No announcement yet.

What do you think is the ideal form of government?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    What do you think is the ideal form of government?

    Do you guys prefer a democracy,military dictatorship,communist or fascist government?Well,as for me I think today Iran is closest to the perfect government,because they have a semi-democracy thing going on there.Even Pakistan will have a democratic govt.,but with Musharraf as the President.That should be interesting!What I was thinking was that what is the big deal about democracy.It does not ensure development & social welfare,equality or anything.Hope to hear from you!

    Islamic Democracy.
    Muslims are so good at dividing that they can divide the atom. If you see two Muslims, probably they belong to 3 parties.


      Martial Law governments are not well accepted - as a rule - by citizens because they feel it takes away their liberties and enforces a strict law - people prefer Democracy because in theory democratic governments are supposed to do more for the people - because people have the oiption to vote them out of power. Thats the theory.

      In Pakistan's case - everyone has been a failure. Military govts have stayed too long and deceived the public, like zia ul haq for example. Democratic governments have been everything but democratic - they have been involved in record corruption and have catered to the religious lobby - eg nawaz sharif.

      The best system of government - is a system where both the President and Prime Minister are elected by the people of Pakistan - and share power accordingly. Meaning, the President should be elected for 5 years and the Prime Minister for 4 years - both individuals should be elected through general elections and not by the assembly or senate. The President's powers may be more direct - meaning he or she would be more involved in federal and judicial affairs whereas the Prime Minister would be the key front line leader internationally and with regard to domestic policies. That would be a good democratic system with checks and balances. Neither of the 2 would have the power to fire the other - and both would have to face the ballot instead of the assembly - which would remove lotas and horse trading on the floor.

      Think that would be a better system fr Pakistan. Im writing a research paper on this very topic - watch for it


        The ideal government is democratic, but if everything is based on democratic principles (somthing that our politicians never able to enforce in last 54 years).


          A properly functioning democracy.
          Not the Monarchy under NS and BBB.

          Ours is not to reason why;
          Ours is but to do and die
          You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!


            An Islamic, democratic welfare state


              Pakistan is better suited to the Presidential form of government.. with the president directly elected. it suits the cultural norms as people are used to having a King, sultan, rajah, etc. a single point of authority.

              presidential election should be on non party basis, but a president from a political party should not be barred from running.

              There must be a minimum number of signatories in support of a candidate before he/she is allowed to run. this would prevent any tom dick and harry standing up.

              There must be debates like the american system so the candidates can be questioned on their policies.. too many people get elected into office without any ideas on what to do when they get there.

              There must also be a elected assembly to represent the views of the people.. a dual chamber as it is currently would suffice as it gives equal weight to the population and province.

              But the powers of president and the leader of the assembly may not coincide.

              The cabinet nominated by the president from the best available candidates - could be put forward by the president or the assembly. the cabinet members to be voted in by the assembly.

              That way the govt cannot be held to ransom by a small minority which is a coalition partner.

              proportional representation in the election of the asseblies.. so all people have a voice in the assembly.

              clear seperation of judiciary, legislature (the assembly) and the executive (president).

              It can also be set that a third chamber of assembly is set - a religious shura - where matters related to edicts of religion can be discussed. any legislation which would have to be considered in light of the religion can be discussed.

              This would formalise the role of religion in the running of the state.

              of course the religious assembly could actually be a part of the upper house of the assembly (the senate) where a set number of seats are set aside for the Ulema.

              The memebership should be based on their knowledge of religion and selection by the maulvis and other ulemas.

              with the formal implementation of the role of religion within the framework of the government, we would not need to have 30 religious parties - and the matters of religion can be assessed on knowledge rather than political gain.

              as the shura would be in place, there would be no need for religious parties to run for general elections - something which according to Maudoodi was not allowed for islamic parties.



                Ideally? The return of the righteous caliphate with a Qurayshi, pious, God-fearing ruler like the khulafah-e-raashideen.

                That is unlikely to happen any time soon (IMO not until Hazrat Imam Mahdi alayhisalam arrive) so, in the meanwhile, an Islamic democracy a la Iran (i.e. a democratically elected President and PM but with the candidates vetoed before they can stand to ensure they are devoted to Islam. This is what happens in Iran, e.g. secularists are not allowed to stand) which has shar'iah as the Constitution of the land in practice and not just in theory

                Main kahoon ke ghulaam hoon Aap ka
                Aur woh kehein ke 'haan, humein qabool hai!'

