revolution spreads to egypt

They're technically democracies, in that they barely squeeze by with the definition of the word. But let's be honest...

well, like, you are straight up wrong on Pakistan and Afghanistan, both held free elections in the past couple of years, the latter having some problems, but it is the endemic corruption in Afghanistan, rather than the inability of the people to vote, that causes problems, same with Nigeria and other nations I listed.

Yemen I think was a mistake on my part, yes

I never trust groups of people in foreign non-english speaking nations that carry around signs written in english that say things like "Game over Mubarak. You need to go!"

Originally posted by inimalist
****, I just had to do this:

Nations with majority Muslim populations that are also democracies:

[b]Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Lebanon
Malaysai (still a monarchy, elected parliment[with exceptions])
Sudan (iffy, 2010 elections saw al Bashir take a majority again, but with only 68%, indicating he didn't have total control of the mechanisms [for instance, in Egypt and Khazikstan, the leaders get 98% of the vote and no other parties get any power])
Sierra Leone
Albania
Bahrain (democratic monarchy)
Guinea (as of 2010)
Indonesia
Kosovo
Bangladesh
Mali
Kuwait (democratic monarchy)
The Gambia
Senegal
Pakistan
Turkey
Palestine
Algeria
Jordan (democratic monarchy)
Comoros
Maldives
Niger [a democratically elected leader who tried to sieze power was recently removed in a coup, with elections held at the end of January 2011 to replace him]
Morocco (democratic monarchy)
Iraq
Yemen
Mauritania
Azerbaijan
Afghanistan

are there issues with political freedom in (many of) these nations? undoubtedly. Are they democracies, yes. [/B]

😬

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, but the comparison between the Iranian revolution and the one in Egypt exists only in the fact there are brown people protesting in the streets

Well, that's a nice politically correct statement, but the Iranians protesting the Shah wanted "freedom from a terrible and oppressive regime". The same applies in Egypt. It is indeed a real danger that an extremeist religious faction could take over in the aftermath. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.......when it happens.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
😬

QM was able to actually discuss some of those choices and prove me wrong...

you have no opinion?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, that's a nice politically correct statement, but the Iranians protesting the Shah wanted "freedom from a terrible and oppressive regime". The same applies in Egypt. It is indeed a real danger that an extremeist religious faction could take over in the aftermath. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.......when it happens.

I'm interested, in your opinion, what happened in Iran in 1979?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah...right. "Issues"? Any country where being gay is a capital crime, or where rape victims are punished shouldn't be called democracies. Those countries (including some of the other ones that were on your list, but these^ three especially) are "democracies" the same way North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic". Ay guey, gimme a break...

Well, in order to be a democracy, they only need to have public elections in some form. There are tons of different types of democracies. This could be only local officials are elected by popular vote. It could be a republican democracy. And so forth.

Here's a funny democracy: Elected Theocratic Monarchy. that's what the UK is. The head of State is the Crown which is something about God acting through the authority of The Crown and the corporation of The Crown, at the head, is the Queen. I thought that was the 'strangest' type of elected "official."

Man, I'm way off topic.

The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.

How much political power/pull does Elizabeth II have though? I ask, cos I've heard conflicting statements in the past.

Not a great deal, though the safeguards she represents are significant.

But attaching the term 'theocratic' to the Monarchy is incorrect as power in the United Kingdom has had nothing to do with God since the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century. The monarch is the administrative head of the Church of England (but NOT of Scotland, Wales or Ireland, and this is the United Knightom we are talking about) but that's irrelevant- the Spiritual head of the Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury. If he ruled, or the Church had any significant political power, you could say it was theocratic, but neither of these things are true so it is no more correct than saying the US is a theocracy because of all the God talk in the Constitution and attached to the President. Which I know some say IS true, but not helpfully.

The official government type is Constitutional Monarchy- as in, we have a monarch, with all that comes with that, but their powers are entirely limited and contained by a constitutional democracy.

Using the term 'elected' to describe the monarchy is also misleading. Not really a monarchy if elected; it is parliament that is elected.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But attaching the term 'theocratic' to the Monarchy is incorrect

Sort of. It's there in name, but not there in function. She's still technically head of church.

Also, I kind of took us off topic. I just thought it was very intriguing that the queen was technically a theocratic monarch.

As I said, only administratively, and that doesn't really qualify. If she had the position of Archbishop, it might work. Even that would only be ceremonial. As it is, the Church very deliberately breaks that up- the ACTUAL heard of the Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I said, only administratively, and that doesn't really qualify. If she had the position of Archbishop, it might work. Even that would only be ceremonial. As it is, the Church very deliberately breaks that up- the ACTUAL heard of the Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

You've never been wrong about this and I don't think you are. I agree with you. But it's there in title, still, which is what I was commenting on.

