The democratic rights of individuals in society cannot be measured using old-style political terms. Instead, the degree of man’s democratic expectations is evaluated by the degree of economic gains in society. This is how economic democracy within a democratic system plays a major role and indeed forms democratic infrastructure. In Islamic states, elections have not so far benefited from democracy and have not yet fallen within normal and natural trends. Only at times of extreme crisis do elections in Islamic states go through slight changes. And these are even then only to benefit the top echelon of the parties. The resultant changes in a party’s structure are met with disbelief and surprise by the public. One of the major obstacles for the advancement of democracy in Islamic states is the presence of intense censorship and the application of interrogation systems on individual views. In information movement, the imposition of censorship on the media and individuals’ views brings about a society of ill-informed people and confuses the direction of social forces into laying their unequal trust in politicians, scientists and other responsible government bodies. This unknown trust provides an obstacle to progress, and individual advancement will be obscured, which in turn results in many other unlawful deeds. The limitation of information movement not only makes controlling society difficult for government bodies, but it also destroys the credibility of people’s initiatives and converts the middle range of the public strata into immobile and useless social elements. The freedom of speech and opinion and the freedom of media in Islamic states today are at their lowest possible level. There are no signs of freedom in these countries with regard to activities such as art and scientific research, and especially in the fields of social sciences. Another aspect of Islamic states is the presence of insecurity for prominent social figures. There are still numerous people in Islamic states who are hunted down for their specific views on particular social issues. This is precisely why judicial procedures are hidden and closed to the public: so that, for instance, a healthy political activist could, on the recommendations of a “psychiatrist,” be sent to a mental institution, only to be chained to a bed. The individual’s right to travel is the most basic universal right, allowing mankind to travel freely. But Islamic states deprive citizens of the freedom to travel abroad. It is important to note that the term “freedom” is not absolute and has its limitations. This simply means that one’s freedom should not be at the expense of other members of society. It is evident that this matter has been carefully examined by social scientists. Democracy should not be at any stage mistaken for anarchy. For instance, fascists and racists are good examples of people who wish to dominate over other social groupings, making them their slaves and subjects. Thus, democracy must in essence have logical limitations. In the meantime, these logical restrictions must not be confused with any other limitations on freedom. “Scot Nearing,” an American philosopher, in his book under the heading of “Is freedom a promise or an intimidation?” criticizes some false aspects of Western democracies. Although at times he gets mixed up between “freedom” and “social discipline,” in his work, which arises from his experience of democracy and freedom in Islamic countries, he calls it “limited freedom.” In his recommendation to Asian and African countries, he writes: “The problems that are currently confronting these countries are not those of freedom but of their serious attempts to revitalize their countries and to rid themselves of dependence and slavery.” What constitutes a major problem confronting some Asian and African countries is how to abolish dependence and slavery. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that there exists an irremovable barrier between “freedom” and “social discipline.” These two are to some extent connected and interdependent. One of these two should not be sacrificed for the sake of the other. Manual and office workers, and farmers and the educated in Islamic countries are thirsty for freedom and democracy. Only a few bureaucratic minorities exist that oppose freedom and democracy. The bureaucrats, according to their nature and their interests, infuse fear into the uninformed sector of society in such a way that democracy is seen as a danger to their social rights and status. Yet it is evident that there is no danger arising from democracy—it is only the interests of the bureaucrats that are exposed to any such danger. Because of their class interests, the bureaucrats cannot integrate with the public at large and therefore do not make relevant decisions on their behalf.
Posted on: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:10:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015