Friday, August 29, 2014

Arabic re-Renaissance

Very few Arabs and Muslims; who had been gifted the capacity to scrutinize righteous from wrongdoing..  Despite how delicate to address the mostly emotional and passionate topics related to religion and mythical beliefs; these knowledge-warriors are symbols of the divine verdict to enable the nation to survive.. This survival is not meant to hurt, disgrace or defeat any other school of thought or belief, but was necessary to balance the evil powers from stimulating desires and soft spots within the humane fabric..

Prior to September 2011, there were no security domination worldwide, apart from routine criminals and outlaws.. Rare events of terrorism were easy to control and defuse; without depriving the principle rights, interests and concern of the public.. Since September 11, billion were invested in security operations and precautions that already provoke most rights.. Certainly, blames of this spiral phenomenon are pointed to Muslims..

The same applies to many regrettable issues world wide..
As Ibrahim AlBuleihi put it: Muslims (not Islam) had not only over loaded ourselves, but we had over loaded the world with unfortunate events, circumstances and costs..
Confusion, misguidance and superficiality had invaded the Arabs and Muslims ad created paradoxical and contradictive situations with the others..!! 

The true question is about what we are aiming for..?
What we want to accomplish or prove..?

What the purpose, target, gain or endeavor..?
Certainly nothing..

In a simple Islamic vision; the people are divided into three categories.. Leaders, Executives and Commons..
Leaders who are supposed to have Allah swt within their hearts, so they can lead the nation towards the prosperous righteous path..
Executives who have Allah swt in their minds, and had qualification to administer the nation and capable to scrutinize issues and advise the Leaders on the best ways forward..
Then, the Commons, who watch out for Allah swt in their simple deeds and actions, led by those Allah-fearing leaders and empowered by those Allah-knowing executives..
If non of the above are not there, it simply means the abounding of Islam's teachings, bylaws and philosophies.. Which were set to guide the nation..!

Sexual Objectification..

During the last four years, particularly since the awful sexual harassment of female protests and journalist at Tahrir Square, the talks are endless about this phenomenon and the various social, psychological and religious implications..

The below video is a simple nice attempt to hi-light the cause-roots of the universal problem, as defined: Men are Sexual subjects, while women are sexual objectives.. Maybe the video comes for equality and feminism perspectives, yet it is good point of view should the media tycoons respect..
Certainly no...!!

America in Decay

"Politics is a domain of final ends, subject to democratic contestation, but Administration is a realm of implementation, which could be studied empirically and subjected to scientific analysis.."
Max Weber
The issue of Civic Service is one of the infinitive legacies of Mankind.. This is not resulted from the continuous debates and arguments on efficiency and best practices, but due to the unspoken contradiction between the mighty tendencies: Anarchy & Order..

America in Decay: The Source of Political Dysfunction
By Francis Fukuyama
September/October 2014 Issue

The creation of the U.S. Forest Service at the turn of the twentieth century was the premier example of American state building during the Progressive Era. Prior to the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883, public offices in the United States had been allocated by political parties on the basis of patronage. The Forest Service, in contrast, was the prototype of a new model of merit-based bureaucracy. It was staffed with university-educated agronomists and foresters chosen on the basis of competence and technical expertise, and its defining struggle was the successful effort by its initial leader, Gifford Pinchot, to secure bureaucratic autonomy and escape routine interference by Congress. At the time, the idea that forestry professionals, rather than politicians, should manage public lands and handle the department’s staffing was revolutionary, but it was vindicated by the service’s impressive performance. Several major academic studies have treated its early decades as a classic case of successful public administration.

Today, however, many regard the Forest Service as a highly dysfunctional bureaucracy performing an outmoded mission with the wrong tools. It is still staffed by professional foresters, many highly dedicated to the agency’s mission, but it has lost a great deal of the autonomy it won under Pinchot. It operates under multiple and often contradictory mandates from Congress and the courts and costs taxpayers a substantial amount of money while achieving questionable aims. The service’s internal decision-making system is often gridlocked, and the high degree of staff morale and cohesion that Pinchot worked so hard to foster has been lost. These days, books are written arguing that the Forest Service ought to be abolished altogether. If the Forest Service’s creation exemplified the development of the modern American state, its decline exemplifies that state’s decay.

"The problem with scientific management is that even the most qualified scientists of the day occasionally get things wrong, and sometimes in a big way.."
Francis Fukuyama

The story of the U.S. Forest Service is not an isolated case but representative of a broader trend of political decay; public administration specialists have documented a steady deterioration in the overall quality of American government for more than a generation. In many ways, the U.S. bureaucracy has moved away from the Weberian ideal of an energetic and efficient organization staffed by people chosen for their ability and technical knowledge. The system as a whole is less merit-based: rather than coming from top schools, 45 percent of recent new hires to the federal service are veterans, as mandated by Congress. And a number of surveys of the federal work force paint a depressing picture. According to the scholar Paul Light, “Federal employees appear to be more motivated by compensation than mission, ensnared in careers that cannot compete with business and nonprofits, troubled by the lack of resources to do their jobs, dissatisfied with the rewards for a job well done and the lack of consequences for a job done poorly, and unwilling to trust their own organizations.”

In his classic work Political Order in Changing Societies, the political scientist Samuel Huntington used the term “political decay” to explain political instability in many newly independent countries after World War II. Huntington argued that socioeconomic modernization caused problems for traditional political orders, leading to the mobilization of new social groups whose participation could not be accommodated by existing political institutions. Political decay was caused by the inability of institutions to adapt to changing circumstances. Decay was thus in many ways a condition of political development: the old had to break down in order to make way for the new. But the transitions could be extremely chaotic and violent, and there was no guarantee that the old political institutions would continuously and peacefully adapt to new conditions.

The very stability of institutions, however, is also the source of political decay. Institutions are created to meet the demands of specific circumstances, but then circumstances change and institutions fail to adapt. One reason is cognitive: people develop mental models of how the world works and tend to stick to them, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Another reason is group interest: institutions create favored classes of insiders who develop a stake in the status quo and resist pressures to reform.

But Madisonian democracy frequently fails to perform as advertised. Elite insiders typically have superior access to power and information, which they use to protect their interests. Ordinary voters will not get angry at a corrupt politician if they don’t know that money is being stolen in the first place. Cognitive rigidities or beliefs may also prevent social groups from mobilizing in their own interests. For example, in the United States, many working-class voters support candidates promising to lower taxes on the wealthy, despite the fact that such tax cuts will arguably deprive them of important government services.

Log into FP for full text..!

Monday, August 25, 2014

What is the state of freedom of religion in Malaysia?

freedom of religion hand (Custom)
Freedom of religion in Malaysia is a delicate matter – that is no secret. And with the marriage of religion and politics, along with “human rights-ism”, this freedom is slowly eroding.
By Danny Lim
In June, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) refused to obey the Selangor state government’s order to return the Malay language Bibles that had earlier been seized from the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM). The Mais chairman even decided that there was a legal case against BSM, contradicting the Attorney-General’s statement that there was none as the seized Bibles did not involve issues of national security.
So you have religious authorities vehemently disobeying and contradicting the state executive and the top federal legal advisor. This was only the latest of many instances over the years where legal, political and religious authorities have clashed over religious issues.
As always, there are political agendas behind such clashes. But the legal boundaries governing such matters are unclear to many. What does the Federal Constitution say about such matters? Law professor Dr Azmi Sharom provides some answers at the forum on “Colloquium on Freedom of Religion” in KL, which was jointly organised in May by the Penang Institute and the Islamic Renaissance Front.
On the marriage of religion and politics in Malaysia…
Azmi: The relationship between religion and politics has been around for the longest time, but it wasn’t until the 1980s when this whole idea that religiosity had to play a much bigger role in politics emerged. That was the period when there was resurgence in a greater expression of one’s faith in public, spurred by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. PAS became the primary threat to Umno.
Thus began the political game of “Anything Islamic you can do, I can do better.” This led to a greater amount of power being given to religious authorities like Jais, Jawi and Jakim.
This was not unusual in our context. In the early 20th century, there was a schism in Islamic thought in the country between the more conservative Kaum Tua and the progressive Kaum Muda. The Kaum Tua ultimately won partly because literacy wasn’t high in those days, and partly because they associated themselves with the traditional feudal power – the sultans – in a mutually beneficial relationship.
This kind of relationship between the political masters and the religious authorities became stronger from the 1980s onwards. Religious authorities advocated certain ideas which any ruling power would enjoy – for example, obedience. This extended to the suppression of intellectualism in the name of protecting the faith.
Religious conservatism has grown in this country because we have never had a critical mass of Islamic intellectualism in our education system. In Indonesia, even the pesantren (religious schools) encourage students to question and debate points of view that are contrary to their own personal beliefs to ensure that they are strong enough to withstand trial. We do not have that here, and when you do not have that ability and space to question, it becomes very easy for any political power to retain control.
As the political masters find that it is good to have the religious authorities on their side, the latter’s influence has increased over the years. Laws are becoming more awful. For example, the Islamic Family Law in the past was a lot better than it is today. Before, you had to prove necessity and justness to be allowed to marry a second wife. Now, you only have to prove either one. Women’s rights take a backseat.
Conservatism is becoming ever more powerful in our makeup. With it, religious liberty is suppressed.

