Democracy

[Uzbekxonim]

I often hear people saying: "We have no democracy in Uzbekistan", "There's no real democracy" etc

I wonder how the citizens/people of Uzbekistan understand this word/definition.

Please share with us your own understanding of democracy.

p.s. please no definitions of democracy from the dictionaries.
p.s. non-Uzbekistan people's opinions are also welcomed.

[Walter]

Democracy in Uzbekistan? - funny

[Uzbekxonim]

Democracy in Uzbekistan? - funny
no, your common understanding of democracy, the definition itself

[Uzbekxonim]

ok, let me begin

the word democracy consists of two parts demos and kratas, demos means people and kratas - rule or government => democracy is when people govern themselfs within the rules set by themselves/their representatives.

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum

democracy means ( the way that people judge him self by him self, by using several rules that people put to govern life)

that means, the people rule it self, by its self, through its mind

but now aquestion , is democracy accepted in islam ???

answer : islam is laws from allah to judge the life of the islamic society, on all relationes, and also, the relation between muslims and other societies, and the source of these rules are just islam (quran, and sunnah), and in islam, democracy is rejected if the people wanted to judge by non-islamic rules)

for example, if the people wanted to govern by non-islamic laws, by the definition of democracy, that is accepted , as people wanted that, but in islam is rejected, as allah refuse to judge by non-islamic rules.

and islam has the right way of ruling and governing people, as its source is allah , and allah has the best solution of the humanity, as allah who created humanity and know the solutions, at the contrary of human, as the human him self, not know every thing, and may givern by bad rulings.

the last :
islam = allah laws, and always right, and has the best solution .
democracy = human laws, which may be wrong or may be right .

as we may see in the american society, there are alot of rules that we dont allow as muslims, but americans allow as democracy saying that, as women work in bars, uni sex merriage, they see that it is afreedom, and that is taken from there ideas of democracy, but here ,those rules arent allowed in islam, as islam forbid them in koraan and sonnah.

thank u very much

[Masanori]

I often hear people saying: "We have no democracy in Uzbekistan", "There's no real democracy" etc

I wonder how the citizens/people of Uzbekistan understand this word/definition.

Please share with us your own understanding of democracy.

p.s. please no definitions of democracy from the dictionaries.
p.s. non-Uzbekistan people's opinions are also welcomed.
pora uje ponyat chto vsem mirom pravyat dengi i sila! A demokratiya harakteriziruyushyayasya kak rejim sozdayushiy optimalniye usloviya dlya svobodnih viborov, zashiti prav cheloveka, svobodi slova, verhovenstva zakona nichto inoye kak nonsense! K primeru, v kakoy strane sushestvuyet politicheskaya arena dlya RAVNIH i SVOBODNIH viborov? Ravniye vibori mogut bit tolko togda kogda na starte vse ravni kak v ekonomicheskom tak i v politicheskom plane! Videli takoye? Konechno je net! Zashita prav cheloveka? prosto uje nadoelo govorit o politike dvoynih standartov kogda stepen garantirovannosti prav cheloveka v otdelno vzyatoy strane ocenivaetsya ne obyektivno sootvetstvuyushimi organizaciyami! Verhovensto zakona! Mojet bit i sushestvuyet podobnoye ne ordinarnoye yavleniye, no opyat je verhovenstvuyut te zakoni kotoriye prinyati izbrannim na "ravnih" usloviyah zakonodatelem! Hotya daje te zakoni dovolno chasto narushayutsya, a organi pravoporyadka prosto delayut vid chto ne zamechayut etogo! Svoboda slova! Tak ved SMI eto ogromneyshaya industriya kotoraya prinosit ne maliye dengi svoim VLADELCAM! A kol zameshani dengi, mojno i bozabit ob obyektivnosti dannoy infrastrukturi! Demokratiya - odna bolshaya gryaznaya igra, kotoraya prosto pudrit lyudyam mozgi! Slovom, demokratii kotoraya realno garantiruyet sushestvovaniye vishe perechislenih principov net! No yest inaya demokratiya kotoraya funkcioniruyet v tak nazivaemih demokraticheskih stranah. Demokratiya kotoraya realno garantiruyet obichnomu grajdaninu obustroit svoyu jizn v predelah svoih znaniy i sposobnostey! Takoy rejim ya uvajayu! V teh stranah mojno poluchit obrazovaniye, nayti rabotu i jit ne bedstvuya, bez zabot (ekonomicheskih)! No na etom tochka, bolshego demokratiya XXI veka ne v silah predostavit!

with hurmats
masa!

Off: Uzbekhonum, oldingi avatariz manga kuproq yoqardi!

[Uzbekxonim]

Demokratiya - odna bolshaya gryaznaya igra, kotoraya prosto pudrit lyudyam mozgi! Slovom, demokratii kotoraya realno garantiruyet sushestvovaniye vishe perechislenih principov net! No yest inaya demokratiya kotoraya funkcioniruyet v tak nazivaemih demokraticheskih stranah. Demokratiya kotoraya realno garantiruyet obichnomu grajdaninu obustroit svoyu jizn v predelah svoih znaniy i sposobnostey! Takoy rejim ya uvajayu! V teh stranah mojno poluchit obrazovaniye, nayti rabotu i jit ne bedstvuya, bez zabot (ekonomicheskih)! No na etom tochka, bolshego demokratiya XXI veka ne v silah predostavit!

with hurmats
masa!

Off: Uzbekhonum, oldingi avatariz manga kuproq yoqardi!

kak vi dumaete, v Yaponii kakaya demokratiya? eto iz toy serii kot vi uvajaete?

off: i've already changed, oldingisi chiroyliku lekin jonga tegdi

p.s. spasibo chto na etot raz oboshlis' bez sarkasticheskih zamechaniy po povodu temi moego threada;)

[Masanori]

kak vi dumaete, v Yaponii kakaya demokratiya? eto iz toy serii kot vi uvajaete?
ta damokratiya kotoruyu ya uvajayu! lyudi jivut i zarabativayut dengi ili je zarabativayut dengi i jivut! I voobshe na demokratiyu lyudyam zdes naplevat, ih vse eto osobo ne volnuyet!

off: i've already changed, oldingisi chiroyliku lekin jonga tegdi

bir uzgartirib yana ushanga qaytgandiz, yana eskisiga qaytasiz degan umiddaman!:P

p.s. spasibo chto na etot raz oboshlis' bez sarkasticheskih zamechaniy po povodu temi moego threada;)

Yeli kak uderjalsya! :P
no sleduyushy thread tochno budet nazivatsya "Prava sexualnih menshinstv" ili je "rinochnaya ekonomika: vi za ili rotiv"! Sorry, ne uderjalsya!:P

[Uzbekxonim]

ta damokratiya kotoruyu ya uvajayu! lyudi jivut i zarabativayut dengi ili je zarabativayut dengi i jivut! I voobshe na demokratiyu lyudyam zdes naplevat, ih vse eto osobo ne volnuyet!
daje esli demokratiya ih ne volnuet oni jivut po demokraticheskim printsipam, pravda je? togda chem je otlichaetsya yaponskaya demokratiya ot, skajem, amerikanskoy?


bir uzgartirib yana ushanga qaytgandiz, yana eskisiga qaytasiz degan umiddaman!:P

nadejda umiraet posledney;)


Yeli kak uderjalsya! :P
no sleduyushy thread tochno budet nazivatsya "Prava sexualnih menshinstv" ili je "rinochnaya ekonomika: vi za ili rotiv"! Sorry, ne uderjalsya!:P

nu chto vi pristali k etim menshinstvam?:twisted: zato interesnee stanovitsya na forume;)

[Masanori]

daje esli demokratiya ih ne volnuet oni jivut po demokraticheskim printsipam, pravda je? togda chem je otlichaetsya yaponskaya demokratiya ot, skajem, amerikanskoy?


eto smotrya chto vi ponimayete pod opredeleniyem "demokraticheskiye principi"

[Uzbekxonim]

eto smotrya chto vi ponimayete pod opredeleniyem "demokraticheskiye principi"

vse to chto vi perechislili i nekotorie drugie printsipi (vseobshee ravenstvo pered zakonom, etc www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/fivedem.html <= copy and paste in address line): (http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/fivedem.html <= copy and paste in address line):)


pora uje ponyat chto vsem mirom pravyat dengi i sila! A demokratiya harakteriziruyushyayasya kak rejim sozdayushiy optimalniye usloviya dlya svobodnih viborov, zashiti prav cheloveka, svobodi slova, verhovenstva zakona nichto inoye kak nonsense! K primeru, v kakoy strane sushestvuyet politicheskaya arena dlya RAVNIH i SVOBODNIH viborov? Ravniye vibori mogut bit tolko togda kogda na starte vse ravni kak v ekonomicheskom tak i v politicheskom plane! Videli takoye? Konechno je net! Zashita prav cheloveka? prosto uje nadoelo govorit o politike dvoynih standartov kogda stepen garantirovannosti prav cheloveka v otdelno vzyatoy strane ocenivaetsya ne obyektivno sootvetstvuyushimi organizaciyami! Verhovensto zakona! Mojet bit i sushestvuyet podobnoye ne ordinarnoye yavleniye, no opyat je verhovenstvuyut te zakoni kotoriye prinyati izbrannim na "ravnih" usloviyah zakonodatelem! Hotya daje te zakoni dovolno chasto narushayutsya, a organi pravoporyadka prosto delayut vid chto ne zamechayut etogo! Svoboda slova! Tak ved SMI eto ogromneyshaya industriya kotoraya prinosit ne maliye dengi svoim VLADELCAM! A kol zameshani dengi, mojno i bozabit ob obyektivnosti dannoy infrastrukturi! Demokratiya - odna bolshaya gryaznaya igra, kotoraya prosto pudrit lyudyam mozgi! Slovom, demokratii kotoraya realno garantiruyet sushestvovaniye vishe perechislenih principov net! No yest inaya demokratiya kotoraya funkcioniruyet v tak nazivaemih demokraticheskih stranah. Demokratiya kotoraya realno garantiruyet obichnomu grajdaninu obustroit svoyu jizn v predelah svoih znaniy i sposobnostey! Takoy rejim ya uvajayu! V teh stranah mojno poluchit obrazovaniye, nayti rabotu i jit ne bedstvuya, bez zabot (ekonomicheskih)! No na etom tochka, bolshego demokratiya XXI veka ne v silah predostavit!

[Masanori]

vse to chto vi perechislili i nekotorie drugie printsipi (vseobshee ravenstvo pered zakonom, etc www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/fivedem.html <= copy and paste in address line): (http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/fivedem.html%20%3C=%20copy%20and%20paste%20in%20ad dress%20line%29:)

net demokratii v yaponii! takuyu demokratiyu vi nigde ne naydete, perechitayte moi perviy post!

hurmats!

[Delf]

My understanding of Democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional democracy and constitutional liberalism), and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.

These rights and freedoms include the rights to due process, private ownership of property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. In liberal democracies these rights (also known as ‘’liberal rights’’) may sometimes be constitutionally guaranteed, or are otherwise created by statutory law or case law, which may in turn empower various civil institutions to administer or enforce these rights.

Liberal democracies also tend to be characterized by tolerance and pluralism; widely differing social and political views, even those viewed as extreme or fringe, are permitted to co-exist and compete for political power on a democratic basis. Liberal democracies periodically hold elections where groups with differing political views have the opportunity to achieve political power.