                (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)


                  a secular democracy, where ppl's religous and personal philosphies of life r respected. Where national decisions r taken with the confidence and agreement of representaives of the ppl.

                  army just does its tasks, and no civil duties. if COAS utters one word on politics, he should be fired and court marshalled.


                    and just look at what the hardliners in the Iranian religious shura are doing to the elected officials.. which have passed their "devotion to Islam" test.

                    Iranian leader pardons reformist MP

                    where the elected parlimentary was jailed for airing his views on the way the judiciary acts.

                    Why is it that the reformists - who are not secularists by your standards - are being thawrted at every step.

                    religion is important.. and candidates should pass through "acceptability" tests with regards to their conduct and their background with regards to corruption etc.

                    but it is to be left to the people to decide who the find acceptable to lead them.. looking at the way the "khulfa-e-rashideen" were selected you will see that it is not the nost knowledgable who gets to lead.. but the person who is most acceptable to the masses.

                    Islamic democracy ala Iran is not suitable for a Sunni majority Pakistan for many reasons.

                    Iran already was a theocracy before.. and had all the setup to return to a theocracy at a later date. Shia faith makes sure that they have a singular religious leader - ala Pope who is the ultimate authority in matters of religion.

                    Sunni faith on the other hand believes in devolution of power and therefore you have Ijtima for consensus where matters can be voted on.. and as there was no such theocracy in Pakistan.. the setup is not there.

                    We also have a problem that most of the population does not have an adequate understanding of religion.. or an open mind to question their "religious leaders" on different matters.

                    therefore a shura of religious order would not work in my opinion as

                    1. who gets to sit in it?
                    2. who votes them in?
                    3. is there any accountability of them?

                    As for the form of government required for a Khilafah - there is no restrictions in Islam with regads to people electing their representatives to represent them.

                    I directly elected president - who passes you "islamic test" - also conforms to the requirements - as a vote is similar to the concept of "bayah" given by people to the khalifah.

                    just look at the battles which occured for leadership (i.e. Khilafah) after the death of Hazrat Ali.

                    Yazid and Hazrat Imam Hussein & Hassan

                    Marwan and Abdullah ibn abu bakr.

                    why.. because one did not give bayah to the other.. and there were supporters of both people who give their bayah (or vote in my understanding) to one or the other.

                    The American form of elected president, and elected House of representatives in my mind are as close to Islamic form of government as you can think of.


                      Originally posted by Noor Ibrahim:
                      Do you guys prefer a democracy,military dictatorship,communist or fascist government?Well,as for me I think today Iran is closest to the perfect government,because they have a semi-democracy thing going on there.Even Pakistan will have a democratic govt.,but with Musharraf as the President.That should be interesting!What I was thinking was that what is the big deal about democracy.It does not ensure development & social welfare,equality or anything.Hope to hear from you!
                      'Democracy' is a total western concept and is a ploy of the west who are imposing their "New World Order" on the thirld world. Islam has its own system of governance and that is why there is a 'Clash of Civilizations'. It is actually a clash between those imposing "The New World Order" and those opposing it. Details of Islamic system of governance can be worked out if we do not blindly follow the western concept. After all the west also does not practice what they preach. Why don't they let other countries practice what ever system they want? Why is the west so concerned in other countries to practice their form of democracy? Infact one western philosopher said 'Democracy is the art of fooling the masses'.


                        the implementation of democracy can be different and is different in most of the western world itself...

                        Islam in itself provides for democracy.. as well as checks and balances which are basic tenets of "democracy".

                        democracy means different things to different people. to some it means seperation of religion and state.. to some it does not.. case and point America and Iran..

                        The president of Iran is elected by the people as he will work towards solving the problems for which he has policies..

                        When most of the muslims are talking about democracy.. they are talking about elected representation of people who can speak for them.. give their concerns some thought.. and work towards resolving them.

                        You cannot have Ulema who only have knowledge of religion to vote on matters of nuclear physics.. therefore you cannot have ulema deal with many other factors that decisions have to be made..

