> But what does "democracy" mean, in this part of the
> world? Give them a US or european style constitution
> and just say "go to it"? It ain't gonna work. That's
> what the Shah (in his ditatorial way) was trying to
> do: impose modernity on a people from above.
I'm not too certain what you're talking about, Jim; there's so much
stuff packed into this paragraph. I assume you're talking about
Modernity the ideology? What does that have to do with democracy?
Seems the inhabitants of Afghnistan see nothing wrong with
"representatives" (a poor choice of words, but I couldn't think of
another) coming together to discuss a problem pertaining to the country
as a whole and then arriving at some sort of decision collectively
(although not neccessarily being made legally binding). And who said
anything about "imposing" from above? Seems that's what the article
mentioned the U.S. plans to do: not even a pretence of democracy was
mentioned; a royal family will simply be "installed" as head of the
country. No vote or referendum, not even a crude one.
>
> People have been talking as if the concept of jihad
> was some obscure doctrine fished out of a misreading
> of the Koran. But the concept of a holy war against
> the infidel, and of a worldwide Islamic state, is
> central to the whole Koran. It isn't just some book
> of peace and love - it exhorts all followers of the
> true faith to take arms for Allah. As Islamic
> civilization developed, it was "domesticated"
> somewhat, but in anything close to it's original form,
> its fundamentally incompatible with pluralistic
> western democracy. What do we do when faced with
> something like that? I really don't know.
I must admit I have never read the Koran, except for some isolated passages, but what you describe seems awfully close to Biblical Christianity: I don't recall explicit talk of "holy war vs. the infidel" but Christianity (according to the Bible) is a religion that at least encourages conversion (of every human being on the planet), touts itself as "the one true religion" (so everyone else had BETTER convert or go straight to Hell), and its book is not just a book of peace and love. Yet Christianity has become relatively domesticated as well. Furthermore, I do recall that, during the Middle Ages, Islam was one hell of lot more tolerant of other religions (Christianity in it's various forms and Judaism) in its territory than Christianity was.
The Taliban wants Muslims to live according to a strict interpretation of Muslim law (I presume there are several out there; any Muslims who can inform us?). I don't recall hearing any laws they want followed necessarily excluded democracy (someone please let me know if otherwise) of any sort.
>
> Jim Baird
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:50:23 -0700
> From: joanna bujes <joanna.bujes at ebay.sun.com>
> Subject: Democracy in Afghanistan
>
> At 12:58 PM 09/21/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > > No democracy for the Afghani, no sir! They might actually start,
> >God
> > > Forbid!, thinking for themselves!
>
> I share your revulsion, but what exactly does it mean to fight for
> democracy in a tribal society? This is a real question. I have not studied
> Anthropology or Sociology...so how exactly does that work? This is
> important inasmuch as the left is responsible for presenting alternate
> possibilities, rather than simply criticizing whatever the US happens to be
> doing or promoting.
>
> Joanna B.
I think Carrol has the best idea so far re that last sentence: don't attack Afghanistan. And when it does happen: bring the troops home.
I don't know much about what life is like in Afghanistan, and what I do know of it is that I don't care for what I see. However, conditions there wouldn't have lasted forever had the U.S. not decided to invade; were the decision solely mine and the WTC destruction had not happened, I would simply leave the country alone and work to end and redress what the U.S. had done in the ME. As it stands now, positive change could still happen in Afghanistan should the U.S. pacify the country and impose a puppet regime a la the Shah of Iran, but what do you want to bet that events will play out almost exactly the same way they did pre-Ayatollah?
Todd