Its both. If you take away the prop that is provided by the backward religious theocracy then the King will face revolution I expect. In the case of Saudi Arabia its a combination of the two.Ok, so you think that if the theocracy were removed, then the people would rise up in revolution? That would indicate that the people not only support the current government, but actually want and desire it. I can see how you might come to that conclusion, after all, the people claim to be Islamic and the king professes that his rule is based on Islamic law. But actually, you cannot consider the current structure as representative of what the people desire, since they in no way had any input as to its design or operation. You might also conclude that since the people do not oppose the current structure, that is an indication of support for it. However, that ignores the oppressive control structure in place by the government to prevent any opposition, or even voicing of dissent. It also neglects to consider the level of 'thought control' impossed on the citizens of the country, by censorship and total control of information taught, at the hands of that government. If you were born in cage, and were never shown or taught anything but captivity, how could you imagine that there was anything else? Granted, that is an extreme analogy, but I'm sure you can see the parallel.
Now, suppose you removed the dictatorship theocracy and replaced it with a democracy. Would you expect the people to elect a return to, perhaps not such an oppressive dictatorship theocracy, but some form of theocracy? I suppose you would if you accept the misconception that Islam is incompatable with Democracy. However, if you don't buy into the misconception, that brings us to your question:
Which majority Moslem country has a functioning democracy?Ok, how about Turkey? 98.8% of their population is Muslim, yet they have a fully functional democratic society. The
CIA World Factbook clasifies it as a
republican parliamentary democracy and sums it up nicely:
Quote:
After a period of one-party rule, an experiment with multi-party politics led to the 1950 election victory of the opposition Democratic Party and the peaceful transfer of power. Since then, Turkish political parties have multiplied, but democracy has been fractured by periods of instability and intermittent military coups (1960, 1971, 1980), which in each case eventually resulted in a return of political power to civilians.
In addition, their constitution ('called Anayasa' or 'Main Law') provides for strict seperation of powers, incuding seperation of church and state. The freedom and independence of the Judicial System is also protected within the constitution. There is no organization, person, or institution which can interfere in the running of the courts, and the executive and legislative structures must obey the courts' decisions.
As for foreign relations, they are members of many international organisations and persue peaceful policies, loosely following those based on Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's policy of "Peace at Home and Peace Abroad".
Similar to Saudi Arabia, they also have a high literacy rate (almost 90% of the population over 15) and compulsory education (for free up to the age of 15). However, they do not censor or limit access to information. There are around 820 higher education institutes, incuding 85 universities (some of which can compete with the best in the world). They also fully support scientific and and technical research and development, with some 64 research institutes and and organisations providing R&D strength in areas such as agriculture, forestry, health and biotechnology.
The constitution also supports freedom of religion, even though almost 99% of the population is Muslim. The constitutional rule that prohibits discrimination on religious grounds is taken very seriously. The Turkish constitution recognises freedom of religion for individuals, and the religious communities are placed under the protection of state, but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process, by forming a religious party for example. No party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief.
So how is it that two countries, both with an overwheming majority of Muslims, differ so radically? Is it one of religion, or is it one of political structure?
Cheers,
Brad