Qualities of liberal democracies include:

* A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights
* Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership (See also elective rights)
* Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest
* Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
* Freedom of association
* Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
* The right to private property and privacy
* Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
* A broadly and deeply-entrenched civil society with rule of law
* An independent judiciary, with opportunities for appeal
* A system of checks and balances between branches of government



Delf.

[Uzbekxonim]

My understanding of Democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional democracy and constitutional liberalism), and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.

Delf.

I often hear people saying: "We have no democracy in Uzbekistan", "There's no real democracy" etc

I wonder how the citizens/people of Uzbekistan understand this word/definition.

Please share with us your own understanding of democracy.

p.s. please no definitions of democracy from the dictionaries.
p.s. non-Uzbekistan people's opinions are also welcomed.

thanks for definition from the dictionary...

[Uzbekxonim]

net demokratii v yaponii! takuyu demokratiyu vi nigde ne naydete, perechitayte moi perviy post!

hurmats!

Masanori, v etom mire net nichego sovershennogo/idelanogo i estestvenno chto idealnoy demokratii toje nigde net, est demokratiya ochen priblijennaya k sovershenstvu.

a vot na schet yaponii vi ne pravi, u nih demokratiya (mne tak kajetsya) protsvetaet.

[Uzbekxonim]

amazing -107 views and only several opinions on this topic.:shock:

it appears that i was right - not everybody who says "there's no democracy in Uzb" can explain what democracy is in their own words.... what a pity....:(

[ДЖИГИТ]

amazing -107 views and only several opinions on this topic.:shock:

it appears that i was right - not everybody who says "there's no democracy in Uzb" can explain what democracy is in their own words.... what a pity....:(

Feodalism, zavyornutiy v demokraticheskuyu reklamu.

[Uzbekxonim]

Feodalism, zavyornutiy v demokraticheskuyu reklamu.

vi ne mogli bi nemnogo pokonkretney virazit svoyu misl?

[Lady_G]

demokratia? heh! nima o'zi u? Evropada turib bilmimizu buni...

[ДЖИГИТ]

vi ne mogli bi nemnogo pokonkretney virazit svoyu misl?

Chego tut uj bolee konkretney, Feodalism est' feodalism, sut' odna da vid drugoy, kak bi ne krichali o demokratii v teorii, na praktike je obratnoe. Drugoy vopros - demokratiya kak nesovershennoe yavlenie. Chelovechestvo ni v kakie vremena ne smojet dostich' sovershenstva v sotsiiume, tol'ko pri pomoshi Bojestvennogo navedeniya. Nesposobnost' je obyasnyaetsya prostim argumentom - skol'ko individov, stol'ko i mneniy. Imenno demokratiya i vedyot k etomu, raz'edinyayushiy effekt, Tol'ko bojestvennoe ob'edinyaet!

[Uzbekxonim]

it seems that lots of people are very pessimistic about 'democracy' phenomena...

what will happen in 10-20 years in Uzbekistan if our nowadays youth is that pessimistic about that and do not believe in democracy?:(

[ДЖИГИТ]

it seems that lots of people are very pessimistic about 'democracy' phenomena...

what will happen in 10-20 years in Uzbekistan if our nowadays youth is that pessimistic about that and do not believe in democracy?:(

It is not pessimism of youth, it is reality, which sometimes not the way you want. The key to success is not democracy, the key is enlightment, education and developing moral values. Under democracy we see development of alienations like same sex marriages, prostitution, and many other negative things. It is enlightment, morale , that teaches democracy, but not vice versa.

[Uzbekxonim]

It is not pessimism of youth, it is reality, which sometimes not the way you want.


it is nessacary to realise the reality but attempt to reach perfection leads us to a higher level.

The key to success is not democracy, the key is enlightment, education and developing moral values.

developing moral values also includes updating these values, making them appropriate with nowadays life.


Under democracy we see development of alienations like same sex marriages, prostitution, and many other negative things. It is enlightment, morale , that teaches democracy, but not vice versa.


with enlightment and appropriate moral values we can limit those alienations and prevent other negative things occur and let the positive things/points of democracy to be realised in all sphereas of our life.

regards.

[ДЖИГИТ]

by Uzbekhonum
it is nessacary to realise the reality but attempt to reach perfection leads us to a higher level.



What's the point of democracy levels when it divides and religion unites.


developing moral values also includes updating these values, making them appropriate with nowadays life.



It will be DEAD END!!! Morale never changes, preferences do, maybe you you meant preferences and goals? Changing morale trying to fit them to modern life will lead to continuous, non stop morale changes, which is disaster, because life and its preferences changing almost every minute! Now you get the picture?



with enlightment and appropriate moral values we can limit those alienations and prevent other negative things occur and let the positive things/points of democracy to be realised in all sphereas of our life.

regards.

Do you realise now that morale should guide democracy???

[Iqbol]

Bu mavzuda qisqacha qilip o'zbek tilida, o'z bilgan narslaarim va ojil fikrimizni bildiray, Hudo hohlasa Uzbek honim tushunishda qiyinchilik sezmaydi.
Demokratiya, insoniyatning eng so'nggi manzili. So'ngi manzil deganda negatif, yaqin bo'lgan tamom emas, balki bundan buyog'iga insoniyatning fikri o'ta olmaydi. Bu insoniyatning( aniqrog'i, G'arb madaniyatining) o'ylap topa oladigan eng mukammal jamiyatni boshqaruvchi tizimi. Shuning uchun ham bundan o'zidan zaif bo'lgan barcha diniy va dunyoviy aqidalarni chiqarip tushlaydi va butun dunyo demokratik boshqarish ostida birlashadi. Dunyoni demokratlashtirish esa yagona lider Amerika va uning yevropalik hamkorlarining bo'yniga tushgan vazifadir. Ular dunyoni qutqarishadi. Shuning uchun ham G'arbning dunyoning boshqa barcha qismlariga ustunligi yaqqoldir.( Francis Fukuyama, The End of History).
O'n to'qqizinchi asrda, insonlar har qanday qirollik yoki diniy avtoritetlarni ag'darip tashladilar va ularning o'rniga halq hokimiyati degan aslida, hech narsani anglatmaydigan, havfli tushunchani olip keldilar. Bundan buyon, jamiyat va davlatga tegishli qarorlarni, kerakli sohalarni yahshi biladigan, uzoqni ko'ra biladigan siyosatchi, diplomat va tehnokratlar emas, balki qorindan boshqa narsani o'ylamaydigan va burnidan uzog'ini ko'ra olmaydigan haql, omma, bir to'da olomon qabul qiladi. Bu olomon esa qorin g'amidan boshqani tushunmaydi, va kim unga nima togriligini uqtirsa shuni, o'ylap o'tirmasdan qabul qiladi. Bundan buyon, endi hokimiyat olomonga tegishlidir. Va haqiqiy hokimiyat esa, shu olomonning tasavvuriga (imagination) tasir qilish san'atinini biladiganlarga tegishli. Kim olomonni firkiga tasir qila olsa, o'sha hukm suradi. ( Those who know how to impress the imagination of the masses will control the world) Olomon esa, unga gazetalar nimani to'gri, uning manfaati uchun foydali dep tushuntirsa shuni u togri deydi va shu yo'nalishda qarorlar qabul qiladi. Natijada, tor lekin katta moddaviyn, moliyaviy va media resurslariga ega bol'ganlar, yillardir, insonlarni siz o'zingizni o'zingiz boshqaryapsiz dep ishontirgan holda, aslida o'zlarining tor manfaatlarini qo'lga kiritip kelmoqdalar. ( Bu fikrlar, 20 asrning boshlarida yozilgan yurist va siyosatchi, sosiologlar qalamiga mansub/ Jumladan, Charles de Visscher, Gustave le Bon, Réné Guénon va boshqalar. Ularning fikrlari hozir ham ko'p insonlar tarafidan davom ettirilip kelyapti).

Yuqoridagi ikki qarama qarshi qarash, demokratiyaning juda ziddiyatli bir tushuncha ekanligidan dalolat beradi. Ikki qarash ham ozining kuchli va zaif jihatlariga ega. Lekin, mening fikrimcha, hozirgacha demokratiyani himoya qilip kelganlar, demokratiyaning shu vaqtgacha bo'lgan umumiy foydalari emas, balki kopincha umumiy, afsonaviy, bazan teleologik argumentlarni ilgari surishadi. Demokratiyaga qarshi bo'lganlar, esa kopicha demokratik tushnchalar keng tarqalgandan beri bo'lip kelgan urushlar, krizislar, demokratik jamiatning o'zining ichidagi hozirgacha davom etip kelayotgan tengsizlik va haqsizliklar, demokratik jamiatni shior qilip olgan bir guruh davlatlarning boshqalarga oz fikrlarini kuch bilan qabul qildirsh uchun qilayotgan urushlarini ko'rsatip, bu demokratiyaning aslida sohta bir tushncha, bazilarining manfaatlari uchun qo'llaniladigan niqob, odamlarning psihologiyasi va intilishlarini suistemol qilayotgan tushuncha deb bilishadi.
Endi, demokratiya tushunchasi nimani anglatadi? U qanday ko'rinishlarda bo'lishi mumkin? Va hozirda qanday holatda? degan savollarga kelsak( Uzbekhonim savoliga endi yetib keldik, uzr.)

Demokratiya, oldin aytib o'tishganidek, demos va kratos yani halq va boshqaruv so'zlaridan kelip chiqip, eng birinchi navbatda, qadimgi grek shaharlarida ishlap chiqilgan va tatbiq qilingan. O'sha vaqtlarda, demokratiya direct democracy , yani butun fuqarolar o'z shaharlarining ( davlat eams balki kichik shahar, diqqatga sazovor detal) bosqhqaruvida to'gridan to'gri qatnashishi huquqini bildirgan. Va haqiqatdan ham, o'sha davrda shahar aholisi to'planip, shahr hayotiga tegishli bo'lgan qarorlarni hama birga ochiq qabul qilishgan. Lekin, bu yig'inlarga faqat erkin kishilar qatnasha olgan. Qullar bu huquqdan mahrum bo'lgan. Kopincha insonlar ideal qilip ko'rsatgan grek shaharlaridagi quldorlchilik, bevosita buyuk mutafakkir (!) Aristotelning, Hudo insonlarni yuqori va quyi tabaqa qilip yaratgan va quyi tabaqalarning yuqori tabaqa odamlargaqullik qilishi shart va bunda hech qanday adolatsizlik yo'q degan tushunchasidan kelip chiqqan. (Huddi shu argumentni, ispan qirollari, Amerikani kolonizasiya qilayotganda qo'llanishadi. Qirolning yaqin yurisit va teologi Juan Gines de Sepulveda, mashhur Valliadolid bahsida, yerlik hindular biz ispan va hristianblar kabi odamlar emas. Ular sal hayvondan yuqori va insonlardan past bo'lgan yaratiqlardir. Ularda qalb (soul) yo'q. Shuning uchun ularni kuch bilan hristianlikka qabul qildirish, aks holda o'ldirish, qul qilish, ularning boylik va yermlaridan beminnat foydalanishimiz mumkin degan fikrlarni ilgari suradi.)

