The Benefits of Parliamentary Election in Afghanistan

[شمله ور خراساني]

as salaamu aleikoum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

I made another thread like this where Abdul Haq replied. But I cant find it anymore. Maybe moderators have deleted it.

Anyway, I want to ask all secularists, nationalists, perverts, sufis and supporters of false idols and disbelievers in the hukm of allah a question.

Most of you who were excited and very positive about the elections in Afghanistan.

How come you are all silent now?

Could you please name the benefits of the parliamentary elections please?

[شمله ور خراساني]

Equal rights, equal voicing on opinions, more effective government.

Why are those things considered as benefits? And have you seen thos benefits yet in Afghanistan? If not yet, do you think you will see any of that any time soon?

And explain why an election in a colonized country run by crusaders and warlords can provide equal rights.

And what is the merit of voicing opinions? Have you seen it being made possible in elections?

How is the government made more effective by an election where primarily illiterates participate choosing illiterate warlords, pimps, drug pushers and massa murders. While crusaders and their stooges bomb and pillage.

[Catya Sher]

Good topic to make people THINK instead of exhibit the usual automaton-like replies.
Which show no individual brainpower but reciting what the Western media says.

I like original thinking, such as is right above. While strongly worded, it brings out what needs to be looked under a microscope : the reality of the democratic system as being as useful and effective means for governing large groups of people as a house of cards....

Unpopular viewpoint? Yes.
Accurate? Personally, I see it this way.

Whenever humans try to monkey with God's plans, the inevitable failures result.
These get hastily swept under the carpet by the barrage of so much information and trivia and movies and this and that, that few really notice how little gets accomplished by elections, not just Afghanistan's. Anywhere!

[pukhtana]

parliamentary system is advantageous in a sense that it is fast and convenient when it comes to decision making, more than one man's decision is not prone to subjection. It helps decide on a matter collectively and matters get rejected if it goes against the culture and norms of society.

[شمله ور خراساني]

parliamentary system is advantageous in a sense that it is fast and convenient when it comes to decision making, more than one man's decision is not prone to subjection. It helps decide on a matter collectively and matters get rejected if it goes against the culture and norms of society.

Actually, a parliamentary system is the slowest way of decision making.

The most efficient way of governance is a dictatorship. But the reason why people do not like dictatorships is because people fear they might loose their liberties and rights.

If you are going to defend something, make sure you know what you are talking about.

[pukhtana]

Actually, a parliamentary system is the slowest way of decision making.

Since it has such a large body, It might be slow, but its effective since its more minds involved. A effective system works for progression.

The most efficient way of governance is a dictatorship. But the reason why people do not like dictatorships is because people fear they might loose their liberties and rights.

That is exactly why that won't work. We need a secular society with a parliamentary system.

[شمله ور خراساني]

[Since it has such a large body, It might be slow, but its effective since its more minds involved. A effective system works for progression.

You are giving effective a new definition here. And because more minds are involved, a parliamentary system is slower and less efficient.

Please provide scholarly evidence for you claim. Mind you, I am a student of political science. You cant convince me with empty claims.

That is exactly why that won't work. We need a secular society with a parliamentary system.

This is just belief and personal preference. However, in the real world where thousands of political scientists, and jurists have debated governance for years, nobody has defended secularism and parliamentary systems because they are efficient. But other reasons.

[pukhtana]

You are giving effective a new definition here. And because more minds are involved, a parliamentary system is slower and less efficient.

Please provide scholarly evidence for you claim. Mind you, I am a student of political science. You cant convince me with empty claims.

Let's take a look at the worlds most advanced countries with high Human development index, do you mind telling us what kind of Governmental systems they have?

No. The problem is not the system of government that Afghanistan has, but the politicians who occupy positions in the government. It is because of all politicias lack of accountability for their actions. A parliamentary system, is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances compared to those found in a presidential system. The above is found here.

Some believe that it's easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature.

last paragraph taken from here. http://dictionary.babylon.com/parliamentary%20system/

[شمله ور خراساني]

Let's take a look at the worlds most advanced countries with high Human development index, do you mind telling us what kind of Governmental systems they have?

Are you implying that rich countries have become rich because they have secularism and parliamentary elections?

Most of the rich countries today were rich before they became secular or democratic.

Study history.

No. The problem is not the system of government that Afghanistan has, but the politicians who occupy positions in the government. It is because of all politicias lack of accountability for their actions. A parliamentary system, is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances compared to those found in a presidential system.

Some believe that it's easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature.

How is any of that relevant to the question I posed you?

Do you even know what you just said?


