Monday, May 13, 2013

2013 Elections - if only!

Assalamualaikum

Two news articles are all it's going to take.

Take a look:

-------------
Nawaz Sharif claims victory in Pakistan election

The frontrunner to become Pakistan’s next prime minister tonight promised to stand together with the West in taking on the forces of terrorism, hours after voting finished in the country’s historic general election.


During a close-fought campaign Nawaz Sharif had promised to end drone strikes and review the country’s relationship with America.
As he publicly claimed victory in the poll, the two-time prime minister sought to reassure Western governments and said he would not pull back on the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. 
“I have experience of working with US counterparts and will be very happy to further work with them,” he told The Sunday Telegraph
“What is most important is that we must never allow our soil to be used by anyone to create problems with any country in this world.”

--------------------  There is more, but not relevant. Now, the next article -----------------------------------

Obama hails Pakistan for elections, pledges equal partnership


(Reuters) - President Barack Obama congratulated Pakistan on Sunday for the successful completion of its parliamentary elections and said the United States would work with the country's new government as an equal partner.

"The United States stands with all Pakistanis in welcoming this historic peaceful and transparent transfer of civilian power, which is a significant milestone in Pakistan's democratic progress," Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

 "By conducting competitive campaigns, freely exercising your democratic rights, and persevering despite intimidation by violent extremists, you have affirmed a commitment to democratic rule that will be critical to achieving peace and prosperity for all Pakistanis for years to come," he said.

Pakistan's Nawaz Sharif made a triumphant comeback in the country's election and looks set to form a stable government capable of implementing reforms needed to rescue the fragile economy.

The polls were seen as a democratic landmark, marking the first time one elected government was to replace another in a country vulnerable to military takeovers.

Washington is eager to maintain a stable partnership with Pakistan, particularly as it continues counterterrorism operations on the Afghan border, but the relationship has been complicated by U.S. drone strikes blamed for killing civilians.


Obama did not note Sharif by name in his statement.

Sharif, a former prime minister, is almost certain to take the post for a third time.

"My administration looks forward to continuing our cooperation with the Pakistani government that emerges from this election as equal partners in supporting a more stable, secure, and prosperous future for the people of Pakistan," Obama said.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who recently hosted talks between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's army chief meant to reduce tensions between the two neighbors, also called Pakistan's elections historic.

"The Pakistani people stood up resiliently to threats by violent extremists," Kerry said. "We'll be working with the new government to advance shared interests including a peaceful, more prosperous and stable future for Pakistan and the region."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about that for a change?

This should be an eye-opener for all those who think that the current democratic process and voting etc can bring about a real change in Pakistan, and for Muslims in general. It never can.

If it were to bring about a change, they wouldn't be sitting so quietly, applauding your bravery (against the so-called threats to elections and blah), and congratulating you when another one of their puppets is installed in power. They would be after you and the process would never even last.

If only, we could THINK.

17 comments:

Roshni said...

I'd suggest a thorough article on The Guardian by Muhammad Hanif, I believe.

Uni said...

@Roshni
I read the article. That article presumes two things:

1. The elections were completely fair
2. The whole Taliban story is for real

These assumptions cast a shadow on his analysis, in my humble opinion.

majworld said...

This democratic process when allowed to run over a period of time brought changes in countries like India, Turkey and Malaysia. And the question is if not elections, then what? And if not people of Pakistan, then who would decide their leader?
And the puppet, by the way, is the elected prime minister of Pakistan who came into power by the votes of millions of people who have the same right to decide their leader as anyone in the country. Public mandate must be respected. They know what their requirements are and they can decide their leaders accordingly.

There are issues with the democratic system in under developed countries such as rigging etc just like there are problems in any new project or work. But they can only be solved if the system is allowed to run and stability is achieved.

And regarding foreign reaction, we need to make a system and policies which suits us in the long run rather than being anti-western. And I wonder what else the reaction of one country on the election results and new government of another country could be.

Uni said...

@majworld
This democratic process when allowed to run over a period of time brought changes in countries like India, Turkey and Malaysia.

The democratic process ran for the same time in both India and Pakistan. Both have problems. India may be an "amazing democratic country" but it still is grappling with economic issues (which are not fading away btw). Pakistan - dealing with democracy for 60+ years --> its problems have worsened.
Malaysia -> a Muslim country but not an Islamic country. Has no say in the world. Turkey --> Completely secular.
The question is: What do we think will solve Pakistan's problems today? Will a "pure secular democracy" like Turkey's solve them? Or will something else.

In my humble opinion, all our problems lie in the fact that we have left Islam on a political level. We have Islam in our spiritual lives, our worships and rituals, but not much beyond that. The root cause of why Islam has not been implemented in the political arena is : Democracy.

Democracy is not derived from Islam - but from Greeks. Check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

And Islam gave a political system to the Ummah which ran (even with its ups and downs) till 1924. That period saw amazing Muslim development - both on an intellectual level and a spiritual level. After 1924, this system dissolved (and yes, your modern Turkey's foundations were laid).

Take a look at our history - how "far" have Muslims come since 1924. We have just spiraled downward and gotten into more misery and humiliation. Reason? We have left Islam as a political system --> from which is derived the social, economic and other systems of Islam.

The only Islam we have is our individual Islam.

If we agree that Islam is the solution to these problems, then let us come to the next question. Can pure democracy give us that system of Islam? Do you think pure democracy and Islam are compatible? Quoting directly from Wikipedia:

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."

In the Quran, Allah (SWT) Says:
Say, "Indeed, I am on clear evidence from my Lord, and you have denied it. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The decision is only for Allah . He relates the truth, and He is the best of deciders." [Surah Ana'am: 57]

Do you see the problem ?

Is Pakistan an Islamic state right now? Question for you. What do you think?

majworld said...

I think the democracy was not allowed to flourish in Pakistan for the last 60 years due to continuous interruption from the military. There may be many issues with india, malaysia and turkey, But one thing we can not deny that they are progressing much rapidly than us and their institutions are much stronger.

Regarding the issue of Islam and politics, I will just quote my opinion as I am not a scholar of any of the two fields. Lets assume for a second that Islam and politics are independent so that we can ignore one variable i.e. Islam in this analysis. If we take a look around the world, we will find a direct correlation between democracy and progress. Even the muslim countries who are progressing rapidly are the ones where democracy is functioning properly. So, it proves one thing that in the world we are living at the moment, democracy has a relation with the progress.

Now, let's take a look at the Islamic aspect. Its a debatable topic and I guess opinion of the scholars vary on this.

There are two questions here.

The first question here is that whether something anti-democracy was the reason of the success muslims achieved. If we take a look at the history of muslims post prophethood and the caliphs, it has always been a fight for the throne. The progress muslims made was a result of emphasis on investigation and discovery rather than not implementing democracy. To relate success with anti-democracy may be a similar thing as giving all credit of your exam success to some outside factor rather than the hard work you put in.


The second question is that whether Islam has forbidden democracy? As in that case, we surely have to accept it even with out any reasoning or logic. That in my opinion is a topic where scholars opinion vary.

I understand that one flaw with democracy is that everyone's got equal vote. As they say horses and donkeys got the equal voting rights. But its not possible for a community of horses to understand the requirements for the donkeys and make decisions for them. As a matter of fact, every community knows their requirements and they can choose their elected representatives accordingly. Now the question here is that do we have a better option than democracy? or do we have a system which Islam recommends? And is democracy forbidden in Islam? And if not the people of a country, then who would decide their representative or leader? One option could be to make a team of experts comprising of both religious scholars and people who have studied politics and decide which system to follow in our country. But till this thing happens or we make a consensus on which system to follow, at least we should make progress. And that, as I wrote in the second paragprah has a link with democracy.

majworld said...

I just searched a little about Islam and democracy and came across this video which seemed very logical to me..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAPjyf6xW6A

Uni said...

@majworld
Let's start with the basics. We should agree on the definition of democracy. So what do you think democracy is?

Let's begin with that so our understanding of this issues is more thorough.

Sorry for the late reply. I didn't get time to open the blog .

kino said...

I would humbly like to point out a small correction. The verse of surah Al-Anam that you have quoted above appears to be talking about the decision to unleash divine retribution upon the meccans which they used to demand from the prophet in jest. In response, the prophet is asked to reply that the matter belongs to the sole jurisdiction of God, an answer which could be found elsewhere too. I don't see any discourse or dispute there about the nature of political system to install in the society.

Uni said...

@kino

Jazakallah Khair for the correction.

The ayah in Surah Ana'am definitely has the interpretation you just mentioned. The ayah in Surah Yusuf (verse 40) has the exact wording and I am going to quote the full verse here. The context is the speech Yusuf (as) is giving to the prisoners who asked him for an interpretation to the dreams they saw. Here is part of his answer:

You worship not besides Him except [mere] names you have named them, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know.

Other evidences from the Quran which talk about this:

1. "But no, by your Lord, they will not have Eeman until they make you (O Prophet) rule between them in that wich they dispute, and they find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction" (TMQ 4:65).

2. "Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between mankind by that which Allah has shown you" (TMQ 4:105).

3. "So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (TMQ 5:49).

4. "Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon).....the thaalimoon (oppressors)....the fasiqoon (evil doers)"
(TMQ 4. 5:44-47)

I hope these are enough to convince anybody that ruling by man is something not at all prescribed in Islam.

Jazakallah again for the correction.

kino said...

Trust me I am not arguing for the sake of it, but I fail to see how legislation gets into the verse of Surah Yusuf you have quoted? The discussion is about associating partners with Allah in worship i.e. Shirk in Quranic term. Just read from two verses earlier. About Shirk the prophet informs that Allah hasn't sent any proof in favor of any of these names you or your forefathers take. It is only for Allah to decide who are Arbaab along with him and he commanded you to worship only him. How is there room for writing legislation in the translation of Al-hukm? I am sorry but I don't find any discussion on politics in the whole conversation to translate it the way you have.

Before I share my thoughts on the verses you quoted, let us remember that democracy prescribes a system whereby a society assigns authority to a person/class to rule. What is legislated is none of its business. There are other ideas that answer this question, like secularism.

Let us now visit those verses in order:

1) The first verse informs us about status of the rulings made by the prophet in settling *personal* feuds between people. While you and I can disagree with a ruling made by the CJ of Pakistan in a dispute between Zardari and Sharif and denounce his decisions as ill-founded, the same could not be said of the rulings by the prophet. Any dissent with him, even in ideas, was amount to calling quits on one's faith. In that sense, this verse is specific only to the prophet and does not extend to any ruler of our time.

2) The second verse again is unrelated to the political method or system. If you continue to read forward, it will become apparent that this verse sets the prelude for the discourse in which the prophet is given judgment on the *character* of believers and hypocrites in the times of war.

3) This verse is related to political/judicial rulings and informs the prophet, and hence rulers, to rule according to the standard set in the book of God.

4) Same as above.

With that said, I disagree with your conclusion. The verses, actually the last two, don't negate ruling by man, they denounce it when man don't rule according to the book of God. In other words, the verses denounce secularism. How that man gets into the position to rule among people? I strongly believe the verses are silent on the matter.

Quran would be denying democracy if it had said that we should forcefully rule upon a society according to the book of God even if on the whole the society does not wish the same. To the contrary, it has been our tradition (of early periods at least) to let tiniest segments of minorities i.e. Jews, christians, magians, etc. to keep their own independent courts in which they could rule according to whatever they wish.

The only verse I am aware of in Quran to talk about the method by which the believers work together on collective matters is this:

And those who run their affairs through mutual consultation (42:38)

Of course the verse above does not occur in Quran in a specific discussion on politics. It is rather a general prescription for all things mutual. Politics just happen to be one of them.

To sum up, and apologies for being repetitive, both of us denounce our rulers when they enact a law that is contrary to the book of God (or sunnah for that matter). In popular term, it can be said we are not secular. The disagreement however arises when you move on and deny the system that lets a society put those rulers in place that they wish. I find it besides the point and have explained how I believe none of the verses you have cited from Quran to be even relevant to this issue.

Uni said...

@kino
Sorry for the delayed response.

but I fail to see how legislation gets into the verse of Surah Yusuf you have quoted? The discussion is about associating partners with Allah in worship i.e. Shirk in Quranic term.

Basically, shirk shouldn't just NOT be in worship of Allah. It shouldn't be in anything to do with our lives. Politics is part of our lives, so is legislation (in political terms). So in there too, Allah is the Legislator. Which in very simple words means that Quran (and Sunnah and then ijmah/qiyas) should be the basis of our Constitution.

It isn't.

let us remember that democracy prescribes a system whereby a society assigns authority to a person/class to rule. What is legislated is none of its business.

Democracy prescribes not only a way to assign authority, it gives the authority to men to legislate. This is what doesn't seem to be right to me. I fail to see, how giving the right to rule to men ... equates, giving the right to rule to Allah.

Especially when the system (democracy) in question doesn't really assign authority to Allah at all. It does so to men. Read democracy's definition.

1. In that sense, this verse is specific only to the prophet and does not extend to any ruler of our time.
The point here is not this. The point here is that when the ruling is made, the Prophet's opinion is considered first (if it is there). Simple example. Punishment of theft in Pakistani courts? We all know what the Prophet would have ruled in a proven theft case.

2. The second verse again is unrelated to the political method or system.
The Prophet is asked to judge between people on the basis of what Allah has Revealed to him.

Won't that ruling stand for the judges in an Islamic state?

Does this ruling stand in our democratic system?

3. This verse is related to political/judicial rulings and informs the prophet, and hence rulers, to rule according to the standard set in the book of God.

True. Which is not possible in a democratic environment, because a democratic environment entails that if more than 50% of the Parliament agrees on something, it's done. It's agreed upon, and passed as law.

This very basis of democracy is what goes against this ayah. The ayah says to rule a/c to the standard set in Book of Allah (as you said), not according to what >50% majority in parliament deems is right.

The verses, actually the last two, don't negate ruling by man, they denounce it when man don't rule according to the book of God.

I agree that men are supposed to rule by rules of Allah (that's what the caliphs did after the Prophet, right?). I'm only arguing that the present democratic system (in Pakistan too) doesn't entail this. Not in the least.

We don't have any single rule in the Constitution which (at the very least) says that if a rule/decision is made negating the Quran, it will be rendered invalid, immediately. Riba, hence, is prevalent in all the banking institutions in Pakistan. We have a Federal Shariat court. Man, all courts are supposed to be shariah-based! (except minorities' courts). Why do we have a separate shariah court?

Quran would be denying democracy if it had said that we should forcefully rule upon a society according to the book of God even if on the whole the society does not wish the same.

I'm not in the least talking about non-Muslim societies here. My discussion is only for those countries where majority people call themselves Muslims. And I am not advocating forcing our laws down the throats of our minorities. They are free to have their own courts. That's the sunnah.

To the contrary, it has been our tradition (of early periods at least) to let tiniest segments of minorities i.e. Jews, christians, magians, etc. to keep their own independent courts in which they could rule according to whatever they wish.

Agreed.

Jazakallah for the discussion. I'm open to critqiue on this issue and am in the learning phase myself.

kino said...

Before I reply to your comment, let me clarify a mistake I find in my last comment. I had suggested that the verse of Surah Shura "And those who run their affairs through mutual consultation (42:38)" refers to all things mutual, politcs being one of them. Immediately after posting the comment I felt something wrong at the back of my head. But it took me sometime to recall the memories of when I had actually studied the verse and it became clear that the verse is specifically actually about things of political or public nature and not a general prescription per se about all things mutual. Although one can carry the spirit in other matters too. The reason being the word used here is امر which is used both linguistically and in Quran at other places to refer to politcal or adminstrative affairs. Of course it can easily have other meanings too, like advise or instruct in a general sense, but that has to be signified by the context. By the time I realized this, however, it was already some time and I felt it impolite to resume a discussion which at that time you didn't appear to be interested in. I was positive though that you would realize it upon a serious study of literature. But now that there is an opportunity, let me sincerely apologise for the mistake earlier.

kino said...

Moving on to the present, kindly allow me the liberty to explain in a positive sense how I understand the issue since mentioning things in a critical appraisal always has a tendency to highlight some aspects more than others. As someone who believes in Quran and derives his ideals from it, I don't need a verse telling me "rule according to the book" to know that I have to. There are injunctions related to both personal and social aspects of my life and as a proclaimed believer of Quran I will follow them wherever I possibly can. As much as I have understood it, Quran also finds it enough and quite logical but some people did not. That is why Quran denounces their "hypocrisy" in the verses of Al Maida about which both of us agree to be directly related to the matter. In fact, I find the verse 43, which precedes the verses you quoted, to be even more decisive and putting things in the right perspective. As it happened, Jews used to bring their disputes volunteerily to the prophet whenever they would find the rulings in Torah to be too harsh or against their desires. This was clearly a case of hypocrisy because as believers in Torah they were not supposed to refer their matters to the prophet, whom they did not use to acknowledge as such. It was on this behavior that Quran said:

How come they bring their disputes to you when they have their own laws in Torah? Yet they turn their backs to it. Truth be told, they are not the ones who believe!

The very tenor of the verse reflects bitter surprise and disgust, which remains in the following verses too. It deserves a blank stare to anyone who *assures* us in Pakistan that secularism does not mean to be against any faith, it only suggests it to be removed from the public sphere. The verses of Al Maidah should be quoted, where appropriate, not to inform people that Muslims have to rule according to the book but in condemnation on how shamelessly some people can give lessons to society on adopting hypocrisy. That is the true import of those verses.

kino said...

But I digress. Coming back to your comment finally, let me respond in order:

- You are right that shirk can have many forms, but the general theme of Quran is to talk about it in metaphysical context and that is one of the foremost subjects of any prophet's call, the other being hereafter. And why not, these are the two issues which are obviously beyond the domain of our immediate sensory experience and hence we are dependant upon God to give us definite knowledge about them more than anything else. If, however, the concept is to be applied analogously to other cases, like rulers, show-off (riya) or following one's desires, then there has to be explicit mention of it or an obvious indicator in the context of the discourse. That is how believe we understand any linguistic construct, not just Quran. With this perspective in mind, whenever I read the verses of surah Yusuf I fail to find anything there as such. Curiously, when we read forward to the point where prophet Yusuf gets to talk to the king, he seems to be making no issue of the matter of political authority in the sense of Shirk. If he was indeed concerned about legislation, that was the place to talk about it. That more or less sums up my reasons. No surprises though if I failed present it convincing :)

- "The point here is not this. The point here is that when the ruling is made, the Prophet's opinion is considered first (if it is there). Simple example. Punishment of theft in Pakistani courts? We all know what the Prophet would have ruled in a proven theft case. "

I don't know why I have a feeling that we might be arguing without realizing what we are disagreeing about. Anyhow...

I consider your explanation to be quite a simplification of the scenario. The verse does not specify itself, although it is naturally included, to the punishments handed down once the case is decided. In fact, in numerous cases there is no punishment to be given as such. Take the property or trade dispute. Two people are arguing to be the rightful owners of a piece of land or share in profit. Prophet decrees in favor of one after considering all the evidences. There is no punishment as such nor does it add any particular knowledge for a future judge who has to rule according to the circumstantial evidence anyway. Yet the verse applies here and says that the people have to accept his ruling without the slightest feeling of remorse in their hearts. It was about this aspect I had said that it didn't extend to rulers of our time. Because we can disagree with them as to who they declare to be at fault or whether a certain punishmend they decided was indeed due on the culprit according to Sharia. As a matter of fact, we can even object at the judge and demand him to be removed or replaced from the panel. But the same was not true of the prophet in a case of theft, for instance, even if his proposed alternate was also going to hand down the same punishment if the charge was proved. This, to my mind, appears to be the full message of this verse.

What you seem to be insisting on is about the scenario when the prophet is not around anymore. While the initial part of the verse can hold true albeit in a limited sense, the same cannot be true about the end. I say in a limited sense because I would not have prophet's honesty in the process of investigation, merely the punishment once it is decided who is wrong. Then again the judge can claim to have reached prophet's opinion in the matter, and he could be honest about it, yet I can contend that he got it all wrong about prophet's decree. Would you tell me that a person can loose his faith as a result thereof? If no, then the verse does not apply here because that is what it precisely said when the prophet was around.

kino said...

- "The Prophet is asked to judge between people on the basis of what Allah has Revealed to him. Won't that ruling stand for the judges in an Islamic state? Does this ruling stand in our democratic system?"

I don't think I could get my point across. The issue here is that I insist on reading the verse in its textual context, along with its own construct, before deciding what it means. We can use exactly the same sentence in another context, like a legal matter, and then I would agree that it means what you think it to be. Someone can say, "Mirza ghalib is the best", while discussing Urdu poetry. But it would be wrong to cite it in a discussion on the best persian poets even though the bulk of his poetry is found in persian.