Keyinchalik, bu demokratik tuzum Rim imperiasida qisman qo'llaniladi. Va uzoq asrlik tanaffusdan keyin, 17 - 18 asrlardan boshlab qaytadan yevropa mutafakkilrair asarlarida paydo bo'ladi. Va ayniqsa, 18 asrdagi Lumières, yani Enlightenment harakti vakillari, din va qirollik odamlarni haqsiz ravishda ezip kelayotganini, insonlar diktatura va tiranlikka loyiq emasligini aytishadi. Ularga ko'ra, inson shahsiyatida va tabiatda qadimdan adolat va qonun ustuvorligi prinsiplari mavjudligini, insonlar shu prinsiplarni erkin tadqiqotlar orqali o'rganip , shular asosida o'z boshqaruvini tuzishlari kerkaligin takidlashadi. Ular uchun din va qirollik bir biri bilan chambarchas bog'liq bo'lgan va ikkalasdi ham zulmat sababchisidir. Shuning uchun, ular, sekin sekin halqni qo'zgo'tishga harakzt qila boshlaydilar. Va kop on yilliklardan keyin, 1789 yildagi, insonlar teng huquqligi va diktaturani yo'q qilish shioi ostidagi Fransuz revolyusiyasi bo'lip o'tadi. Revolyusiyadan keyinoq, Inson huquqlari deklarasiyasi qabul qilinadi, va bunda birinchi artikldayoq Butun erkakalar va hotinlar teng huquqli bo'lip tugiladilar prinsipi yozip qolyiladi. Va, demokratik hokimiyat yani haqlning davlat va jamiyat boshqaruvida o'zi saylagan noiblar orqali qatnashadigan tuzum tuzishadi. ( Qirollar davrida ham Parlamentlar bolgan, lekin ular haqiqiy kuchga ega bolmagan). Lekin, revolyusiyaning dahshatli qatliomlari va undan keyingi kelgan anarhiya insonlarni qaytadan qirollik va kuchli avtoritet qidirshga majbur qiladi. huddi shu davrlarda, okean ortida ham amerika davlati vujudga keladi, va bu yerda ham parlament tuzumi vujudga keladi. Bu tenglikka asoslangan parlament hokimiyati amerikada bolayotgan qoralarni tahqirlash kontekstida hukm suradi.
Asosan, demokratik tuzumning teoriyasi va amalda qo'llanilishi asosan yigirmanchi asrda rivojlandi. Insonlar, ikki jahon urushu, kommunizm va nasional-sosializm qarshisida, ularga zid bo'lgan, jamiyatdagi barcha insonlarning tinchligi va boyligin taminlaydigan, tinchlik hukm suradigan, va barcha qarorlar halq manfaati uchun foydali bolgan qarorlar qabul qiladigan jamiyat tuzumini tuzishga kirishadilar.

Hozirgi kunda, demokratik tuzum deganda quyidagi elementlarni yodga olsa bo'ladi.

1) Demokratik tuzumda, jamiyatdagi barcha guruhlar o'zlari saylap qo'ygan deputatlar orqali, davlat boshqaruvida bilvosita (asosan katta davlatlar) yoki bevosita ( masalan, nisbatan kichik Estoniyada hohlagan kishi internet orqali vazirla kabineti yigilishida togridan togri qatnaship oz fikrlarini bildirishi mumkin) ishtirok etadi.

2) Sistemaning yahshi ishlashligi uchun va suistemol yo'lga qo'yilmasligi va butun institutlar togri ish tutayotganini taminlash uchun, hokimiyat bo'linishi prinsipi juda muhimdir. Bunday jamiyatda hokimiyat uchga bo'linadi:
a) Qonun chiqaruvchi hokimiyat
b) Ijro etuvchi hokimiyat
c) Sud hokimiyati.
Bu uchala organ ha mbir biridan mustaqil bo'lishi kerak. Agar, hammasini bir guruh yoki kishi boshqarsa unda arbitraire yoki birk ihsi o'zi hohlagan ravishda subyektiv qaror qabul qilish ehtimoli mavjdligi bo'ladi. Aksincha, qaror qabul qilish, uni ijro etish va bu jarayonning qonun va adolatga muvofiqligin nazorat qiluvchi sud ning bir biridan mustaqilligi obyektivlikni taminlaydi. Va halq, bu hokimiyatdan ko'ngli to'q bo'lishi mumkin.

3) Hozirda, demokratiya tushunchasi qonun ustuvorligi ( Rule of law) va inson haqlarini hurmat qilish ( respectof human rights) tushunchalari bilan chambarchas bogliqdir. Bu uch prinsip haqiqiy adolatli jamiyat va davlat bilan asosiasiya qilinadi. Masalan barcha yevropa davlatlarining konstitusiyalarida, Evrope Ittifoqining shartnomalarida, BM va boshqa tashkilotlarning hujjatlarida bu prinsiplarga amal qilish zarurati takidlanadi.

4) Qonun ustuvorligi bu davlat hududida qonuniy yo'llar bilan qabul qilingan qonun va hukmlarning adolatli va to'liq amal qilinishi, va bu qonunlarni amalga oshirayotgan barcha shahs va tashkilotlarning qonun nazoratiga tutilganidir. Davlat organlarimi, yoki shahslarmi, ularning barcha harakatini qonun nazoratiga tutilgan bolishi kerak.

5) Inson haqlari bu asosan, insonning tabiatidan kelip chiqadigan ( bu tushuncha oldingi Hudo tarafidan beilrgan haqlar orniga qollaniladi hozir) va uning to'liq rivojlanishi uchun shart bolgan haq va huquqlarni o'z ichiga oladi.

4) Demokratik tuzumda, jamiyatni boshqaruvchi qonunlar, pozitiv qonunlar hisoblanadi, yani bu qonunlarni halq saylagan qonunchilar qabul qilib qo'yishadi( poser). Pozitif qonun bu mustaqil bir organning konstitusiayaga amal qilgan holda malum bir davlat va malum bir zamon uchun qabul qilgan qonun va hukmalridir.

5) Demokratik tuzumda, halqaro maydonda butun davlatlar teng huquqli hisoblanadi, etc.

[Iqbol]

Demokratik tuzumni, albatta kop yutuqlarini ko'rsatsa bo'ladi. Haqiqatdan, necha yildir Yevropada urush bolmadi. Amerika rivojlandi. Savdo globallashmoqda. Yevropada inson huquqlari shu darajaga yetip bordiki, hattoki davlat o'zining fuqarosiga qarshi bir chora ko'rishdan oldin, bu choram Evrope Inson halqari qarorlariga zidmasmikan dep oylap koradigan bo'ldi. Shuning uchun, demokratiyani targib qiladiganlar ko'p.
Lekin, agar, biz haqiqatdan ham global va tarihiy yondoshadigan bo'lsak, demokratiyaning bu qadar reklamaga ega bo'lishi bu yevropa va amerikaning hozirgi vaqtinchalik moddiy ustunligi tufayli. Ular, media orqali bo'lsin, yoki yordam shartnomalarini tuzyotganda bo'lgan tzyqilar, yoki urush yoki ekonomik choralar orqali o'zlarining tuzumini yagona yo'l dep ko'rsatishga harakat qilishmoqda va hattoki bu fikrlarni kuch bilan, haqlarning hohishiga qarshi bo'lgan holda o'tkazishga harakat qilishmoqda. Bu albatta achinarli hol.
1) Chunki, global yondoshadigan, bolsak, bu demokratiya faqatgina qisman foyda keltirdi u ham bolsa juda chegaralngan doirada: Yevropa, Amerika va Japoniyada( samuraylar dam uhlayotgan paytda). U ham bo'lsa, faqatgina qisman moddiy osonlik va inson erkinligi deganda ular insinning hirs ehtiros erkinligini rivojlanishiga foyda qildi holos. Hattoki, shu davlatlarda yahshayotgan chet el kelip chiqishi bo'lgan, nafaqat chet ellik, balki yerlik aholi qatlamlari ham, hozirgacha demokratiya foydalaridan bebahra qolip kelmoqda.

2) Demokratiyani yoyish niqobi ostida, yillardir, ko'plab urushlar olib borilmoqda va bu fojiali natijalrga olip kelmoqda.

3) Ko'pincha bu demokratiyani targ'ib qiladiganlar, iqtisodiy manfaatlar kelganda nodemokratik davlatlar bilan adolatsiz kelishuvlarga keladilar: Hitoy bilan, yoki Rosiya bilan bo'lsin.

4) Demokratiya tinchlik olip kelmaydi. chunki, demokratiya demokratik davlatlar urushmaydi, lekin demokratik davlat nodemokratik davlatga urush qilsa bo'ladi desa bo'ladi.

5) Halq hech qachon togridan togri davlat boshqaruvida qatnasha olmaydi. Bivosita, saylovlar orqali tuzum esa demagogiyaga aylanip boldi.yani, halq kim uni maqtasa, yoki o'tkinchi qisa umrli foyda vada qilsa shuni saylaydi. Deputat esa, kopincha saylovdan keyin yana besh yilga yoq bolip ketadi.

6) Demokratiya doimoy qolmaydi. Tarihchilar, ochiq ko'rsatip bergan shema boyicha, o'zining tsikli bor Demokratiya - Oligarhiya - Tiraniya - Demokratiya - Oligarhiya.... Buni misol qilip Italiyani yoki Amerika yoki istaga nboshqa davlatni korsatishingiz mumkin. U davlatlarda, televizorda davlatni halq boshqarsadan asl hokimiyat bir tir guruh tarafidan qabul qilinadi va ular ozlari ega bolgan media va boshqa resurlsalr orqali bu qarorlarni huddi halq qabul qilgnaday korsatadilar. Boyliklar ham kopincha asosan shu guruhga tegadi.

7) Hozirdan, g'arb mutafakkirlarining o'zi demokratiya va butun shu vatgacha ularda hukm surip kelgan tushunchalarinng tanazzulini ochiqdan ochiq elon qilishyapti va bunga qarshi chora ko'rishga chaqirishyapti. Oswald Spengler'ning The Decline of the West asari hali ham juda dolzarb asarlardan biridir. G'arb jamiyatimi deysizmi, rus jamiyati deysizmi hozir stagnasiyaga yuz tutgan va buni ular sohta bazi iqtisodiy yoki siyosiy harbiy choralar bilan kechiktirishga harakat qilishyapti.

8) Bularning sabablaridan biri, balki boshida demokratiyaning bir din o'rnida qabul qilinishi, va o'izdan tashqari hech qanday fikrni qabul qilmagani, demokratiyaga qarshi butun dunyoni barbar qilip ko'rsatgani sabadir. Natijada, sohta ziddiyotlar dunyoda identity crisis ni keltirip chiqardi. Bugungi kunda, Yevropa va rossiyadagi ekonomik krizis, xenofobiya bular hamamsi shu asosning shubha va hato ustiga qurilganidan kelip chiqayotgan bo'lsa ajabmas.

