SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (32045)10/12/2001 6:11:14 AM
From: thames_sider  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
Are there any modernized countries where Islam is the state's religion?

(warning to X... longish post <g>)

I was contemplating a similar question this morning - are there any western-style democracies among Islamic states? Do any of them respect individual liberty, freedom of choice and action and the fundamental right to hold ones own opinion as we do? Is the rule of law consistent, fair and not overly oppressive? Is the government working, by and large, toward the betterment of the lives of at least a mojority of its citizens - or, at least, could an objective observer conclude that it is trying to?

I had to conclude that none really fits. Turkey comes close - but Ataturk expressly chose secular rule and Western modes. Egypt? Perhaps. Bangladesh? IMO they try, but the country is so poor and disadvantaged they have little chance. Tunisia? Quite possibly - the fact that we hear so little about it (and they are a near neighbour) implies that they're stable and relatively untroubled...

OTOH, after a brief spasm of xenophobia I decided I hadn't exactly started with a fair set of questions.

Pretty well none of today's Islamic states existed prior to this century. They were parts of other empires - primarily Ottoman or West European. Most of them had not existed as countries as we now understand them for hundreds of years, if ever. The boundaries are arbitrary, and - as we see in Afghanistan - the state itself may have a fluid identity.

The post-colonial leaders were chosen where possible as pliant tools for the west, with some facade of local acceptability. Some, not all, have since been overthrown; and the strongest forces against them would inevitably be either military would-be dictators or zealots of some creed (be it pseudo-Marxism or a warped Islamic sect). Neither the original rulers nor their successors would be encouraged to create an educated middle class who would value democracy...

There's no tradition of free rule - the mindset has been despotism or autocracy since the falls of the Seleucid and Roman empires... and they weren't exactly ideal modern states.
So all the vast majority of people will ever have known is alien, impersonal and oppressive rule - this is all their inheritance, and possibly all their expectation - why else would so many be so eager to flee to the West, and why else so envious of its wealth and the smug-seeming comfort of its people?
- but meanwhile, at home, their leaders whom they have small choice but to obey blame all the modern ills on the era that ended two generations ago...

Not so very different from Africa, really. Except some countries are lucky enough to have oil, so the West pays attention to them. And Islam, classically, values education and hard work (as Judaism, or original Protestant Christianity, for example); so the some part of the culture at least encourages self-improvement by one's own labours.

But I don't think we can really expect these countries to reach modern western modes, not just yet. At least - if they wish to - they have an example, so could do it faster than we did.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext