In Iran, Khomeini not only applied force and aggression against his opponents but used force and aggression to implement his ill way of thinking. He imposed his thoughts on others and denounced complete obedience from the rest; whoever attempted to defy Khomeini was faced with exclusion from the party and ended up physically and spiritually dissolute. While the “group of leadership” has no security, freedom and democracy has no meaning, and while the leaders of Islam concede to bureaucracy within the system, who can deny it? It is true that some attempts were made to eliminate bureaucracy, but for the following reasons these proved fruitless: 1 It was not a coordinated effort, i.e., the public was not given the chance of participation in the campaign. 2 To eradicate bureaucracy, there should have necessarily been an improvement in democracy. This did not take hold. 3 Bureaucratic measures were applied for the elimination of bureaucracy itself. 4 After all the effort, the outcome was such that only the ruling class gained more relative security. To start off with, in Islamic societies, these issues received extensive publicity, but because of internal contradictions, they failed to bear any results. The reason for failure was twofold. Firstly, the war against bureaucracy was initiated by the bureaucrats themselves. Secondly, the defeat of bureaucracy in Islamic states was tantamount to the elimination of the bureaucratic leadership of the Islamic states. This is why there has never been an effective way to eliminate bureaucracy in Islam. It can be shown clearly that, when there are struggles in Islamic societies against individualism and bureaucracy, they would result only in the substitution of some lower-rank bureaucrats with those of higher rank.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:25:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015