OZBEKISTON VA DEMOKRATIYA

Endi, Ozbekiston va Markaziy Osiyda demokratiya mavjudmi desangiz, qarama qarshi fikrlar bor. Albatta yerli vakillar, sizga bizda demokratiya mavjud. Faqat sharqona demokratiya mavjud. Yoki, hozir o'tish davri .Yoki, hozir demokratiyaga tayyormasmi dep argumentlar ko'rsatishadi.
Bazi hirjiy tadqiqotchilar esa, bazilari bu davlatlar diktatura, boshqalari esa semiauthoritarism dep nomlashgan. Diktaturani kopchilik bilsa, Semiauthoritarism hokim bolgan davlatta, tashqi jihatdan qaralsa demokratik barcha institutlar: parlament, sud organi, saylovlar... mavjud. Lekin ular haqiqiy kuchga ega emas, va avtoritar hokimlarning qolida oyinchoq deyishadi. Shunday davlatlar orasiga Nigeria, Qozogiston, Ukrainalar kiradi.
O'ziz qaraydigan bo'lsak, demokratiyaning tashqi jihatlari emas, balki prinsiplari:
- yani, davlat organlari yoki boshqa tashkilotlarning harakatlari qonun tarafidan yoki sud tarafidan haqiqiy nazorat qilinadimi?
- Barcha guruhlar intilish va manfaatlari proporsionalr ravishda hisobga olinadimi?
- Ularning bu intilishlar qonun qabul qilish va ijro etisj jarayonida hurmat qilinadimi?

- Insonar arbitrary'dan yani hukumat organlari, polisiya yoki havfsizlik hizmatlarining yashirncha qabul qilingan qaror va choaralaridan himoyalanganmi?

- Davlat boshqaruvini, halq yoki halq saylap qoygan deputatlar, haqiqatdan ham, nazorat qiladimi?

- Agar, hato yoki adolatsizlikar bolayotgan bolsa, bularga qarshi haqiqiy, konstitusiyaviy yoki sud orqali choralar ko'riladimi?

- Sud qarorlari obyektivligi taminlanganmi? Agar, subyektivlik aniqlansa, unga qarshi qanday himoyalar mavjud?

etc, etc...
Agar, shu kabi boshqa koplap savollarning hammasiga emas ( hech qachon ideal jamiyat mavjud bo'lmagan insonlar ozi aqli bilan ish yuritganda), balki ko'pchiliga, ko'pmi o'zmi javob topsangiz, shunga qarap bizining davlatlarimizda demokratiya bormi yo'qmi degan savolga javob topsaz kerak?

BALKI, ASOSIY MASALA, JAMIYATDA QANDAY TUZUM HUKM SURAYOTGANI EMAS, BALKI O'SHA JAMIYATDAGI INSONLAR VA GURUHLAR HAQIATDAN HAM ADOLATLI BIR TIZIMDA, MINIMUM RIVOJLANISH HUQUQLARI TAMINLANGAN HOLDA, HAMMA BIRGALIKDA AHIL YASHAYAPTIMI, JAMIYATNING TURLI ELEMENETLARI ORASIDA, HAM ICHKI HAM TASHQI PLANDA? HAQIQY GARMONIYA MAVJUDMI? degan savolni qo'ysak yahshiroq bol'ar.

( Sorry for being long, sincere excuses...)

[Uzbekxonim]

What's the point of democracy levels when it divides and religion unites.


ssory, but it seems to me that you're mistaken here. the basis of democracy is an equality of all social gruops and all individuals, democracy has universal provisions. actually religion, different religions divide people.


It will be DEAD END!!! Morale never changes, preferences do, maybe you you meant preferences and goals? Changing morale trying to fit them to modern life will lead to continuous, non stop morale changes, which is disaster, because life and its preferences changing almost every minute! Now you get the picture?



moral values should not change dramatically. moral values are alwaysa dinamic. let's say 50 years ago uzbek moral did not allow uzbek girls to go abroad alone and study there. now it's quite an acceptable thing. you see, moral values always change.


Do you realise now that morale should guide democracy???

it is not a moral that should guide democracy it's the provisions/principles of democracy.

[Uzbekxonim]

Hozirgi kunda, demokratik tuzum deganda quyidagi elementlarni yodga olsa bo'ladi.

1) Demokratik tuzumda, jamiyatdagi barcha guruhlar o'zlari saylap qo'ygan deputatlar orqali, davlat boshqaruvida bilvosita (asosan katta davlatlar) yoki bevosita ( masalan, nisbatan kichik Estoniyada hohlagan kishi internet orqali vazirla kabineti yigilishida togridan togri qatnaship oz fikrlarini bildirishi mumkin) ishtirok etadi.

2) Sistemaning yahshi ishlashligi uchun va suistemol yo'lga qo'yilmasligi va butun institutlar togri ish tutayotganini taminlash uchun, hokimiyat bo'linishi prinsipi juda muhimdir. Bunday jamiyatda hokimiyat uchga bo'linadi:
a) Qonun chiqaruvchi hokimiyat
b) Ijro etuvchi hokimiyat
c) Sud hokimiyati.
Bu uchala organ ha mbir biridan mustaqil bo'lishi kerak. Agar, hammasini bir guruh yoki kishi boshqarsa unda arbitraire yoki birk ihsi o'zi hohlagan ravishda subyektiv qaror qabul qilish ehtimoli mavjdligi bo'ladi. Aksincha, qaror qabul qilish, uni ijro etish va bu jarayonning qonun va adolatga muvofiqligin nazorat qiluvchi sud ning bir biridan mustaqilligi obyektivlikni taminlaydi. Va halq, bu hokimiyatdan ko'ngli to'q bo'lishi mumkin.

3) Hozirda, demokratiya tushunchasi qonun ustuvorligi ( Rule of law) va inson haqlarini hurmat qilish ( respectof human rights) tushunchalari bilan chambarchas bogliqdir. Bu uch prinsip haqiqiy adolatli jamiyat va davlat bilan asosiasiya qilinadi. Masalan barcha yevropa davlatlarining konstitusiyalarida, Evrope Ittifoqining shartnomalarida, BM va boshqa tashkilotlarning hujjatlarida bu prinsiplarga amal qilish zarurati takidlanadi.

4) Qonun ustuvorligi bu davlat hududida qonuniy yo'llar bilan qabul qilingan qonun va hukmlarning adolatli va to'liq amal qilinishi, va bu qonunlarni amalga oshirayotgan barcha shahs va tashkilotlarning qonun nazoratiga tutilganidir. Davlat organlarimi, yoki shahslarmi, ularning barcha harakatini qonun nazoratiga tutilgan bolishi kerak.

5) Inson haqlari bu asosan, insonning tabiatidan kelip chiqadigan ( bu tushuncha oldingi Hudo tarafidan beilrgan haqlar orniga qollaniladi hozir) va uning to'liq rivojlanishi uchun shart bolgan haq va huquqlarni o'z ichiga oladi.

4) Demokratik tuzumda, jamiyatni boshqaruvchi qonunlar, pozitiv qonunlar hisoblanadi, yani bu qonunlarni halq saylagan qonunchilar qabul qilib qo'yishadi( poser). Pozitif qonun bu mustaqil bir organning konstitusiayaga amal qilgan holda malum bir davlat va malum bir zamon uchun qabul qilgan qonun va hukmalridir.

5) Demokratik tuzumda, halqaro maydonda butun davlatlar teng huquqli hisoblanadi, etc.

i wish that at least 1/3 of uzbek people have had this knowledge of democracy as you possess.

thank you very much for paying such a big attention to this thread

p.s. i did understand every single word of your posts, but unfortunately i cannot express my ideas in uzbek as you can do.

regards.

[Bonik]

Demokratiya eto:

Kogda Otets i Mama natikayutsya na svoego sina v ego komnate kogda on lejit so svoej devushkoy, i u roditeley takie misli:
Sin: "Vse hana teperx otets po bashke dast"
Devushka: "Vse teperx svadxba !!! :)"
Otets: "Daaaa sinok viros... nado moped emu kupitx chtoli..."
Mama: "Oh kak ona lejit... kak ona lejit... EMU JE NE UDOBNO !!!"

;)

[Uzbekxonim]

Demokratiya eto:

Kogda Otets i Mama natikayutsya na svoego sina v ego komnate kogda on lejit so svoej devushkoy, i u roditeley takie misli:
Sin: "Vse hana teperx otets po bashke dast"
Devushka: "Vse teperx svadxba !!! :)"
Otets: "Daaaa sinok viros... nado moped emu kupitx chtoli..."
Mama: "Oh kak ona lejit... kak ona lejit... EMU JE NE UDOBNO !!!"

;)

shutochki v stroyu:twisted:
vi po teme pojaluysta, po teme

[Bonik]

Vse v etom mire otnositelxno... ideala net v srede lyudey...
Takje kak govoryat:
U Julii Roberts - krasivie glaza i ulibka, a u Jeniiffer Lopez - figurka stroynaya, a Marilin Monroe - samaya znamenitaya blondinka, a vot u Jennifer Aniston i Penelope Cruiz - izyashniy stilx i jguchie gubki... itd. itp.

Mojno perenesti paralleli o ponimanii Demokratii lyudxmi:
Nekotorie govoryat: - "Demokratiya - eto IDEAL !", drugie: "Demokratiya eto samaya spravedlivaya sistema upravleniya gosudarstvom predumannaya chelovekom", ili "Tolxko v demokraticheskoy strane, lyudi svobodno jivut i mislyat i govoryat!" a nekotorie somnevayutsya "Pochemu esli Yankistan - demokraticheskaya strana, tama dyadya DUBYA tvorit vse to chto hochet v inostrannih stranah", a eshe: "Esli v demokrtatii priznayutsya tem chto on GOMIK gordostxyu i chto eti GOMIKI v otkrituyu agitiruyut svoi zamashki pered moimi detxmi, na koy chert mne takaya demokratiya", i eshe: "Demokratiya doljna bitx reguliruemoy, tak kak nashemu narodu ee poka eshe polnostxyu ne osoznatx", ili "Demokratiya - eto FARS, predumannaya evreyami chtob pod flagom demokratii, zavoevatx mir!"

Esli tak posmotretx, estx lyudi, estx raznie sujdeniya i protivorechiya...
Storonnik demokratii mojet krichatx "v Turkmenii net demokratii, tama na kajdoy gazete napisano -- Da osohnet moy yazik esli ya oskvernoslovlyu Turkmenbashi !"
Emu mogut otvetitx: "Idi prochitay vireski iz vseh gazet i publikatsiy v YANKIstane pered nachalom voyni v IRAK... Naydesh li ti hotx odnu statxyu osujdayushuyu Okkupatsiyu Iraka dyadey SEMom? Ili ti dumaesh chto 250 million naseleniya YANKIstana imeyut odno lish mnenie kak barani... ? Prosto porabotala TSENZURA. Posmotri dokumentalxniy film - Farenheit 9/11 nakraynyak."

Mnogo primerov... mnogo razlichiy v mislyah lyudey... No ESTX 1 FAKT:
A fakt govorit o tom, chto lyudi budut jitx schastlivo tolxko esli nastupit GLOBALXNOE poholadanie. Ya zametil blagodarya zamechaniyu UzLandu chto tolxko v severnih ztranah merzloti - lyudi jivut kayfovo, potomu chto u vseh u nih estx odna problema - HOLOD ! :)
Finlyandiya, Shvetsiya, Norvegiya, Islandiya, itd... ob etih stranah ya redko chitayu chto nibudx otritsatelxnoe...

