Research says that higher income inequalities lead to higher social, psychological and health problems. So brother Kashif you are right on that one.

UK was an agricultural society ruled by landlords. Industrialization introduced capitalists to the parliament and then the capitalists decide to invest their newly acquired wealth in the whole world via colonization. I might add here that in England the residents are the 'subjects' of the Monarch and not citizens, so I don't think England is a democracy as some people erroneously believe.

All US presidents are descendents of a single royal English. Did you know this?
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/07/04/a...dents-related/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lish-king.html

So US is not a democracy as people think.

Question is do we have an ideal democracy in the world?

I think there is a parallel in history where the 'ideal' theory was practiced without understanding the actual practice. I do not know what i have said but what i want to point out is follows.

(coming back )

excerpts from the following:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/...wentyEight.pdf

"First, his- numerous writings were translated into Latin and were circulated and conserved, while his original Arabic texts were either burnt or proscribed due to the antagonistic spirit against philosophy and philosophers. Secondly, Europe during the Renaissance was willing to accept the scientific method as viewed by ibn Ruhd, while science and philosophy began in the East to be sacrificed for the sake of mystical and religious movements. In fact, he himself was affected by this conflict between science (and philosophy) and religion. Religion won the battle in the East, and science triumphed in the West."

so the west decided to go with the scientific method and got rid of Religion because they were so fed up with christianity. That naturally lead to secularism. which means that secularism was an 'accident' and not a result of conscious deliberations. Why I call it an accident is because Ibn Rushd never prescribed secularism. His efforts were only to defend philosophy from the attacks of the theologians of the time. What he was trying to say was that the way to God is not just through theology but though philosophy too:
"Having established that rengion has apparent and inner meanings, symbolic
for the common people and hidden for the learned, ibn' Rushd endeavours in
his book: al-Kashf `an Mandhij al-Adillak to find out the way to God,
i.e., the methods given in the Qur'an to attain to the belief inn the existence
of God and to the knowledge of His attributes, according to the apparent
meaning, for the first knowledge that every reasonable man is entitled to
obtain is of the way which leads to the belief in the existence of the Creator.
"

So Ibn Rushd was trying to find God through reason. His methods were formulated to find God through reason and not to say him farewell as the west did! Secularism through reason is a different topic. All i want to say for now is that Secularism was an accident.

Same is the case with democracy. US and UK re not true democracies as is known but the theory came to the East just like Ibn Rushd's theory reached the west . the west got secularism, the East has now Democracy.

It is in the East that democracy will find its 'theoretical' truth, if any. Rest I am tired .

Nice discussion by the way. Goes over my head most of the time . but thanks to both mhmmdkashif and Hassan bhai.