@Impossible

I had not criticized Nawaz govt. in particular. I had referred to his tenure as an example that what would be the 'theoretical' meaning of 'good governance' under a democratic government. I had mentioned that under democracy, the performance of government is measured in terms of approval of general public opinion. The task before the government, in democracy, would be how to win the support of general public opinion. I had given the example of Nawaz govt. with the view to show how effeciently this 'task' was achieved by Mr. Nawaz Sharif. If any government needs to win the support of public opinion, then it should follow the strategy adopted by Nawaz Sharif. But if the task before the government is real growth and development in the socio-economic sectors of the country, then it can adopt such policies also which apparently may go against the common desires of general public. The example of China is before us in this connection. Their policy had been that they had ignored the desires of individuals and had focussed only on the broader national perspectives of Economy. China's govts are guilty of keeping their national level political leaders in jails, of killing hundreds of their youth who were just demanding democracy etc. of not giving freedom of speech and thought to its population etc. I am not advocating this type of extreme system. But is there any doubt that Chinese governments have successfully put their country on the track of rapid progress? They have done it without asking anything from their people, who are greater in number than any other country. The purpose of quoting the example of China is just to show that there can be difference between the perception of government and general public. Government can think for the betterment of people without asking anything from people. Actions of such a government can ultimately be proved to be beneficial for the general public.

As I already said, I am not advocating this form of extreme system which was adopted by China. I am advocating for such a system which takes only good aspects of modern democracy and rejects the childish and illogical aspects of the same. The resulting system, as seems to me, most closly resembles to the original Islamic political system.

------

@ Versatile:

Thanks for your this critical and logical analysis. I had tried to show that western democracy, in as it is form neither suits to our culture and nor it can address to the real socio-economic needs of the country. At the most it can just give the impression as if it is addressing to routine desires of general public. Behavior of general public can be molded with just good slogans like "roti, kaprra aur makan" or with high fi promises like of green gardens, or with such 'visible' aspects of government performance as 'yellow cab scheme', 'motor way project' etc. It is a fact that general public can 'see' and 'remember' only this type of things. Our people still remember Sher Shah Suri for just a road, which he had built some centuries ago. It is so because the same road is still visible to us. In democracy, the task before the government is to just win the popularity among the general public. What government needs is just to keep 'general opinion' in its own favor. It would be difficult for a government to be re-elected if it loses the support of general opinion. This 'general opinion' is the sacred most entity/ component of modern democracy.


You are right only in that in early Islamic history, a common person could give his proposals/ suggestions to rulers but the fact which you have ignored is that a common person was not entitled to vote in the process of electing of new Caliph.

I am actually supporting this same practice. I am not denying the right of common man to ask performance from government or to make proposals/ suggestions to government. I am only denying the right to vote of a common man.

The difference between giving proposals/ suggestions and casting vote is crucial and I must elaborate this thing. Everyone including intellectuals and common persons usually have their opinions about different issues. Some people might be having right opinions, other might be having quite wrong opinions and some of the opinions might be just partially true. When a person tells his/ her opinion to governmental authorities, the authorized officials/rulers can properly evaluate the worth of that opinion. They can give due weight to the right opinions and they can at once reject the wrong opinions. Similarly for those opinions, which are just partially true, they (rulers) can evaluate and analyze such opinions with the view to extract the truth out of them. In this way, governmental decisions would always be based on accepted true opinions. A common person can give his/her proposals/suggestions at any time during the tenure of government. Government should positively consider/ evaluate this type of proposals/suggestions while performing its routine affairs. Government can establish an organized institution for this purpose where any citizen could submit his/her written analysis and proposals regarding different governmental affairs. Alternatively government can arrange to publish a monthly guzzet etc. for this purpose. It is only up to the government that whether it would like to take action or to implement any or all of those proposals or not. People would have no right to ask government to do implement those individual proposals. But people must have got this surety that their proposals/ suggestions have duly reached to the right concerned governmental authority. Concerned governmental authority must have to be at least 'aware' about those proposals. 'Non-awareness' of such proposals of the concerned governmental officials/authorities would be considered negligence on the part of those authorities but their non-implementation would not be any negligence because government would be authorized to accept or reject those proposals at its own.

These type of proposals must be in the notice of penal of voters also who would be the top intellectuals of the country. This penal also would give various proposals/suggestions to government on regular basis. Government would be in need to win the support of this penal at least. So the proposals of penal, which also would reflect the proposals of general public, most probably be implemented by the government.

To cast a vote is very much different then to make a suggestion/ proposal. A voter also can be right or wrong in his/her opinions. But in the case of a vote, truth or falsity of the opinion of voter does not matter and the impact of each and every vote ultimately reaches up to the final decision. This system would be effective only and only if all the voters are well aware about the pros and cons of governmental affairs. Because if all the voters are expert of governmental policies, only then election results can be regarded as based on true or right opinions. In all other situations, election results would be based on bundle of right and wrong opinions. Wrong opinions would get undue weight as a result. Modern democracy is well aware of this problem but it treats this problem as a form of necessary evil. Whereas, in my assessment, there is no solid necessity in this case. Penal of voters that would comprise of the top competent intellectuals of the country can represent the over-all population. This penal can act like agent of over-all population.

Secondly, I had not proposed anything like Plato's philosopher king. I request you to please read my previous post again. Intellectuals would be just 'voters' and not 'king'. Intellectuals would be entitled to vote but would not be entitled to become candidates for elections. Candidates for elections should only be the well experienced and internationally recognized top competent personalities of the country.

Then you had pointed out that I, being among the class of general public, couldn’t give any suggestion etc. as to the governmental affairs because it would be contradictory to my own suggestion. It is due to your this point that I have explained the difference between right to suggest and right to vote, in this reply. Now I hope that you will not find any logical fallacy in my position because I am just giving the suggestions. According to my suggestion, everyone should be entitled to suggest but everyone should not be entitled to vote. To become entitled to vote, one must prove that one has sufficient understanding of governmental affairs.

Carrying out governmental affairs is a whole different activity. It requires 'practical' skills far more than 'intellectual' skills. So only those people should be entitled to be candidate for elections who are having proven competency in managerial skills. Tasks and priorities shall be worked out by the intellectuals. Rulers, using their managerial skills, would chase those priorities. You had wrongfully equated my suggestions with the Platonic notion of philosopher king. First of all, as I already had mentioned in the previous post, this type of democracy would most closely resemble to the original political system of Islam. Secondly, instead of Platonic idea, this idea is actually similar to the idea of Confucius who was in search of such a ruler who would become ready to run the affairs of his state as per the intellectual guidelines laid down by Confucius.

Regards!

Khuram