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alikum

now one can see that alot of peoples are expecting to find that democracy is the best way for peoples to get development, real case which peoples are living now adays are too much far from that development imagination.

i see those peoples full of ideality(with respect to all) , as the real cases of democracy shows that such understanding of democracy is not too correct , and alot of countries which consider them selves democratic and want to learn others about democracy are the bad countries that kill the future of alot of socities, and build there wealth on skilltons of several poor and weak peoples, such as america, britain, russia ... etc, we saw there democracy in killing ,prisoning, doing shame to women in prisons, .....etc,

also democratic societies these days has alot of problems , that one can see every day, bad social relations, bad state of women, alot of faults that others see that it is there own freedom, and the one who live in west can see such bad manner, and please, dont let your imagination about that theory which called by democracy, to forget us the reality that others living


and thank u very much

[Iqbol]

Yana, yuqoridagi mavzuga doir bazi qo'shimcha lekin muhim bo'lgan bir ikki shahsiy firklarimni bildirmoqchi edim.
Hozirgi kunda, mana yurtimizda bolsin, mana bunaqa forumlarda bo'lsin, demokratiya, ochiq jamiyat, erkinliklar haqida bahs yuritilmoqda. Va, bu tushunchalarning bizning yurtlarda ham targib qilinishi kerakligi aytilmoqda. Bazida bu yangi tushunchalarning kommunizm merosiga qarshi ishlatilayotgan bo'lsa, boshqalari bu tushunchalar nafaqat eski, manfiy natijali kommunizmni, balki, yurtimizda oldindan mavjud bolip kelgan bazi diniy va manaviy, madaniy tushunchalarini ham o'rniga qo'llash kerakligini takidlashmoqda.Natijada, endigina ziddiyotli va alamli davrdan chiqqan jamiyatimiz, qaytattan ziddiyotlar va keraksiz asossiz tortishmalarga, odamlarning bo'linishiga qaytip bormoqda.
Shu vaziyatda, agar biroz jiddiyroq fikr yuritsak, balki hech bolmaganda, balki lozim bo'lgan ommaviy bahs tinchroq va madaniyroq o'tgan bo'lardi. Bu esa, ertaga baribir bir jamiyat doirasida yashaydigan odamlar orasida, konfliktlar bolishi oldini olgan bo'lardi.

Menimcha, bu tushunchalarni bizda qo'llanishi oldidan, bazi shu jumlalarning manosi yoki tarihi bilan bogliq ochiqliklar kiritilsa maqsadga muvofiq bo'ladi.

Bu tushunchalar, bizning har kungi hayotda qo'llanadigan non suv yoki oldim berdim kabi oddiy tushunchalar, va dunyoning har yerida bir hil mano kasb etadigan so'zlar ham emas.
Ularning ichidan har birining orqasida, yuz yillar davomida rivojlantirilgan fikrlar, nazariyalar va tadbiqotlar bor, minglap tomlik kitoblar, tonna tonna qaror va qonunlar, yuz yillap davom etgan bahs tortishmakar, hattoki urushlar yotadi. Nafaqat, balki, har tushunchaning o'z mustaqil hayoti, tarihi, uning tugilgandan hozirgi shaklga kelgunicha o'rap kelgan afsonalaru hikoyatlar, tarihiy, ijtimoiy, geografik va ya boshqa ko'plap kontekstlardan vujudga kelgan tarkibi bor. Bu esa, har qanday tushunchani qo'llanayotganda, unga juda ehtiyotlik bilan yondoshishimiz kerakligin, agar uni o'z tilimiz bilan aytayotganda sal ehtiyotsiz bo'lsak, uning asl manosida tamoman boshqacha tarafga burip yuborishimiz mumkinligini, bu esa nafaqat shahsiy planda balki jamiyatimiz darajasida zararli oqibatlarga olip kelishi mumkinligidan ogoh bo'lishimiz kerak.

Chunki, har qanday tilda, har bir so'zning orqasida nafaqat fonetik yoki linguistik bir mano, balki osha so'zga asrlardir bog'lanip kelgan butun butun simvollar, kechinmalar hayol va fikrlar mavjuddir. Biz demak, bir sozni oz tilimizga tarjima qilayotganda nafaqat sozning litteral manosini, balki o'z tilimizda shu so'zning butun mohiyatini ozmi ko'pmi darajada anglatip beradigan bir tushunchani tanlashimiz kerak. Aks holda, bir og'zi so'z ko'plab zararlarga olip boradi.

Masalan, shu demokratiya, davlat hokimiyatining bo'linis hprinsipi, yoki dinni davlattan ajratish prinsiplarini olaylik.

Demokratiya, yuqorida aytip o'tganimizdaqa, ming yillap tarihga ega. Bu tushuncha yuzasida minglap kitoplar yozildi, bu bahsga minglap olimlar ishtirok etdi. Lekin yaqin yaqinlargacha, bu olimlar asosan Yevropa va keyinchalik Amerikalik olimlar bo'lip, ular yozgan kitoblarida, va olib borgan bahslarida asosan, o'zlari yahshap turgan sharoitdan, o'zlarining tarihidann, madaniyati, dini, folkloridan kelip chiqqan argumentlarni ilgari surishgan va rivojlantirishgan. Va butun ularning fikriy sistemalari shu asoslar binosida vujudga kelgan. Shuning, uchun, ko'pincha o'zlari ham tan oladilarki, siyosiy tizim va halqaro huquq sistemalari asosan eurocentric systemalar.

Masalan, siz targ'ib qilayotgan Demokratik davlat tushunchasi, oldin qayd qilinganidak uchta ajralmas tushuncha:
demokratik hokimiyat, qonun ustuvorligi va inson haqlarining taminlanishini o'z ichiga oladi.?
Va bu tushunchalar asrlar davomida exclusive ravishda Europa olimlari tarafidan rivojlantirildi:
Lekin, har qanday tarihchi yoki professor sizga aytadiki :
Bu siyosiy tizim ( yani yevropada mavjud bolgan va butun dunyoga targib qilinayotgan demokratik rejim) uch asosga tayanadi :
1) Grek merosi
2) Rim merosi- Judeochrsitian merosi.
3) Fransuz revolyusiyasidan boshlangan va rivojlangan fikrlar sistemasi

Har qanday avtorni olip qarasangiz, ularning argumantlari shu uch sistema manbalaridan tashqariga chiqmaydi. Agar, siz davlat va hokimiyat siyosat fikrini rivojlanishga hissa qo'shgan eng buyuk mutafakkilarlarni olsangiz:
Saint Augustin yoki Thomas d'Acquin diniy olim va avtoritetlar, Hobbes yoki Locke davlat arboblari, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesqieu, Emmanuel Kant yoki Hegel yoki Nietzshe, Freud: bularning hamma hammasi yoki ochiqdan ochiq argumentlarida chrsitian yoki grek manbalariga suyanadi, yoki ularning argumentlarining zamiridi o'zlari bilgan yoki bilmagan ravishda shu manbalarning izlari mavjud.
Shuning uchun demokratiyada mavjud bo'lgan hokimiyatning turli qo'llarga bo'linishi va turli guruhlarni tamsil qilishi, bu Gresiyaning paganistik urf odatlarining belgisi bo'lsa, hozirgi davlatlarda qonunning, ayniqsa qog'ozda qabul qilingan qonunning haddan tashqari rivojlanip, hatto keraksiz darajada rivojlanishi Rim imperiasidan keladi. Inson haqlari kabi tushunchalar esa Fransuz revolyusiyasidan chiqip keladi. Va butun bularniung zamirida har doim ularning hristian yoki yahudiy tushunchalarui mavjud. Buni faqat, bizning o'zimizdan yangi demokratiya shogirdlari ko'rmaydi yoki o'zini bilmaslikka oladi. Masalan eng buyuk faylasuflaridan biri libral metafizik Emmanuel Kant uchun imperatif categorique bu Hudoning borligin isbotlash bo'lgan. Davlat hokimiyatining mustahkam va avtoritar bolishini targib qilgan Thomas Hobbes ning mutloq reference bo'lgan Leviathan"i zotan Bibliya afsonalaridan olingan va yahudiy va hristian muqaddas kitoblariga ishoralar bilan to'la. Zotan, maqsadi ham u kitoblardagi prinsiplarni hayotga tadbiq qilishning eng tasirli yo'llarini o'ylap chiqish. Endi dinga qarshi bo'lganlar, yoki cherkovga qarshi bo'lganalr Voltaire, Rousseau yoki Nietzshe larni olaylik. Bular, dinga qarshi bo'lgan bo'lsa, hristinaliking osha kundagi ko'rinishga qarshi bo'lganlar. Chunki haqiqatdan ham osha davrda, insonlar naqadar hristianlikka bog'lansa, shu qadar zulmatga botib borgan. Din bu unkvizisiya, din bu indulgensiya, din bu o'ta boy cherkov va o'ta kambagal halq, din bu qirollarning avtoritar hokimliyating asosi, din bu tonnalap yoqilgan ilmiy kitoblar, din bu mutloq boshqa fikrni qabul qilmaslik... ALbatta, bunday, kontekstda ularning dinning tuzilgan institut va nazariyalarga qarchi chiqishi tabiiy hatto zaruriy hol edi. Bazilar, dinga togridan togri qarchi chiqip, uni yoqotish kerak degan bo'lsa ( Nietzsche, Voltaire kabilar), boshqalari dinni asliga ko'ra tushunishimiz kerak deyishgan ( Protestantlar, yoki Kant, Spinoza vb.).
Yoki, demokratik tamoillar aynan, demokratik bolmagan yoki ular barbar deb tariflagan hatto odam sifatida kormagan biz va boshqa halqlardan ajralib turish, o'zlarini qarshi qo'yish uchun ishlab chiqilmaganmiki. Chunki, ularda har doim o'zini qarshisidagi bilan qarshilashtiribgina tanisa bo'ladi deyishadi. Yani u aqlli bo'lsa, siz albatta ahmoqsiz. Chunki, unaqa bolamsa teskarisi boladi, buni esa ular hech qachon qabul qila olmaydilar. Evrope - sivilzasiya qor'go'ni, dunyoning qolgani- Barbarlar, Saraceenlar, Paganlar...
Biz demokratiya yoki shu kabi tushunchalarni qo'llanayotganimizda yuqoridagi butun malumotlarni bilsak, va shularni hisobga olgan holdagina, va shundan keyingina, bu tushunchalarning biz uchun qanday foydalari bor; u tushunchalarning kontekstidan chiqarsak qanday holdagina to'gri bo'lgan abstrakt darslarni o'zimiz uchun chiqarsak bo'ladi; balki, bu tushunchalar, bizda oldindan bordir, lekin faqat boshqa ismlar boshqa shakllarda mavjud bo'lip kelgandir, shularni ko'rish kerakdir; agar, biz qisqa o'ylap bu tushunchalarni o'zimizga ko'r ko'rona qabul qilsak, bu bizlarning asrlar davomida shakllanip kelgan mentalitetimiz bilan to'qnaship ketmasmikin va shu kabi kop fikrlarni ham chetlap qoymasligimiz kerakdir balki.

