<p>And from where I sit, and in the long term, corporate socialism (one dollar one vote) is incompatible with democracy, which is why significant decisions about the way we live in the U.S. have long been removed from the democratic process.</p>
<p>One of the remarkable things about Shia Islam (of which I am not a proponent!) is its essentially “democratic” process. Essentially, religious teachers evaluate what they understand to be the teaching in the light of continuing study, and no one can claim authority by virtue of degree, but only to the extent that they attract a following of their own faithful. You might, if you will, call it “the marketplace of ideas”, Middle Eastern-style. It’s messy, and it sometimes throws up some folks that are, to my way of thinking, rather despicable, but that’s a kind of democracy at work.</p>
<p>Question is Mini, whether you consider a society that subjugates half its adult citizens (i.e. women) a democracy, messy or otherwise.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree that the current American system (really a republic in origin) is no longer a democracy; however, I will still take the messiness of American corporate socialism over tribalism and honor killings.</p>
<p>“Question is Mini, whether you consider a society that subjugates half its adult citizens (i.e. women) a democracy, messy or otherwise.”</p>
<p>Can I ask you the same question? Can a country founded on slavery, enshrined slavery in its Constitution, had one of its most famous Presidents (Jefferson) elected by the “slave vote” (the disproportionate share of electors coming as a result of the 3/5ths compromise - otherwise Adams was re-elected easily), where women were denied the right to property until late in the 19th century, and the vote until the 20th, and the vote of its African-American citizens regularly denied until 1965, be called a democracy? Or did it become a democracy only later? The wonderful thing about democracy is how it evolves over time, unless other factors (such as neo-liberal ideology, and overwhelming greed) ■■■■■■ the process. </p>
<p>“I don’t disagree that the current American system (really a republic in origin) is no longer a democracy; however, I will still take the messiness of American corporate socialism over tribalism and honor killings.”</p>
<p>You’re entitled. What makes you think I would choose otherwise, or that an acceptable response might not be “neither/nor”?</p>
<p>However, do you think you can compare the secular New Republic of the US, in its infancy, with current Middle Eastern structure, which is still based on ancient tribal ideology? It seems we are talking apples and oranges here. Just curious as to how you’d see democracy develop over time in the region, since I think non-secularism would interfere too pervasively.</p>
<p>Lol, hit like a true pro. That I am, 18 to be exact, but I do know what you are talking about. Between freshman (HS) history, The Kite Runner, and various other little side projects, I know the history of American involvment in the Middle East (hence 911). And although the Middle East was pro-American during the late 60’s-70’s, they still were not at the level of education necessary to obtain a true democracy (that being one like ours). They can never fully achieve democracy as we see it because, like Allmusic has stated, secularism and the strong support for Islam present in the Middle East dont mix… well at all.</p>
<p>“no one can claim authority by virtue of degree, but only to the extent that they attract a following of their own faithful.”</p>
<p>By that definition of “democracy”, one could say that Hitler, Mao and any number of tyrants who used their ability to convince people to follow them were democrats.</p>