And have some shame! Where is your dignity? You just copied that from another website:

Parliamentary system definition by Babylon's free dictionary

[pukhtana]

Are you implying that rich countries have become rich because they have secularism and parliamentary elections?

Most of the rich countries today were rich before they became secular or democratic.

Study history.

That is not true. Provide proof for that. Your telling me the USA was rich they minute it was founded? You have to try harder than that. By the way, which Govt do you prefer? Vis a vis Parliamentary. Before you tell me to study history you should refute what I said. Just because a Govt has corrupt politicians does not put parliamentary system at fault. Look at England, its more advanced than any Islamic country you can name of, It has a parliamentary system.

Parliamentary system definition by Babylon's free dictionary

If you wouldnt have been quoting me so quickly, you would see that I was still editing my post. Take it easy, knowledge is power. Don't be so aggressive with your interlocutor.

[شمله ور خراساني]

That is not true. Provide proof for that.

Ever heard of British Empire?

Your telling me the USA was rich they minute it was founded?

Yes. USA was one of the richest parts of the world. But once they had a centralized independent government, they succeeded in exploiting their wealth more wisely.

You have to try harder than that.

I dont have to. You should stop deliberately derailing this thread where I want to discuss the benefits of parliamentary elections in Afghanistan. You are trying to derail it so that you can show your googling skills.

By the way, which Govt do you prefer? Vis a vis Parliamentary.

I am against the contemrorary models of parliamentary elections. But I wont discuss this in this thread. I will do that in another thread. Because I dont want to go off topic. This is already the second thread I make to ask supporters of parliamentary election in Afghanistan to name a few benefits.

Before you tell me to study history you should refute what I said.

I dont need to. You have refuted yourself.

Just because a Govt has corrupt politicians does not put parliamentary system at fault.

Nobody is implying this.

Look at England, its more advanced than any Islamic country you can name of, It has a parliamentary system.

For kaafirs, yes Britain is advanced. For muslims Britain is advanced in taking its people to hell fire.

Unlike non-Muslims, muslims are not suppose to judge matters solely on their worldly gains.

If you wouldnt have been quoting me so quickly, you would see that I was still editing my post. Take it easy, knowledge is power. Don't be so aggressive with your interlocutor.

Nobody is holding a gun against your head forcing you to press the "submit reply" button.

Dont make excuses.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Because we love equality. Having equal rights is considered a benefit. Because by not having rights, you consider it a con.

How is an election held where only those who support foreign occupation or either linked to a movement of warlords allowed to participate promoting equality?

And how is equality obtained in a country which is occupied by foreign forces and people are killed, tortured and expelled from their homes? What did the parliament achieve in the laast 5 years?


Please refrain from proping wishful thinking as " possible benefits". We are talking real benefits. Not what you wish for and what you desire.

I don't see them yet.

If you dont see any, why would anyone else see them or believe in them?

It has to do with the excessive corruption.

How is it possible to have an election when there is excessive corruption?

What good is the excerise of voting for when you already know that there is corruption of such high proportion that an honest election would be impossible?

I do have faith that I will see them soon, we need intelligent people to return.

Your "faith" in something is not answering my question. Because I did not ask you about your "faith". Some people have "faith" in becoming the worlds most beautiful woman while being a 40 year old fat hairy turkish kebab salesman. You get my point?

We need to kick out the warlords from our parliament.

And how is an election in a corrupt Afghanistan going to achieve this?

It might not give us equal rights immediately but it shows us we are on the right path.

On the right path to what? More deception and more corruption?

Is that it? I thought you will mention more "merits" and "benefits". Especially because you have multiple masters degree and all.

[Catya Sher]

I'm still laughing....

This is not a directly applicable comment, I realize. But the obvious thought occurred to me this morning that whatever the world is told about who finances the much-trumpeted Afghan elections, in reality, it's the US in some form who bankrolled all phases of them. Advertising bills are always high. Here the publicity is probably as expensive or more expensive than the actual polling process.

This is a surmise of mine ONLY. Facts and statistics are quite scarce to find in this situation.

My argument is that if all that foreign money had been simply divided by the number of Afghan citizens, each family could have been outright given $2,000 I bet.

THAT would make a difference!

Not the charade of "elections". They are simply a slightly more sophisticated-sounding variety of entertainment.

They give Western observers and common citizens from the South Asian region a topic about which to chatter away about over diplomatic dinner parties: "Did you HEAR there is a witch / weightlifter / kite flier / French chef running for office in such and such district of Afghanistan?" It gives the local and regional and international journalists something to write about which will gain everyone's respect. ELECTIONS, WOW!

I say with a roll of the eyes: elections, WOE!