[Iqbol]

Chunki, demokratiya deganda, siz bir narsa tushunsez, haqiqy yevropalik boshqnai tushunadi. Unga agar demokratiya desez, ota bobolari davridan halqning sub-conscience yani asl mentalitetiga yerlaship ketgan tushunchalar va unga bog'liq bo'lgan simvollar, afsonalar, sheru romanlar, to'kilgan qonlar namoyon boladi. Va, u ko'ngli to'lgan holda bu tushunchaga yopishadi va qo'llab quvvatlaydi. Bizga kelip aytsangiz, balki bazi birlaridan tashaqari( ular ham kitobdan chet elliklar yozgan kitobdan oqigan), ko'chilik halqnin koz oldiga mavhum, tushunish qiyin bo'lgan, yoki, uning asrlardir sub-conscience ' ida rivojlanip kelgan bazi tamal tushunchalarga zid keladiga yoki manfiy tasir qiladigan, hattoki tili to'gri talaffuz qilishga qiynaladigan notanish, yotsifat so'zlaru bir ikki televizorda ko'rgan qogo'z ko'targan siyosatchiyu, radioda eshitgan uzuq yuluq bir ikki jumladan boshqa narsa kelmas. Yoki, u bu tushuchalarning ozining hayotidagi boshqa bazi tushunchalar bog'lashga urnip ko'rar, lekin shunda ham u ko'p hatolarga yo'l qo'yishi mumkin.

Albatta, hech bir aqlli inson boshqalarning tajribasini blok qilip rad qilip ham tashlamaydi, yoki uning butun tajribasini shundayligicha olip o'z yurtiga tadbiq ham qilmaydi. Birinchi yo'l uni ko'p darslardan mahrum qilsa, ikkinchi yo'l halokatga ham olip kelishi mumkin.
Masalan, Shveysariyada fuqarolik kodeksi, insonlarning va kompaniyalaring bir biri o'rtalarida bolgan aloqalarini tartibga soladi. Bu kodeks, shu davlat aholisining, asrlik tradisiyalri natijasida ishlap chiqilgan. Shuning uchun, uning hamma moddalarini shveysar bir odam bilishi shartmas, aslida bu qogozdagi moddalar uning yillardir qilip kelgan odatining rasmiy korinishi holos. Shuning uchun ularning haqiqiy hayotdagi amaliyoti bilan qonun orasida ziddiyat bo'lmaydi. Va, jamiyat tinch maromda hayotini davom ettiradi. Lekin, huddi shu kodeksni, olsangizda minglap kilometr naridagu dini, urfi, millati, hattoki geografik iqlimi umuman boshqa bolgan bir davlatga tadbiq qilishni boshlasangiz nima bo'ladi? Yoki halq bu qonunga umuman amal qimaydi va bunga qarshi chiqadi. YOki, davlatning tazyiqi ostida qarshi chiqishga botinmaydida, lekin hayotida ozi on yillar davomida qilip kelgan odatlarini yahsirincha davom ettiradi va rasmiylar kelganda ularga hojakorsinda amal qilip qoyadi, yoki ularga pora berip qutuladi. Natijada, uning ota boblari hikmat bilan rivojlantirip kelgan, uning sharoiti uchun eng mos bo'lgan va qlga ham mantiqqa ham boysungan ishlari noqonuniy bolip qoladi. Va jamiyat, tartibsizlikka yol tutadi. Chunki, agar yangi chet elli qonuniga amal qilsa, uning ichki va tashqi hayot, haqiqiy amaliy hayoti tanazzulga yuz tutadi; qogozga amal qilmay desa davlatning tazyigiga duch keladi va yana hayotidan huzur yo'qoladi. Natijada, davlat va halq o'rtasida jarlik yuzaga keladi; bu esa ham o'sha davlatni ham o'sha halqni ikkisining birligi yuzaga keltiradigan energiya va kuch manbaidan ayirip qo'yadi. Bunday davlatda esa yoki, revolyusiya bolip, eski holat tiklanadi; yoki butun bir madaniyat va davlat, gozal tarih yo'q bo'lip ketadi. Ham davlat, ham halq, olamdagi boshqa barcha halqlar oldida sharmandalik va hor zorlikdan boshqa bir "yutuq"qa erishmaydi.

Chunki o'zini bilmagan, o'zini kontrol qilaolmagan, davlat yoki shahs bo'lsin, uni boshqasi kontrol qiladi.
Agar bir til, o'zi mansub bo'lgan jamiyatning qadriyat va madaniyatini qo'riqlashga qodir bir qorovul bo'la olmasa, u til ham halq ham boshqa til va halqlar tasirig ostiga kirishga va yo'q bo'lip ketishga majburdir.

Shuning uchun, hozir haqiqatdan ham yurtimizning kelajagi haqida qaygu'radigan amaliyot yoki nazariya bilan mashgul har bir inson, juda jiddiy yondoshishi, va har bir fikr va tushunchani yahshi organip, ham tarihiy, ham ijtimoiy, siyosiy, diniy umuman olganda TOTAL yondoshmasa, balki baiz hatolarni qilip, yurtimizga zarar keltirip qoyishimiz mumkin. Yana davlatimiz dinchilar va sekulmarlar, demokratlar va avtoritarlar, ochiq iqtisodchilar va davlat iqtisodchilari tarafdorlariga bolinip yangi yangi nizolar, mojarolar yuzga kelishi, bundan esa na halqqa na bizga foyda obladi. Balki, o'rtada bir ikki inson ilmiy unvonlar olar, bir ikkising cho'ntagi qappayar, lekin tarihga sharmanda bolip kirishimiz aniq boladi.
Eng muhimi, ayniqsa bunday o'tish davrlarida, haqiqiy bir yordamparvarlik, va turli hil guruhlar biri birini hurmat qilgan holda boshqaisining farqlarini malum darajada hurmat qilishini bilishligi lozim. Chunki, demokratiya yoki har qanday tuzum jiddiy ilmiy va amaliy bahs munozalarar bilan quriladi.

Yana, insonmiz adashamiz, Alloh o'zi kechirsin va bizga bir biriimizni togrilaydigan yaqin dostlarni birga qilsin.

[Gareeb]

Beinvenu mana o'ziz aytyapsiz Democaratiya asosii Garbda ishlab chiqilgan, u hamma joyga ham to'gri kelavermasligi mumkin, deb.Shunday ekan, bizga nima kerak inson tomonidan to'qib chiqarilgan noqis tuzum? Undan ko'ra Alloh tomonidan tushurilgan qonunlar, hayot tarzi ma'qul emsmikin?

Hama postizni o'qib chiqyapman, siz o'ziz nima deb o'ylaysiz Demokratiya haqida? Shu haqda batafsilroq yozing.
Rahmat.

[Uzbekxonim]

salamu alikum

now one can see that alot of peoples are expecting to find that democracy is the best way for peoples to get development, real case which peoples are living now adays are too much far from that development imagination.

i see those peoples full of ideality(with respect to all) , as the real cases of democracy shows that such understanding of democracy is not too correct , and alot of countries which consider them selves democratic and want to learn others about democracy are the bad countries that kill the future of alot of socities, and build there wealth on skilltons of several poor and weak peoples, such as america, britain, russia ... etc, we saw there democracy in killing ,prisoning, doing shame to women in prisons, .....etc,

also democratic societies these days has alot of problems , that one can see every day, bad social relations, bad state of women, alot of faults that others see that it is there own freedom, and the one who live in west can see such bad manner, and please, dont let your imagination about that theory which called by democracy, to forget us the reality that others living


and thank u very much

why should a country take over all negative points and consequences of democracy? if democratic countries do not obey principles of democracy and therefore have bad things in thier life it doesn't mean that a country which obeys democrative principles will come to the same bad consequences, does it?

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum,

uzbekhonum u wrote that:


(why should a country take over all negative points and consequences of democracy? if democratic countries do not obey principles of democracy and therefore have bad things in thier life it doesn't mean that a country which obeys democrative principles will come to the same bad consequences, does it?)

i see that the ideology is the ideology not any other more, and taken as it is, and when i studied democracy, i gave its wrongness from its real nature, that give the human to put laws for the life, not allah, and those negative points you said about, are some results of the democracy it self,as those negative results were done by human laws that they put by there democracy,

and thank u uzbek hanum, but be sure that when i say that about democracy, i give it from pure study for its nature, not from any other thing,

also, we must know that there are alot of bad things, that others see them real freedom and rightness, and democracy say to them (yes its right)

i want u to know more, that , right thing, not take its rightness because abig share of people say about it it is right, or vise versa, the right is right, although the big share of people said the contrary, and the wrong is wrong, although the big share of people said the contrary too.

and that differs the democracy that define the right thing by (the thing that the big share of people see it right), and that is taken from the reality of the democracy (people rule it self by it self through its people minds)



and uzbekhanum, and all other respected forumers,


if we want to practise democracy nowadays, what is the evidence that the big share of the people dont do as those negative things ?? as if the big share of people said about those negative things that they are right, then, all of us are obligated to practise then by the democracy definition

last point:
alhamdulillah that allah give us islamic laws, from his majesty, to practise them in all life aspects, as islamic laws , are the solution for the people,and the humanity, as allah is the best side to get the humanity in its right road, as he is the creater, who know what is trhe suitable for the humanity than any other side, and better than democracy it self.

thank u all very much

[Uzbekxonim]

salamu alaikum,

uzbekhonum u wrote that:


(why should a country take over all negative points and consequences of democracy? if democratic countries do not obey principles of democracy and therefore have bad things in thier life it doesn't mean that a country which obeys democrative principles will come to the same bad consequences, does it?)

i see that the ideology is the ideology not any other more, and taken as it is, and when i studied democracy, i gave its wrongness from its real nature, that give the human to put laws for the life, not allah, and those negative points you said about, are some results of the democracy it self,as those negative results were done by human laws that they put by there democracy,

and thank u uzbek hanum, but be sure that when i say that about democracy, i give it from pure study for its nature, not from any other thing,

also, we must know that there are alot of bad things, that others see them real freedom and rightness, and democracy say to them (yes its right)

i want u to know more, that , right thing, not take its rightness because abig share of people say about it it is right, or vise versa, the right is right, although the big share of people said the contrary, and the wrong is wrong, although the big share of people said the contrary too.

and that differs the democracy that define the right thing by (the thing that the big share of people see it right), and that is taken from the reality of the democracy (people rule it self by it self through its people minds)



and uzbekhanum, and all other respected forumers,


if we want to practise democracy nowadays, what is the evidence that the big share of the people dont do as those negative things ?? as if the big share of people said about those negative things that they are right, then, all of us are obligated to practise then by the democracy definition

last point:
alhamdulillah that allah give us islamic laws, from his majesty, to practise them in all life aspects, as islamic laws , are the solution for the people,and the humanity, as allah is the best side to get the humanity in its right road, as he is the creater, who know what is trhe suitable for the humanity than any other side, and better than democracy it self.

thank u all very much

salamu aleykum,

i steak to my opinion, democracy does not bring only negative things but positive as well. everything in this world has two sides - negative {bad} and positive {good} therefore democracy is not exception to this rule.

Islamic law {Allah law} does not provide with provisions in all sphereas of human life, laws of Kur'an are designed in the 7th - 8th century a.d. (i can be mistaken) how can you expect that those laws can regulate all sphereas of our life? what about internet? any provision in Islam regulating, for example, e-signuture (electronic signiture)?

therefore our life (social, econimic, political) should be regulated by laws established by a human being not Allah.

regards.

