Re: Islamism

From: Douglas Brooker (
Date: Sat Jan 19 2002 - 18:39:54 GMT

  • Next message: Douglas Brooker: "Re: Islamism"

    Received: by id TAA07215 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 19:03:52 GMT
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:39:54 +0000
    From: Douglas Brooker <>
    Organization: University of London
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    Subject: Re: Islamism
    References: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Precedence: bulk

    Joe Dees wrote:

    > The constitution functions according to sharia law, which means that whatever the people or their elected representative favor is immaterial, so long as the clerics oppose it.

    That's constitutional. I'm not an expert here, but the key body that exercises the power you refer to is the Council of Guardians. It performs a function not unlike the President's veto or the Senate or the cumbersome process of enacting Constitutional amendment in the US. The Iranians are stuck with their constitution, the same way you guys are. Substitute 'corporations' and 'Israel' for 'clerics' and the relation between the wishes of the
    people and public policy in the two countries follows a similar pattern.

    > >Another Islamic democracy to consider is Bangladesh (125 million of the poorest people in the world - the live in a territory the size of Wisconsin, but by a recent UN survey the 'happiest' people in the world).
    > >
    > Happiness can be a function of the ignorance of better alternatives.

    So can western definitions of democracy. If democracy is about citizen participation then a good measure of democracy is the percentage of people who vote in elections. In this Iran and Bangladesh rank higher than many western countries.

    > The movement is not democratic, but theocratic, pushed mainly by the Wahhabi sect, which is more or less surreptitiously angling to rid themselves of their House of Saud patrons and control the petrolode directly. The problem that the West has with abandoming the authoritarian regimes in such places as Algeria, Egypt and saudi Arabia, among others, is that what would apparently replace it would resemble Afghanistan more than it would Turkey.

    Well if that's what the people want, then preventing them from getting it by propping up dictators is undemocratic. And that's the source of much of the anger directed against American foreign policy. American foreign policy seems to be based on a fear of what people in others countries want. Democracy, it seems, is ok so long as its the right kind of democracy.

    The headline in today's Guardian is "Saudis tell US forces to get out".,7369,636035,00.html

    The theory I am preparing to foist upon an unsuspecting world is that all societies at all times have been and are democracies. It has a memetic orientation. It's based on the combination of express acts of will and acquiescence. People are sovereign. They can do whatever they want. Iran, Philippines, Eastern Europe...when the people form a will to get rid of a goes.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 19 2002 - 19:11:25 GMT