In modern times, the concept of democracy has always been associated with post-renaissance Western civilisation. Although a particular type of system of governance, which we now call direct democracyexisted in ancient Roman cities, they were undemocratic in many respect. It excluded women and slaves from the decision-making process and most importantly, its feasibility in the 21st century nation states cannot even be considered. Nonetheless, such vibrant and concensus-based decision-making systems can possibly be implemented in village-level politics, where regional population is relatively small.
To consider the very first sentence of this entry, it should be stressed that Western democratic values (e.g. equality, freedom of speech, human rights etc) are not universal. When the West was in darkness, the Islamic Civilisation flourished to such an extent that Muslim scholars dominated numerous academic and practical fields such as physcis, chemistry, biology, theology ethics, philosophy, technology, law, medicine, arts, literature, astronomy, market economy etc. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_golden_age
Count Leon Ostorog, a French jurist, wrote the following on classical Islamic law in 1927:
"Those Eastern thinkers of the ninth century laid down, on the basis of their theology, the principle of the Rights of Man, in those very terms, comprehending the rights of individual liberty, and of inviolability of person and property; described the supreme power in Islam, or Califate, as based on a contract, implying conditions of capacity and performance, and subject to cancellation if the conditions under the contract were not fulfilled; elaborated a Law of War of which the humane, chivalrous prescriptions would have put to the blush certain belligerents in the Great War; expounded a doctrine of toleration of non-Moslem creeds so liberal that our West had to wait a thousand years before seeing equivalent principles adopted."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
As we can see, democratic values are not exclusively Western.
This, however, is not an attempt to reclaim old glories of Islam. Any student or academic of historical studies should know that the contribution of Islam to medieval and modern civilisation cannot be explained in one blog entry. Similarly, Western civilisation deserves full credit for taking innovation and technological advancements to the next level.
What I wanted to discuss here, is that it is quite apparent that a democratic system organised around western values is simply one feature or face of democracy. A concept of democracy simply cannot be narrowed or reduced to that extent. That is why, distinguished professor Ali Khan's A Theory of Universal Democracy is an extremely important academic text. Professor Khan argues that democracy can exist within non-Western cultural frameworks. In fact, non-Western countries can democratise their constitutions without imposing Western values over their citizens.
Date Posted: May 19, 2008 at 06:31 am
by D Sretenovic
Quote:
Although a particular type of system of governance, which we now call direct democracyexisted in ancient Roman cities, they were undemocratic in many respect.
I think you should have mentioned Athens, the Ancient Greek polis, as birth place of democracy, not the ``Ancient Roman cities``. I don`t think Rome was ever close to democracy, as their most powerful figures through all of its history were Senate and/or absolutist rulers, depending on circumstances. Neither of those was a democratic body, as they weren`t elected for their positions. Athens, on the other hand, was as close to democracy as it could be in those times. Their main political body was Agora, the parliament, but women and slaves weren`t involved in it`s work.
The world has a lot to thank Arabic countries, everything you`ve written is, by my knowledge, very true. Muslim world made an astonishing progress in all of the disciplines of human act, and the Europe, not just the West, had great use of it. We can also thank the Arabs for having saved the works of great Greek philosophers, like Aristotle. In the time, they were copying those literature works, in the West they would probably use it after the toilet...
But, my question is: How did such a civilization, progressive in most positive way, and advanced comparing to much of the rest of the world, back then, could fall so primitive in some aspects of today`s life? Rights of women, for example. In the state of Mohamed, women were treated very well, especially when you take a look of how Western Europeans treated theirs. Today`s situation is much more different, as Muslim women`s rights are narrowed. In most of the Europe being a woman or a man, doesn`t change someone`s life and business position much, although it still isn`t same, but in the Muslim world man-woman equivalence is unthinkable.
Quoted by: Ibn_Sina The great thing about democracy is that it can correct itself. It is not a rigid system like authoritarianism. It's Western democracy that I have a problem with. US leaders (e.g. Bush) want to impose Western democracy and completely ignore traditions of the native country.
That doesn't have to do with Western Democracy, it has to do with old Western mind-set. And certain leaders. Such as the promotion of Capitialism to China. I believe this has backfire against us.
The great thing about democracy is that it can correct itself. It is not a rigid system like authoritarianism. It's Western democracy that I have a problem with. US leaders (e.g. Bush) want to impose Western democracy and completely ignore traditions of the native country.
I believe some form of Democracy is best for most societies. However it should not be forces upon a society as supreme. Some countries are simply not ready for it. However, the only real way to change your country without democracy is armed revolutions. All sides lose a great deal if it comes to that.
I am not sure where you are going with the Islamic gloden area. I don't think their success in all those areas had to do with their lack of democracy, I think there were other areas that influenced it more. In a simillar sense I don't think the USSR could have been saved if they embraced democracy. It is good leaders that makes Democracy work and its Democracy that allows us to replace the bad ones (in theory at least). No democractic country's system is prefect, including the US. But I cherish the fact when a bad leader, such as Bush or in your case Ahmadinejad (although you have no right to vote out the real person person in charge - the Ayatollah), is in charge we can eventually vote him out over an armed struggle!
