RevolutionThroughReason]

How old is Afghan Millat? If it is more than 20 years old. Then Badlun's remark has no justification. 20 years is a long time to develop a organized structure.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Afghan Millat is an off shoot of wikh zalmyan. Thats how old ot is.

[MostafaM]

Democracy or Pluralism is definitly a way of life, because....

....it rejects divine laws for earthly problems and says that human beings in a sociaty can solve their problems by consultation.

...it doesn´t reject dissent per se and allows participants of social and political life to keep their points of view but settle their problems by majority-minority procedures.

...it doesn´t distinguish between religion, ethnicitiy, social or political background but by logic.

Democracy implies pluralism.
And pluralism is definitly a way of life as ideas, ideologies and way of lifes who promote "one party states and sociaties" do.

[khushal]

Democracy and pluralism have two different definitions mostafa. one is a process and the other is a concept. neither are ways of life.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Democracy or Pluralism is definitly a way of life, because....

....it rejects divine laws for earthly problems and says that human beings in a sociaty can solve their problems by consultation.

...it doesn´t reject dissent per se and allows participants of social and political life to keep their points of view but settle their problems by majority-minority procedures.

...it doesn´t distinguish between religion, ethnicitiy, social or political background but by logic.

Democracy implies pluralism.
And pluralism is definitly a way of life as ideas, ideologies and way of lifes who promote "one party states and sociaties" do.

You're confusing democracy, scientific rationalism and secularism

A democratic country need not be secular, a secular country doesn't necessarily have to be democratic......scientific rationalism is just a way of addressing problems; it doesn't about ideologies or ways to govern.

[MostafaM]

Democracy and pluralism have two different definitions mostafa. one is a process and the other is a concept. neither are ways of life.

A democracy without pluralism doesn´t exist because there is no need to discuss, vote and come to a conclusion where the majority wins if dissent is ruled out from the beginning by abolishing it.

A democracy without pluralism is a contradiction in itself.

If people govern themselves then the elected body of representants will always represent different parts of sociaty and thus different views.
A democracy without pluralism existed in the form of the "Germen Democratic Republic" but that state was anything but democratic since it was a one party state.

[ComradePashtun]

I first came to know them and read their manifesto about 8 years ago probably or some time after 9/11, about the original party, and as I have come to know the contemporary members and more so about Ahadi it has been a big disappointment for me. Opportunists and corrupt.

[MostafaM]

You're confusing democracy, scientific rationalism and secularism

A democratic country need not be secular, a secular country doesn't necessarily have to be democratic......scientific rationalism is just a way of addressing problems; it doesn't about ideologies or ways to govern.

A democratic country will always be secular if it truly represents the people because there is no country or state where 100% of the people and iit´s representants in parliament share the same religion.
Democracy that implies pluralism and man-made laws to govern human beings cannot be religious.

There are alot of secular countries that aren´t democratic, thats right.

[khushal]

A democratic country will always be secular if it truly represents the people because there is no country or state where 100% of the people and iit´s representants in parliament share the same religion.
Democracy that implies pluralism and man-made laws to govern human beings cannot be religious.

There are alot of secular countries that aren´t democratic, thats right.

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.

[khushal]

A democracy without pluralism doesn´t exist because there is no need to discuss, vote and come to a conclusion where the majority wins if dissent is ruled out from the beginning by abolishing it.

A democracy without pluralism is a contradiction in itself.

If people govern themselves then the elected body of representants will always represent different parts of sociaty and thus different views.
A democracy without pluralism existed in the form of the "Germen Democratic Republic" but that state was anything but democratic since it was a one party state.

America at the beginning was a democratic republic without pluralism. The concept of pluralism came later through suffrage movements. democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights.

Many scholars including Jefferson was/are of the belief that a true democracy does not work.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

A democratic country will always be secular if it truly represents the people because there is no country or state where 100% of the people and iit´s representants in parliament share the same religion.
Democracy that implies pluralism and man-made laws to govern human beings cannot be religious.

There are alot of secular countries that aren´t democratic, thats right.

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.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

A democracy without pluralism doesn´t exist because there is no need to discuss, vote and come to a conclusion where the majority wins if dissent is ruled out from the beginning by abolishing it.

A democracy without pluralism is a contradiction in itself.

If people govern themselves then the elected body of representants will always represent different parts of sociaty and thus different views.
A democracy without pluralism existed in the form of the "Germen Democratic Republic" but that state was anything but democratic since it was a one party state.

But the point is; it CAN exist and there is nothing that would preclude its existence except the societal consciousness itself

There's nothing that intrinsically contradicts democracy without pluralism. The reason being is that the word Democracy does not include pluralism as apart of its definition.

Your argument here is circular at best; because you're assuming a state cannot be democratic if it has one party; this is merely saying a cloud is a cloud because it is a cloud.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The best concise explanation of Democracy in Pashto.

[khushal]

^^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.