Arab-Islamic Middle East and Democracy are Totally Incompatible
For all of the following reasons: Political, social, cultural, and regime-performance, Arab-Islamic Middle East and democracy are totally incompatible. It took Europe 500 years to become liberal and democratic, and it will take much longer for the Middle East. Democracy will not bring peace, and peace will not enhance democracy.
There are three kinds of distinctive political regimes: The totalitarian; the authoritarian; and democracy. Although there are many kinds of democracy, it is distinctively different from authoritarian and totalitarian. Democracy is characterized by the following dimensions: a) Individual freedoms and civil liberties; b) The rule of the law is above all; c) Sovereignty and citizenship empowered by the people; d) The absolute equality of all citizens before the law; e) Vertical and horizontal accountability of ruling system; f) Responsiveness, eligibility, and transparency of ruling systems; g) Mobility, political participation, and equality of opportunity.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
One thing is sure and that is that Israel is no kind of democracy as it is an Apartheid State that likes to call itself the "Jewish State".
Why can't Germany have an "Aryan State" and tread on all the rights of the Turkish immigrants and steal their land.
How about America becoming a racist "White Christian State".
Lebanon is a democracy but has to put up with continual US and Israeli interference and as pointed out above Iran used to be a secular democracy and still is a democracy when compared to the racist and fascist Israel.
The main tenet of the religion is obedience. This is regardless of whether you do not believe in some of its tenets. Conversion to Islam is for life. Leaving Islam earns you a death sentence. It is all so rigid that democracy is impossible.
I didn't expect any other answer from Dr. Bukay. His writings are nothing but anti-Arab propaganda that has nothing to do with scholarship, so it comes as no surprise that he provided no solid arguments for his assertion. He lacks real knowledge of what he calls "The Middle Eastern Arab-Islamic culture" and has nothing to say on the subject, and that's the reason why, instead of explaining his point, he started enumerating the constituents of democracy - implying that those constituents are unknown to the Middle East.
Knowing Dr. Bukay's views on the Arabs and Islam, I didn't expect any other answer from Dr.Bukay, so it's not surprising that he gave no reason for his claim. His writings are nothing but anti-Arab propaganda and not scholarship. I have an impression that he has nothing to say on the subject and that's why, instead of explaining his opinion, he started enumerating the constituents of democracy - of course, implying that those constituents absolutely unknown to the Middle East.
Democracy isn't possible at all in countries that follow Mohammed. I think the Dr. makes a logical point which even the most rudimentary historian would have to admit. History shows that Islam demands Oligarchy and empire building. The actions of musselmen throughout history show that they conquer and enslave all those who will not fight against them, and that any quarter they receive will be used against him that was foolish enough to grant it. Mohammed himself was a ruthless bandit who fashioned his god into a likeness of himself, and in return, this new god allah justified every heathen impulse of Mohammed. Mohammed took what he could by force, and cursed anyone who denied him his fleshly desires. Is it any wonder that Musselman heaven has so much to do with unnatural sex when mohammed himself was an honorless pedophile?
The enemy of civilization is not a religion of peace, but a justification of all the most abhorrent animal impulses of one man, Mohammed. Like any other disease, it eats and eats and kills and kills until all the good is gone, then moves on to ruin his neighbor.
No, democracy isn't possible until a society has purged muhammed and his teachings from the public square.
Not just Islamic theocracy. A Christian theocracy here in the United States is just as incompatible with democracy as an Islamic one.
That doesn't mean the vast majority of Middle Easterners can't be Islamic and the country be democratic. However, forcing out the existing theocracy will not bring democracy to the Middle East. Taking power away from the people and setting up a puppet government is not democracy.
Christian democratic theocracies existed and did well for quite a while in Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were both democratic and a theocracy: To vote you had to be a member of the church, and apostasy and heresy could get you kicked out.
The problem with Islam is that it denies the possibility of separating church and state. A "good" Islamic government must be a theocracy, and this causes problems.
You kind of point out the problem right there. Democratic theocracies? To vote you had to be a member of the Church?
I'm sorry, but basing votes on whether or not you're a member of their religion and do exactly like everyone else hardly sounds like a democracy. And whether or not you'd care to admit it, the words of "holy men" did and will have more weight
You provide absolutely no logic or evidence for your claim that the "Arab-Islamic" Middle East is incompatible with democracy. Indeed, for a moment after decolonization there were stints of democracy, most of which were squandered by Cold War politics and US intervention (e.g. the British/US overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in Iran).