[rusculture]

QUOTE=warea;811094]There could be other reasons against democracy, but this one is simply flawed.

Indeed, seeking power is a lack of humblesness and lack of humility. This is something thats generally understood ethical consideration. Yet if your going to extend this argument to say that somone cannot take part it politics, then by such standards its impossible for humans to even form a civilization. Every job is a "seeking of power" in one way or the other. Politics is similarly a job in service of the people. If the intention of the politician is to serve the community and not merely seeking power, then politics is just like any other job and people have right to be part of politics just as the people have right be seek the ppower of a doctor or engineer or scholar or anything else. To be a doctor or engineer one is trained and they pass exams then they are selected by their peers who asses their competency, and if they are incompetent this becomes manifest very quickly and they are sacked. Politicians can hide their incompetences and hide their performance, they are not directly accountable to anyone.

Secondly, 90% of the leaders iin Islamic history would be one who ssought for power. Do we say all of them are haram prohibited governments? What level of prohibition is this hadith about? Is it a personal prohibition like prohibition of having pride? Or is this one that requires public law controlling it ? Where do you get the 90% from?

Thirdly, how exactly is one man autocratic government free of being subject to this hadith ? How do you say that the autocrat cannot be someome who was seeking for power? How could it be possible that a revolutionery movement wanting to impose a autocratic governement would be free of power seeking, when such revolutions by nature has to have a goal to seek power Two points...

1) You like most moderns have somehow been educated to believe without any criticism the basic assumption that one man leadership or hereditary leadership is bad and democracy is is good. A democracy, any democracy today (except maybe Iceland after 2008) is ruled by a hidden elite, they own the politicians and they govern the economy...the whole idea that politicians rule is patently false....you just need to study it dispassionately. So democracy is actually rule by a oligarchy and mass elections allow this oligarchy to gain easy control.

2) One man rule needs to be put into context, we are not talking about a nation-state system created by colonial powers which then has a dictator installed....this is totalitarian government. We are talking about one man rule emerging organically within a context of no underlying bureaucracy and control, instead the one man leader is not only a servant of the people, responsible to God, but he is also dependent on his people for his power. He knows that if he commits injustice he will lose his kingdom. His people will love him if he is just and wise. This is too idealistic? fantasy? we need a separation of powers, and state system which prevents one man from coming to power and gaining total control? Well this has not been achieved in any democracy, all modern states are absolutist and give huge power to the government to control the masses in great detail...you cannot even get on a bus or a train without you showing your ID papers.

One man kingdoms that are organic train their people to rule from birth...if they are no good they are easily replaced by another more competent relative or sibling.

Democracies involve expensive and distracting elections every 4 years and the civil servants who govern in the background remain in power for decades regardless of which party rules....please open your eyes and look at what is going on in the democratic countries millions and trillions of dollars are being given from ordinary people to bankers...and tell me the bankers are not in charge.