Azmi Sharom. Photograph: Danny Lim
Azmi Sharom.
Photograph: Danny Lim
On Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s “Human Rights-ism” threat…
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the preamble declares that we deserve to live in a world where there is freedom of expression and belief, freedom from want and freedom from fear. What is so deviationist about those aspirations?
Religion is being used as a distraction from real political issues, and today’s situation in which religious liberty, political development and democracy are curtailed results from the close relationship between politicians and religious authorities. It is too late now for the government to do anything about it; they have associated themselves too closely with the religious authorities. To back down now would mean to be un-Islamic.
On the tools of persecution in the country…
The Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) allows great control over what is published – particularly books – and on what grounds books can be banned. Any publication found to be prejudicial to public order – morality, security or whatever is likely to alarm public opinion – can be banned. It is extremely broad and can be used very freely and easily.
Recent amendments to the PPPA are hilarious. In the past, a newspaper had to renew its printing license annually. Now, they do not have to renew it every year because the government can revoke it at any time.
There is the Sedition Act. What is seditious is anything that promotes “feelings of ill-will between races and classes of Malaysian society”. The act doesn’t actually mention religion, but under the Constitution, a Malay is defined as a Muslim. So if you promote feelings of ill-will against Islam, then it could be viewed as promoting ill-will between races because Malays are Muslims.
Regarding the case against the late Karpal Singh, the Sedition Act actually says if you raise (feelings of ill-will) against the government or the rulers (the sultans) and if you’re doing it for the purpose of pointing out that they’re doing something incorrect, that is not sedition.
Karpal was of the opinion that the Sultan of Perak had done something wrong constitutionally. This fell under the exception in the Sedition Act, yet Karpal was found to be seditious.
Finally, there are the Syariah Criminal Offences Laws which differ from state to state, although you can find general themes across the board. For example, if you are spreading false doctrine or false worship, it can land you in jail, but it is the individual state Islamic departments that determine what is considered false doctrine. If they feel that your practice of Islam is somehow not to their liking, they can declare it as deviant.
On how these laws fit under the Federal Constitution…
Article 10 says that we all have freedom of expression except for when national security is concerned – it can be curtailed then. But how far can you curtail it, and on what grounds?
Article 11 says that everyone has freedom of religion. So if a Muslim chooses a particular route that he or she wants to take, then the freedom is there, guaranteed under Article 11. You should not be able to stop that.
Article 3 says that Islam is the religion of the federation, but all other religions can be peacefully practiced in the country. If the Christians want to use “Allah” in their prayers, Article 3 actually allows it, as long as they peacefully practice their faith. Then again, the judge in the Court of Appeal said that the word “Allah” is not actually part of a Christian’s faith; therefore the authorities can stop one from using it. But who is to say what an integral part of one’s faith is?
Likewise, under Article 11, you have no right to stop Shias or Ahmadiyyas from practicing their faith, but the authorities get powers to do so from the Syariah Criminal Offences Laws.
My argument is that Article 3 does not mean that Malaysia is an Islamic state; it is quite clear in the preparatory work for the Constitution that the Alliance leaders did not want Article 3 to mean that Malaysia is an Islamic state.
Prime Minister Najib Razak, who warns that Islam is being tested by an ideology which can be termed as "human rights-ism".
Prime Minister Najib Razak, who warns that Islam is being tested by an ideology which can be termed as “human rights-ism”.
Photograph: Ishak J./
On the problem with the Federal Constitution…
The problematic line in the Constitution is in Schedule 9, which lays down the powers of law-making – where Parliament can make laws on such-andsuch topics, and state governments can make laws on a detailed list of Islamic matters such as marriage, divorce, property, inheritance, etc.
Then there’s one little line, which says they can also enforce Syariah Criminal Offences Laws for matters that “go against the precepts of Islam”. But what does “precepts of Islam” mean? What if it is deemed against the precepts of Islam to disobey your leaders, and they make a law against people criticising Umno?
What then is the point of having a democracy?
On moving forward…
The answer is institutional change, the most important being the judiciary because it determines whether something is constitutional or not. It controls the limits with which an authority can act.
However, we increasingly see situations where it is obvious that something contravenes the Constitution, but judges refuse to uphold the ruling, such as in cases regarding freedom of religion. In the Lina Joy case, the Federal Court washed their hands of it, saying that it was a matter of procedure and not for them to decide. They did not deal with the fundamental question: is it her right to leave the religion? They passed it back to the Federal Syariah Court despite the fact that Federal Syariah Criminal Offences Laws do not have any provision for leaving of the religion.
Compare and contrast to 1988, when the Supreme Court made a landmark decision on the case of Jalaluddin Osman, who was born to a Muslim family but converted to Christianity and was subsequently detained under the ISA because he was supposedly a threat to national security. The court actually held that the government acted unconstitutionally because his right to choose his religion fell under Article 11 of the Constitution.
There is no easy answer. It is a matter of striving continuously, and what is important is we need to put forward the view that constitutional rights and human rights are actually in the interests of everybody. If they can suppress me now, they can suppress you tomorrow.
Danny Lim is a journalist and photographer devoted to sociopolitical issues, as well as a fixer for international media.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Racial or Social Tension..?