                        and i would not want a computer programmer (for example) to vote on matters of religion.

                        elected represtation - provided they meet necessary requirements of candidature be it religion, medicine, physics, business - does not go against the grain of form of government in Islam.

                        lets look at the concept of Bayah.. once the Khalifah was elected you had to give "bayah" to him.. so how come there were differences which led to armed conflict?

                        while both parties qualified on matters of basic requirements of faith, one or the other was not acceptable to some people.. and they argued, and fought, killed and got killed.

                        At that time the tribal elder would cast the vote for the tribe.. tribal leader being the elected/ nominated representative who would make sure that the matters effecting the tribe were not discarded.. the tribal elder voted for one person or the other.. and once there was consensus.. you had a leader.. when there was not.. you had a war..

                        In the framework of elected representation.. if it was shown by voting (which was effectively what the tribal elders did) that one or the other person were not acceptable to the people (for any number of reasons).. the person who got less votes would not become the leader..

                        Based on the voting patters and amount of votes the opponent got.. the new leader would be made aware that there are other policy matters which also need to be addressed which were represented by the other candidate.

                        No one is saying that the term for president or prime minister (or khalifah for that matter) should be 4 or 5 years .. which of course brings some instability - especially in developing countries.. the premier once elected could remain in office until

                        1. they are deemed unsuitable for office - could be a number of reasons like corruption, nepotism etc.

                        2. are not giving due regard to metters of religion

                        3. have not been ruling the people properly.

                        Of course this could only be possible if there was a form of elected body keeping check on the premier.. and would have legitimacy in removing the premier as they are the voice of the people.

                        There would be no way of removing a bad khalifah from office if he is allowed to appoint his people in all positions of importance or any form power. That was one of the main reasons the khilafah got so corrupt.. as there was no way . no adequate means to remove a bad khalifah from office.

                        That was one of the reasons Kemal Ataturk moved against the "khilafah"... he had been prompting them to reform themselves for ages ... but as the khalifahs of Ottoman Empire were unelected and had appointed their cronies in all avenues of power.. there was no way to make sure that they reformed themeselves.. there was no solution apart from ending of that corrupt hereditary khilafah.

                        The downfall of the Khilafah was brought upon itself in the way it handled itself, the way everyone else apart from Turks were not even second class citizens - is there a wonder that the Arabs got out from under their grasp as quickly as they could.. because the ottoman taxed them and did not provide them with proper services..

                        Also, gone are the days when the Khalifah used to traips through the city hearing the problems of the people... I would love to see how a khalifah - without affecting his normal duties - visits Jakarta one day and Marrakesh the next.

                        As far as I can see.. unless we have some form of framework to

                        1. put forward the voice/ concerns of the people and
                        2. ensure that the premier (or khalifah if you want to call him that) is an able leader looking after the interest of the muslim land and the residents properly..

                        there is going to be only one outcome.. the Khilafah of the form that Ottomans had.. corrupt hereditary Autocracy without checks and balances.

                        And in my opinion elected representation is the only way this can be properly achieved.

                        When i talk about democracy.. i am talking about elected representation to handle the matters of the state..

                        and not what Lincoln said - which of course was his interpretation of democracy.. but not the only interpretation of democracy.

                        [This message has been edited by blackzero (edited January 15, 2002).]


                          Either Anarchy or some combination of Hindu-Islamic forms of government. Shariah can be replaced by Hindu code of law (i.e., everyone is equal) and Islamic Rulers can be elected following the Panchait Model.

                          When you are done cleaning your eyes, you will realize that nothing works in Pakistan.


                            >>Shariah can be replaced by Hindu code of law (i.e., everyone is equal) and Islamic Rulers can be elected following the Panchait Model. <<

                            Before all the Mullahs jump into the bandwagon talking about Casteism in Hinduism, let me point out Hindus openly acknowledge it and are trying to rectify the mistakes of the past
                            As for this 'Sharia' that every body here seems to be so fond of, where is it implemented Saudi and Taliban Afghanistan. Want to go their way? Welcome
                            Panchayat is an Indian invention and a good institution.


                              Originally posted by NYAhmadi:
                              Shariah can be replaced by Hindu code of law (i.e., everyone is equal)
                              I will pass your pearls of wisdom to 300M Dalits.