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum,

i have the solution for the discussed problem, when any say to u , that you are from un democratic country, and if u must to be democratic or not,

the solution for that problem, is depending on the previous reality for democracy from, but the main rule is

(we dont accept to be an egnorant community, and never to be as that, at the contrary, we have our own message to give it to the humanity, that is the best and greatest message humanity ever know, which is the islamic message,

are there any thing good not contained in islam ????

if we have the the best message, really, its avery big honour for muslims to hold that great message from allah, this message in reality, has trhe best solution for every problem may face in the life, what ever it was,

allah said in holly quran(Is it a judgment of the time of (pagan) ignorance that they are seeking? Who is better than Allah for judgment to a people who have certainty (in their belief)? ) surat al-maedah (ayet 50)

and said also (And We reveal the Scripture unto thee as an exposition of all things, and a guidance and a mercy and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah). ) surat an-nahl (ayet 89)

in the prvious quran ayats, allah refuse for us to get our laws from what ever source, and want us to take them just from islam (quraan and sunnah), and allah told us that quran has the solution of every problem may be faced .

in islam , life is judged in all aspects, by several systems, containg best ethics that humanity may know , and now , we are wanting to put islam to govern all life inshallah, by several systems taken from islam,

such as :

1- ruling system of islam , contains rules that are wanted by the muslim ruler to rule the islamic society, and how to islamic laws on muslims in side and hold islamic message outside,

2- The Economic System of Islam, which contains agroup of economic rules , taken from islam, to judge the economic life .

3- The Social System of Islam, which organize the social life , and manage the relationes and rights of every individual in the social state, such as merriage, talaq ,mirath, rights and other related topics, also, man and woman, and there rights and wantings, and how to realise every of them.

4- the political system of islam, contains alot of rules taken from quran and sunnah, to develop the political life, such as , the peace state, war state, treaties, negotiations, party structures, councils, shuraa and other related topics .

5- currency in islam, in which, every currency note has computed amount of gold and silver, and the new science said that the gold currency, never to be defeated by any market quakew, as gold and silver, have there economical value it all, and never to have inflation in the market.

6- islamic constitution, which is ahuge group of laws taken from quran and sunnah in to manage the life, and forms asource of laws in different topics .

7- the change way in the islamic society and in the world, that is an islamic way to study problems in life and put the way to solve, and the organization that must be done to make the wanted change,

8- islamic policy in wealth, what is the way to gain money, they way of expensing it, and what things can the individual, group, government, possession.

9- islamic way in education , that descripes the educational stages, from kids small schools, to high education,

those were just alittle amount of islamic systems, to show how islam solved problems of life, and i want to say my last word in this topic which is,

islam can give humanity now adays ,the best way of life, that will be better than any other system, and the (ijtihad) is the way to take islamic laws ,and this big rule is now dead, as muslims arent aware well on islam, and that is the purpose for not sensing islam as ahuge power of organizing life, and that which let others to teach us there limited lows, that one can sense there badness easily

compare islamic laws with any law, islam will be the victorious on all of them, especially that un real ideology which called by democracy,

with respecting every one here

and thank u all very much

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum,

i want to say to u also, that islam will be alive, although the life developed, u can see that islam can organize every aspect of our now aday life, and let me respect you, and say to u that islam not designed to that stage (7th -8th) century, now, in the internet and electronic ways, islam on the contrary, have new powerful,

dear , why all see islam is just for the previous stages, allah said that islam can solve now adays problems, as you see , all the previous islamic laws can be live NOW

thank u very much

[Uzbekxonim]

salamu alaikum,

i want to say to u also, that islam will be alive, although the life developed, u can see that islam can organize every aspect of our now aday life, and let me respect you, and say to u that islam not designed to that stage (7th -8th) century, now, in the internet and electronic ways, islam on the contrary, have new powerful,

dear , why all see islam is just for the previous stages, allah said that islam can solve now adays problems, as you see , all the previous islamic laws can be live NOW

thank u very much

you did not answer my quetions...

what about internet? any provision in Islam regulating, for example, e-signuture (electronic signiture)?

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum,

i replied your question, that by islam , the islamic dawah become stronger by that electronic revolution ,what new thingsa u want , please ask, i will reply inshallah

thank u

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum,

the revolution in electronics, is anew stage in revolution in science, info, interchange, and all that is good, not forbidden in islam, and islam want from muslims to make such info revolutions in science.

thank u

[Uzbekxonim]

salamu alaikum,

i replied your question, that by islam , the islamic dawah become stronger by that electronic revolution ,what new thingsa u want , please ask, i will reply inshallah

thank u

no further questions.
thank you for your replies.
regards.

[al-quds muslim]

salamu alaikum,

rasoul ullah mohammed said (there still agroup of muslim ummah, victorious by islam, no one can defeat them)

sahabah asked (where are they , rasoul allah ??)


rasoul allah replied (in beitul-maqdis(al-quds) and the region around it)


thank u all,. and good night , fi amnillah

[al-quds muslim]

salamu aliakum,

at last , i heared today avery happy news about uzbekistan, that american forces, ended there removal from the air-base in (khan-abad), we are from here giving u all congratiolations, and sharing happiness by that removal,

allahu akbar , and happy anniversary to all muslims, and inshallah, the strangers forces will be taken out from all islam lands,

good night

[Gaelic_girl]

Вау! Меня вдохновил последний постинг. Изначально я не хотела вмешиваться в столь многогранную полемику, но смолчать в ответ фразу местного богослова о "счастливом покидании базы американцами" я не смогла.

Интересно, что станет с миром, когда с его "исламской земли" уйдут западные ценности(не все они так уж и плохи) и последний сдерживающий здравый смысл покинет головы правоверных. Во-первых, остальных (в том числе и вас, милые дамы) закидают камнями, потому как после подобных игривых аватарчиков никто из нас не оденет на себя хижаб по принуждению, ну а во вторых, рано или поздно мы деградируем, уподобившись пост-шахскому режиму Ирана. Вот это то место на глобусе на которое нужно равнятся после 1979 года, разводя риторику о Исламе и исламском государстве.

И если в странах Персидского залива , таких как Саудия с ее 1/4 (уж извините, диплом МЭО не позволяет игнорировать упрямую вещь-статистику) залежами мирового запаса нефти игра в ислам безболезненна, ибо это страна рантье, благополучно заигрывающая с США во внешней политике и живущая безбедно исключительно благодаря нефтедолларам а не нормальным рыночным механизмам в обществе. При этом выступая в глазах людей, далеких от международных отношений, как хранитель святых мест, прекрасно держит в неведении умму.А вот в Алжире шутки оказались плохи, ни денег, ни поддержки бывшего патрона-Франции. Исламисты вырезают своих же соплеменников! Убивают целые семьи тех, кто поддерживает светский строй. Казнят маленьких детей...Тоже алжирцев!

Прежде чем полемизировать о таком тонком деле как ислам, следует посмотреть на эмпирические примеры уже имеющегося. И я не вижу исламских стран, которые хорошо бы жили. Турция? Концепция ататюркизма исключает и нетерпит вмешательство ислама в госустройство. Кто еще??? Египет? Светское государство. Что могут реально предложить клерикалы взамен светского обустройства? В этих странах без нефти нет и будещго: нищие Пакистан, Мавритания(на Ближнем востоке только 2 страны официально Исламские-Мавритания и Иран), Судан.

Ладно, не стану сейчас продолжать все это....Затянется диспут.Всего хорошего. И извиняюсь за русский, на узбекском такое написать сложно, а на английском смахивало бы на академическую статью.

[Iqbol]

At last, this discussion also, as many others before it, has turned to that of deafs. Amazing.
Bonne continuation...

[Gaelic_girl]

Dear Bienvenu,

frankly, I didn't catch idea of your remark. ..Oooh well, I can easily delete my last posting, but in flourishing discussions people have to stand and tolerate opposing opinion. The topic on democracy is very promising, but once it comes to Uzbekistan, all polemics on Uzbeki democracy ends with Islamic rhetoric.

So, would you prefer not to hear various views? Or you mind when people discourse religion? ? So, what's the point?

[Iqbol]

Gaelic girl, what I wanted to say is that some of us started to use
ever ready, learned by heart formulas and to make confusions.that's all...

[Kitaro]

I don't know what you people think of democracy, I also saw entries that deny existance of the democracy in the world at all. But that's not true, and not improved.
There is democracy, maybe not that ideal but there is democracy.
I currently live in Korea and know much about this country.Believe me!!!
People are the most powerful part of the government here. People vote for their president or politicians and those become winners who get more votes.
And there are demos every day. No one stop them. No one can stop people only them theirselves. In comparison with the democracy in Uzbekistan this democracy is very humane and good. Off course there is corruption in very big scales but if someone(politician or big businessman) is caught by corruption police every citizen become know it. The government show it by broatcasting to every citizen.

[Oyaji]

The word consists of two parts: demo and cracy. Cracy being mis-pronounciation of the word crazy by non-native english speakers.

So what it means: it's life's demo version of how crazy this world can get if everybody starts doing what he thinks is right! Joke.

Really, democracy is when a few smart-asses every time and then think of new rules, so that majority of stupid-asses can play the game by them.

[kipchak]

Вау! Меня вдохновил последний постинг. Изначально я не хотела вмешиваться в столь многогранную полемику, но смолчать в ответ фразу местного богослова о "счастливом покидании базы американцами" я не смогла.

Интересно, что станет с миром, когда с его "исламской земли" уйдут западные ценности(не все они так уж и плохи) и последний сдерживающий здравый смысл покинет головы правоверных. Во-первых, остальных (в том числе и вас, милые дамы) закидают камнями, потому как после подобных игривых аватарчиков никто из нас не оденет на себя хижаб по принуждению, ну а во вторых, рано или поздно мы деградируем, уподобившись пост-шахскому режиму Ирана. Вот это то место на глобусе на которое нужно равнятся после 1979 года, разводя риторику о Исламе и исламском государстве.

И если в странах Персидского залива , таких как Саудия с ее 1/4 (уж извините, диплом МЭО не позволяет игнорировать упрямую вещь-статистику) залежами мирового запаса нефти игра в ислам безболезненна, ибо это страна рантье, благополучно заигрывающая с США во внешней политике и живущая безбедно исключительно благодаря нефтедолларам а не нормальным рыночным механизмам в обществе. При этом выступая в глазах людей, далеких от международных отношений, как хранитель святых мест, прекрасно держит в неведении умму.А вот в Алжире шутки оказались плохи, ни денег, ни поддержки бывшего патрона-Франции. Исламисты вырезают своих же соплеменников! Убивают целые семьи тех, кто поддерживает светский строй. Казнят маленьких детей...Тоже алжирцев!

Прежде чем полемизировать о таком тонком деле как ислам, следует посмотреть на эмпирические примеры уже имеющегося. И я не вижу исламских стран, которые хорошо бы жили. Турция? Концепция ататюркизма исключает и нетерпит вмешательство ислама в госустройство. Кто еще??? Египет? Светское государство. Что могут реально предложить клерикалы взамен светского обустройства? В этих странах без нефти нет и будещго: нищие Пакистан, Мавритания(на Ближнем востоке только 2 страны официально Исламские-Мавритания и Иран), Судан.

Ладно, не стану сейчас продолжать все это....Затянется диспут.Всего хорошего. И извиняюсь за русский, на узбекском такое написать сложно, а на английском смахивало бы на академическую статью.

Dear Gaelic Girl
Certainly you are right in bringing up such facts about Islamic countries and regimens. However, i offer to be more discernful:
let us not confuse Sunni and other 72 interpretations of Islam. If you study the Sunni theology (the right one brought by Prophet Muhammad) the socium is laid out there very simply and geniously.

Other sect like ones in Iran, and African countries, Pakistan they are on the wron interpretation of Islam.

So when we say Islam lets put definions like Sunni Islam, or Vakhhabit Islam and etc..