There are some people that want the "head of church" and "head of state" titles removed. They want one title to be given away to the Prime minister.
http://sheelanagigcomedienne.wordpress.com/britain-is-a-theocracy/

How does this apply to Egypt? If the dictator is replaced with a theocratic dictator, but is still "elected", we could have a similar setup but it would actually have substance. It's unlikely, though, in Egypt, due to the lack of religious homogeneity.

Originally posted by Robtard
How much political power/pull does Elizabeth II have though? I ask, cos I've heard conflicting statements in the past.

she shut down the canadian parliment at the behest of the Conservative party to prevent them being voted out in non-confidence

Originally posted by dadudemon
How does this apply to Egypt? If the dictator is replaced with a theocratic dictator, but is still "elected", we could have a similar setup but it would actually have substance. It's unlikely, though, in Egypt, due to the lack of religious homogeneity.

that, and the population of egypt is incredibly secular

also, Islam is not a force of "revolution" the same way it was in Iran. The Egyptian regieme didn't ban things like the veil. The reason the Iranian rev took an Islamic feel was that Islam itself was a statement of revolt

Originally posted by inimalist
****, I just had to do this:

Nations with majority Muslim populations that are also democracies:

[b]Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Lebanon
Malaysai (still a monarchy, elected parliment[with exceptions])
Sudan (iffy, 2010 elections saw al Bashir take a majority again, but with only 68%, indicating he didn't have total control of the mechanisms [for instance, in Egypt and Khazikstan, the leaders get 98% of the vote and no other parties get any power])
Sierra Leone
Albania
Bahrain (democratic monarchy)
Guinea (as of 2010)
Indonesia
Kosovo
Bangladesh
Mali
Kuwait (democratic monarchy)
The Gambia
Senegal
Pakistan
Turkey
Palestine
Algeria
Jordan (democratic monarchy)
Comoros
Maldives
Niger [a democratically elected leader who tried to sieze power was recently removed in a coup, with elections held at the end of January 2011 to replace him]
Morocco (democratic monarchy)
Iraq
Yemen
Mauritania
Azerbaijan
Afghanistan

are there issues with political freedom in (many of) these nations? undoubtedly. Are they democracies, yes. [/B]

And most of those countries are shining examples of freedoms and liberties for their citizens aren't they?

All of them stable democracies so they are.

Or maybe they're rife with poverty, torture, ethnic cleansing, genocide, religious fanaticism, terrorism, corruption and generally all round good stuff for their people.

Originally posted by jaden101
And most of those countries are shining examples of freedoms and liberties for their citizens aren't they?

All of them stable democracies so they are.

Or maybe they're rife with poverty, torture, ethnic cleansing, genocide, religious fanaticism, terrorism, corruption and generally all round good stuff for their people.

Rape, torture, starvation and sodomy isn't the issue, dude. It's whether they can democratically elect those that rape, torture, starve and sodomize them or not.

Originally posted by Robtard
How much political power/pull does Elizabeth II have though? I ask, cos I've heard conflicting statements in the past.

As I've mentioned before, the Queen does have one power which is useful and that a system like America doesn't have. Basically, the Queen and the monarchy is there and independently wealthy and actually is traditionally ingrained with a certain sense of social responsibility so you know, they aren't necessarily swayed by bankers and corporatists. The Queen also has the right to dissolve parliament and force new elections. So basically, if America had an institution similar to a monarchy, whenever government became as bought and corrupt as it is now, the queen or whatever royal would have the right to go up to any state legislature or the US congress and say "uh, uh. Not gonna work. You're all ****ing fired. New candidates, new elections, you have 60 days." So basically, I've been surprisingly turned around on the concept of monarchy when realizing it could act as a check on corporate power.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
As I've mentioned before, the Queen does have one power which is useful and that a system like America doesn't have. Basically, the Queen and the monarchy is there and independently wealthy and actually is traditionally ingrained with a certain sense of social responsibility so you know, they aren't necessarily swayed by bankers and corporatists. The Queen also has the right to dissolve parliament and force new elections. So basically, if America had an institution similar to a monarchy, whenever government became as bought and corrupt as it is now, the queen or whatever royal would have the right to go up to any state legislature or the US congress and say "uh, uh. Not gonna work. You're all ****ing fired. New candidates, new elections, you have 60 days." So basically, I've been surprisingly turned around on the concept of monarchy when realizing it could act as a check on corporate power.

What if said Queen is as corrupt and/or inept as the Government?

Originally posted by Robtard
Rape, torture, starvation and sodomy isn't the issue, dude. It's whether they can democratically elect those that rape, torture, starve and sodomize them or not.

That was funny to me.