[jakitula]

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.

Politicians are also learnt and trained or in the least have done grass root activism and service to the people and they usually rise from their ranks as such. Its not true that they hide their incompetence or so. And you cant generalize some instances, just as you cant generalize fake doctors or weak educational degrees and standards upon the whole profession of medicine.


Where do you get the 90% from? because competing for kingship is all too common in Islamic history.

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. False. My opinion on democratic system is from the notion that agreement of Muslims to carry out a task is better that one man opinion doing whatever he wants, unless the man is a mujtahid or someone having a status of being a senior wali of Allah by which his opinion are known to be based on sure guidance. And the agreement of Muslims in giving bayah to a leader is better than one man imposing his rule despite the opposition by the vast majority. Imagine you were living in a society where you had to by force give your consent to one particular religious scholar and his opinion, and compare it wit the fact that we give bayah and become part of a jamat based on whose scholarship and opinion we appreciate by our free choice. If this is how we are free in much more important issues of religious matters, then how could depriving this freedom in much more less important civil and non-religious matters somehow be "unsialmic" ?

The "hiiden elite" argument is just conspiracy theories and unnecessary generalizations.



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? No underlying control ? Do you realize that society's are vast more advanced and complex than simple tribal society's with a single tribal elder ?

The rest of what you said is just general comments neither exclusive to autocratic government, nor necessary a part of autocratic government. So no point made there.

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. Not really. False generalizations.

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. except that the replacement comes with bloodshed and after years of social repressions and destruction.

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. The 4 years can be expanded to 8 years or more, whatever is best for Muslim society. Or the election can instead be a mere form of checking whether the people are satisfactory with the government or not, rather than direct elections for replacement. So if a people continue to vote in favor of the government, then competitive elections are not held until such a time when the government looses favor by the determined rate. As i said elsewhere, the core of democracy is in people having a choice in whom their leader is and decisions and powers being shared among the collectivism of the leaders and society. The form and shape of democracy beyond that can be modified and improved based on further Islamic thoughts and do not requires some direct point by point copying of a western system. And i am, as said before, not in favor of any such blind copying of any western system in whole and instead demand a different route from them to keep up with the religious and culture principles of Islamic society at every level.