In this specific case, there was a problem about the behavior of people when they went out on war. Apparently, it wasn't something that falls within the jurisdiction of courts or decided by a political authority. But God decided to make clear to the people who was truthful in His eyes and who was deviant. So He said to the prophet to judge (about character of the people) according to what is shown to the prophet in the book. That is why I honestly believe that this verse is not to be cited in a discussion over Islam and secularism. Not to mention democracy of course :)

Now to the last part about democracy, although I have already exhausted myself unfortunately. Let us forget how we have been dealing with democracy in our country (like federal shariat court or CII) which could be easily proved not to be a necessary consequence of the system. As far as I understand, your concern lies with the fact that democracy allows people to mend laws through majority if they wish. Whereas, Quran does not privilige them with this honor, right? I believe we are mixing the practical possibility of going wrong with the moral appropriateness of the act. Since an act is wrong, you want the system to straitjacket the whole society into staying away from it even if its majority does not wish the same. Otherwise, the very system itself will not be Islamic. I don't believe it to be true in any absolute sense like that and as much as I understand there is no basis either in the canonical sources of Islam.

kino said...

From all I have managed to gather from Quran and the life of the prophet, we are to invite and educate the society about the truth, in our case Quran. If the society agrees to it at large so that the believers get the political power (unless their is oppression) then they can go on to form their own government and legislate as guided in the matters by the book or prophet. In the time of the prophet, it was the head of clans in Yathrab who pledged allegiance at Aqaba before migration and expressed the approval of their people to accept prophet as their ruler. Coming back from history, later on if the society at large disagrees to follow the book after agreeing to the same before, what should we do? Should the minority government launch an internal Jihad to fix the deviant majority? Should the dissenters get down to a bloody civil disobedience in order to get rid of the righteous rulers? To the best of my limited knowledge, I don't find any direct answer to this scenario in the text. My understanding, based on how the government is formed in the first place, is to gracefully hand over the government back to whoever the society wants to and inform them about the consequences they will have to face in the hereafter. The job of the righteous will once again be reduced to:

Admonish, for that is what your job is. You are not made a watchman over them (88:21-22)

All the verses of Al Maida that we often cite to refute democracy actually address the people of the book. What is said there? That Jews and Christians should devise a new *system* that makes it magically impossible for people to rule besides the book. Or merely that they have to rule - whether through monarchy, theocracy or whatever - according to what is revealed in their scripture? I don't find any evidence in the verses to take the former. Obviosuly, if the content of the scripture or the prophet guides us to an elaborate system then we are bound to realize it. But I have already pointed out what seems to be the only definite guideline in Surah Shura about the character of the system we have to form. Everything else is a condemnation of what shall happen in hereafter if we choose to deviate. No need to put an oppressive system on the majority that forces them into what they don't want to be. Allah knows best.

Lastly and shortly so on democracy. I see it only as a means to dispute resolution. I have an interpretation about law and does the other, who shall get to rule? Democracy says that if I can the majority on my side then I should be allowed to rule accordingly. If I lose majority's support then I likewise lose the right to rule. What is in the precepts of our religion that tells us to keep imposing ourselves in power? And of course the thing about sovereignty belonging to the people, I merely consider it to be an answer to the question as to who is privileged to rule? Is it a class of aristocrats, a family of monarchs, religious order (theocracy), etc. I find democracy's answer to be that everyone is equally entitled no one deserves preferential treatment. As far as the sovereignty of the God goes, that has to be proclaimed by the people over themselves. Democracy per se has no problem to it as long as the minority doesn't impose itself on the remaining.

kino said...

I kept writing and writing without realizing how much until I came to submit here and it constantly told me to break into smaller pieces because I was exceedingly the maximum limit. Unbelievable! :) Please trust me I have a life and it is extremely rare that I sit down to babble this much. Certain circumstances made me unable to carry on with my routine today and this is what I have done! I truly wish that one day I learn the art of speaking concisely. I can't blame you if you choose to ignore it altogether. Anyway, until I grow smarter, I assure you I won't be coming back to bother you at least very often.

Thanks loads for bearing with me though!