I mean we don't say Christians for the whole group do we? we say, Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants. This is a more correct way, thus in future there will be less confusion.

Thank you for understanding

[AL-Midwest]

salamu aliakum,

at last , i heared today avery happy news about uzbekistan, that american forces, ended there removal from the air-base in (khan-abad), we are from here giving u all congratiolations, and sharing happiness by that removal,

allahu akbar , and happy anniversary to all muslims, and inshallah, the strangers forces will be taken out from all islam lands,

good night

If you so close to Allah, you should be worried more about poverty and cultural issues in Uzbekistan rather than Americans leaving Uzbek military base.
By the way do you really know who are "the strangers" ? There is no such things Islam, Christian or Hindu land (my personnel oppinion), very simple and logic fact, God created all of us different and if he did so there should be a reason. But this reason certainly not what you believe my man. Unfortunatelly you read so many religious books, but missed a very obvious fact, guess what it is?
cheers

[Iqbol]

Hey, Midwest, who told you that "al quds" read so many religious books.
Just ignore some postings...

[al-quds muslim]

Dear Bienvenu,

The topic on democracy is very promising, but once it comes to Uzbekistan, all polemics on Uzbeki democracy ends with Islamic rhetoric.

So, would you prefer not to hear various views? Or you mind when people discourse religion? ? So, what's the point?

salamu alaikum,

your words means that you are non-democratic, as religious thoughts, as any other thoughts that you must discuss, and listen from as ordinary thoughts, peoples arent the same, some are relijious, others er-relijious, and others are limited relijious, and according to democracy, all these are ordinary openions, arent they that democratic individuals must respect??

then,
democracy as any topic, some are accept, others are refuse, why u want to obligate any to be democratic, or un-democratic??? isnt that achallenge for others wishes and thoughts ??


and also,

others may dont beleive in democracy, ok ??
why you considered that they dont like to listen to others or respect there thoughts, and listen to the other side by the mind language ??? who told you that just democratic ones only respect the openions of others, and the un-democratic dont respect those thoughts ????

last of all, democracy as any though, ordinary humans created it, they may be right or may be wrong, and the discussion in this topic, every one must listen to the other .

the ones who obligate democracy on others, and see the un-democratics non rightous, also non democratic, as didnt accepted the other side thoughts .

so that, please, if you are democratic, you musnt say

would you prefer not to hear various views? Or you mind ...
?

as the one who is democratic, must be as that the other side, or what is the meaning of closing your mind against the who contradict you ????


am as aperson,
1- listen to others, and accept to argue me
2- give the other his/her rights
3- not allow any to get rights of others
4- discuss the contradict thoughts and not close my mind towards any

5- not obligate any to be on my thoughts
6- and iam personally, took these things from islam, not from democracy, but you wasnt democratic with me. but islamically i say to you (its ok, not amatter)


thank u all very much

[al-quds muslim]

If you so close to Allah, you should be worried more about poverty and cultural issues in Uzbekistan rather than Americans leaving Uzbek military base.
By the way do you really know who are "the strangers" ? There is no such things Islam, Christian or Hindu land (my personnel oppinion), very simple and logic fact, God created all of us different and if he did so there should be a reason. But this reason certainly not what you believe my man. Unfortunatelly you read so many religious books, but missed a very obvious fact, guess what it is?
cheers

As-salamu alaikum,

1- who said to you that i dont care about poverty, in uzbekistan and out side uzbekistan, am too sorry as your speed to reply me was bigger than to know who am i .

2- about strangers, i dont considered american guests or other civilians here as that, they are respected forumers ,but i said that about those military forces that put there bases in the land of uzbekistan and that is ahit , and with too cheap prices too that is another hit, then, why it was (anational happy day ) and the uzbeks hold flags on that anniversary ?? you as hindu, when english took there forces from india, was it ahappy anniversary for your country or not ???

3- the uzbeks them selves wanted those forces to go away, and if they were friends as you said, uzbeks didnt that .

4- about poverty of uzbekistan, or any other part, inshallah will be solved soon, and be sure (or not it is your problem), i consider my self, and the uzbek, or indian, or any other are humans, all have there rights, and (islamic books you said about) told that too .

and about uzbekistan, i feel them as brothers, and bother about there quests, same as if it was of my own people .


but missed a very obvious fact, guess what it is?


5- the problem in my thought is just (you mis-understood me), and see that obvious fact is your matter, not mine, but on all cases, you are wellcome dear .


thank u all very much

[gulya_21]

. А. Бердяев
Демократия, социализм и теократия
juda qisqa,ammo asosiy tushunchani solishtiruv orqali ochib beradi,ya'ni demokratiya ma'nosini:http://www.philosophy.ru/library/berd/dem.html

Bir qismi:"Демократия носит формальный характер, она сама не знает своего содержания и в пределах утверждаемого ею принципа не имеет никакого содержания. Демократия не хочет знать, во имя чего изъявляется воля народа, и не хочет подчинить волю народа никакой высшей цели. В тот момент как демократия познает цель, к которой должна стремиться воля народа, обретет достойный предмет для своей воли, наполнится положительным содержанием, она должна будет эту цель, этот предмет, это содержание поставить выше самого формального принципа волеизъявления, положить в основу общества. Но демократия знает только формальный принцип волеизъявления, которым дорожит превыше всего и который ничему не хочет подчинять. Демократия безразлична к направлению и содержанию народной воли и не имеет в себе никаких критериев для определения истинности или ложности направления, в котором изъявляется народная воля, для определения качеств народной воли. Народовластие - беспредметно, оно не направлено ни на какой объект. Демократия остается равнодушной к добру и злу. Она - терпима, потому что индифферентна, потому что потеряла веру в истину, бессильна избрать истину. Демократия - скептична, она возникает в скептический век, век безверия, кргда народы утеряли твердые критерии истины и бессильны исповедовать какую-либо абсолютную истину. Демократия есть крайний релятивизм, отрицание всего абсолютного. Демократия не знает истины, и потому она предоставляет раскрытие истины решению большинства голосов. Признание власти количества, поклонение всеобщему голосованию возможны лишь при неверии в истину и незнании истины. Верующий в истину и знающий истину не отдает ее на растерзание количественного большинства. Демократия носит секулярный характер, и она противоположна всему сакральному обществу, потому что она формально бессодержательна и скептична. Истина сакральна, и общество, обоснованное на истине, не может быть исключительно секуларным обществом. Секулярная демократия означает отпадение от онтологических основ общества, отпадение общества человеческого от Истины. Она хочет политически устроить человеческое общество так, как будто Истины не существовало бы, это основное предположение чистой демократии. И в этом коренная ложь демократии. В основе демократической идеи лежит гуманистическое самоутверждение человека. Человеческая воля должна направлять человеческие общества, и нужно устранить все, что мешает изъявлению этой человеческой воли и окончательному ее господству. Этим отрицаются духовные основы общества, лежащие глубже формального человеческого волеизъявления, и опрокидывается весь иерархический строй общества. Демократия есть психологизм, противоположный всякому онтологизму.

[Darvesh]

Кажеться на этом форуме даже раздел, где будет обсуждаться, что лучше, заказ сомса или плов, автоматически превращаеться в арену противостояния между апологетами "исламского образа жизни" и "демократами":( .

Люди, предлагаю не октлоняться от темы и обсудить ситуацию в Узбекистане в русле вопроса "Есть ли демократия в РУз или нет?".
Если нет, то почему, как и когда будет? Что надо делать и кто виноват?

Я лично считаю, что у нас авторитарное государство пиночетовского типа (это не значит, что оно плохое) с зачатками демократии. И если бы не низкий уровень политической культуры нашего населения, эти зачатки уже давно бы расцвели пышным букетом демок.принципов, сорри за аллегорию.

Кстати, демократия лично для меня- это когда меня лечит врач-еврей, преподает в ВУЗе профессор еврей или русский, и когда я хожу в мечеть помолиться Аллаху. При халифате первые два пункта отпадают автоматом, поэтому я против:) Тем более, халифат в идеальном виде на планете Земля - утопия . (Пожалуйста, без комментариев:) .)

[Inspiredmind]

"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution"

Gilbert K. Chesterton.

[shaddow]

it seems that lots of people are very pessimistic about 'democracy' phenomena...

what will happen in 10-20 years in Uzbekistan if our nowadays youth is that pessimistic about that and do not believe in democracy?:(

I dont think there is any need to believe to the thing which DOES NOT EXIST.
Idealnaya systema - eto monarkhiya, no pri odnom uslovii - esli Korol umnichka. ;)

[shaddow]

это когда меня лечит врач-еврей, преподает в ВУЗе профессор еврей или русский, [/B]и когда я хожу в мечеть помолиться Аллаху. При халифате первые два пункта отпадают автоматом, поэтому я против:) Тем более, халифат в идеальном виде на планете Земля - утопия . (Пожалуйста, без комментариев:) .)

A tak kstati bylo....v Islamskoy Ispanii. Istoria etomu dokazatelstvo.

[abcd]

Maymonide, one of the greatest jewish thinkers lived and worked under Khalifat. He became Maimonide thanks to the conditions created by khalifah.
There are many other great jewish, christian or other religion's representatives who made rich career in public or private domains and thus contributed to general civilization of humanity under islamic rules.

In addition to that, there were many influentil jews under Ottoman empire. Descendants of those who barely saved their lives from unleashed crusaders.

[wow_kabob]

I often hear people saying: "We have no democracy in Uzbekistan", "There's no real democracy" etc

I wonder how the citizens/people of Uzbekistan understand this word/definition.

Please share with us your own understanding of democracy.

p.s. please no definitions of democracy from the dictionaries.
p.s. non-Uzbekistan people's opinions are also welcomed.




endi bildizmi democracy yoq bumaganham bumidiyam uzbekistonda

[Black]

Люди, предлагаю не октлоняться от темы и обсудить ситуацию в Узбекистане в русле вопроса "Есть ли демократия в РУз или нет?". Если нет, то почему, как и когда будет? Что надо делать и кто виноват?

Я лично считаю, что у нас авторитарное государство пиночетовского типа (это не значит, что оно плохое) с зачатками демократии. И если бы не низкий уровень политической культуры нашего населения, эти зачатки уже давно бы расцвели пышным букетом демок.принципов, сорри за аллегорию.

Кстати, демократия лично для меня- это когда меня лечит врач-еврей, преподает в ВУЗе профессор еврей или русский, и когда я хожу в мечеть помолиться Аллаху. При халифате первые два пункта отпадают автоматом, поэтому я против:) Тем более, халифат в идеальном виде на планете Земля - утопия . (Пожалуйста, без комментариев:) .)

Forumda bilmagan narsanini gapiraveradiganlar va o'zi yozgan narsaga o'zi amal qilmaydiganlar ko'payib ketayapti. Odam bilmagan narsasi haqida gapirgandan ko'ra gapirmagani, bilmagan narsasini o'qib o'rgangani yahshiroq ekanligini tushunib yetishi uchun qanchalik miya kerak ekan? Fikrimcha bitta normalniy odamni miyasi yetsa kerak.

[gulya_21]

Upravleniye gosudarstvom horosho organizovannogo men'shinstva nad bol'shinstvom,gde vse interese bolschinstva reshayutsya za nih;

A voobshe demos eto s drev-ne grech-kogo-chern'=narod,k sojaleniyu ili k radosti:)