Democracy versus stability and continuity

[Toramana]

Although, democracy is the final goal and a higher state of development, lately I have come to the conclusions that violent overthrow of the existing order may be a recipe for disaster. In my opinion a mix of democracy and authoritarian system (lead by people selected on meritocracy) with the aim to improve the lives of the people, radically reform societies, and gain economic prosperity and a level of social-cultural development will be something that will fit our circumstances.

The movements lead by Islamists and religious extremists are extremely dangerous and highly disruptive of whatever is achieved by a society. It rollbacks everything and put society on the path of stagnation and isolation.

Here I will give one example.

When the Central Asian states were liberated in 1990, there arose militant religious movements, e.g., in Tajakistan. At that time some strong leaders came forward and blocked and neutralized it. Imagine if the Islamist had succeeded what would have happened.

I don't think Kazakistan would have survived in the present form and the things that are now would not have been achieved. There would have resulted a destructive and bloody civil war that would have destroyed the existing infrastructure of development.

What do members say about it?

[DaZahroJaam.]

In order for a democratic state to work, our people have to be capable and self sufficient. A state run by idiots whether under a democracy or authoritarian law will give you similar disasterois results.
We have very divided sets of beliefs amongst our people when it comes to what they want in the future for the country..Someone needs a method of some sort to pull them all together with a set of joined goals and interests that they will all benefit from.
At the moment, the exact opposite is happening. So much focus on differences that are setting people apart from each other. This mess will continue for another hundred or two years unless afghans change their mindsets about each other..

[Shapur]

Pashtuns already have a democratic system called Jirga, it suits the needs of pashtun society better than western style parlimentary democracy. Each area chooses their representative through mediation amongst themselves who represents their interests in the parliment. Pashtuns never accept dictatorship and will not listen to a leader no matter how strong he is unless they want. As ghani khan says, pashtuns don't like it when you preach to them in a serious manner but they will listen to you if you don't take yourself too seriously. Thats why Mullahs are never taken much seriously and their threats of hell are usually ignored, pashtuns do what they want to do and fear doesn't work against Pashtuns.

Dictators like Mubarak, Mullah Omar, Islam Karimov, Saddam hossein can never rule pashtuns, pashtuns are too independent to bow down to any central authority.

I for one want Pashtuns to stay that way and cherish their freedom even if it comes at the cost of slow material progress. Our pashtuns values of freedom and self rule are more important than material progress.