Saraxnow wrote:Alpha, Freedom is of degrees. There is in one extreme complete absence of freedom, in the case of slavery where there is no choices or options available and then there is the opposite extreme.If we want to go philosophic then we can also argue, is there such a thing as freedom and free will?
We're not talking about the unseen governance of the Universe here, we're talking about the bureaucratic and armed system of statehood. When it comes to human interactions, freedom is of only one degree.
I agree,there will often be an ethnic majority and a minority,but I'm not referring to nation-states that are usually based on ethnic conformity,ideally it should transcend such boundaries and be based on ideology.But why can't you have a system that is multi-cultural as long as they do not go against basic laws? This tricky.What's your take?Don't say anarchism
Islam transcends ethnicity and language, but that has never stopped Muslims from waging war on one another. In fact, there are some examples where people who share language, culture, societal values, and even religion have still waged war on one another. Ideology cannot guarantee peace. Democracy is a multicultural system. When you remove the "should" and enforced cultural expectations, diversity becomes easily manageable.
My take? I have none. Even my idealized Switzerland advocates for a uniformed culture. A re-imagined Swiss model perhaps, that accounts for cultural diversity would work. It would be by region. For instance, French is taught throughout Canada, but I would prefer it be taught only as a second language in Quebec, and legal documents printed in French along with English found only in that province. English would be Canada's first and only language, but provinces would have legal right to assign their own second languages. Theoretically speaking, it would be at a cost to their respective populations.
Now with the case of a cultural group found mainly within a particular region (RE: Quebec), secession may become an issue. The legal right to secede would be determined by the courts, who follow an agreed constitution. But theoretically speaking, in a canton-like construction as Switzerland, secession wouldn't be a problem. Regions would have the right to govern themselves as they see fit, for the most part. With a few tweaks here and there toward a Libertarian perspective, it should work pretty fine.
I did say ,''there should be only exchange of ideas, information,tools not wholesale 'flooding of the market', so to speak''. Also I remember telling someone that ''democracy'' in the Islamic context, where some traits of it already exist, meaning the shura process and electing a leader as in the case of the first Caliphs, as opposed to a monarchy or a democratic or autocratic form of government.
The Shura process is
not democracy. Impeachment is a valid point to argue for, but it requires an entirely democratic government, free from coercion and manipulation. This is impossible in the Islamic context. Islam advocates for a singular and unilateral rule.
You are attempting to mix and match between differing forms of government. It will not work.
The Shura council is part of the population itself and it being the advisory council guiding the state,its decision should come first.
Unless the Shura council itself is democratically elected, it is
not part of the population. If it is part of the population, suggesting an entirely democratic scheme,
no decision overrides the people, unless the people advocate for something constitutionally illegal. If so, the courts would need to address the situation and if necessary suggest a referendum and possible constitutional addendum.
Btw, nice questions. Very thought provoking.