State vs. People.. An American Spring..!!

It is not racial riot at Ferguson of Missouri
It is a social breakdown that Obama had escalated 
Social Estate is not only Moneys in hands, but also Inspirations in hearts, and Integrations in minds..
Statistics tell that the loud failure of Obamacare had attracted attentions away from deep poverty and inequality among disadvantaged Americans..
Also, while Immigration debate uncontrollably triggered philosophical talks, it hides sever misery among the unfortunate earlier migrants..
Despite how citizen of US and most of industrialized world, have little or no interest in world order and politics, yet the noise associated with failed attempts to contain ISIL, ASAAD, PUTIN, KIM-IL, BASHEIR, LIBYA, and EBOLA
Obama PR disasters had gone to far to contain..
The Public needs a continuous feed of victories and excitements.. The minute you stop; the second they recall your ill-deliveries..!!

Watch out for Farrakhan guys..!!
Mourning The Victim: Michael Brown
Supporting The Suspect: Darren Wilson
Zahid Hussain Khalid's photo.
Obama's Scores on US Sociopolitics

Stereotype of Earlier Migrants

Flyer Passed Around in Ferguson Shows ‘Nation of Islam’ as Organizer Behind Protests/Riots
See more at:

Saturday, August 16, 2014

ماذا تعرف عن الإيزيديين

Alalam News Channel's photo.
ماذا تعرف عن الإيزيديين
هي مجموعة دينية في الشرق الأوسط. ويعيش أغلبهم قرب الموصل ومنطقة جبال سنجار في العراق. وتعيش مجموعات أصغر في تركيا ,سوريا، إيران ،جورجي...ا وأرمينيا. عرقيا ينتمون إلى اصل كردى ذات جذور هندو أوروبية رغم أنهم متأثرون بمحيطهم الفسيفسائي المتكون من ثقافات عربية اشورية وسريانية فأزيائهم الرجالية قريبة من الزي العربي اما ازيائهم النسائية فسريانية. يتكلم الايزديون اللغة الكردية وهي لغة الأم ولكنهم يتحدثون العربية أيضا، خصوصا ايزيدية بعشيقة قرب الموصل، صلواتهم وادعيتهم والطقوس والكتب الدينية كلها باللغة الكردية، أو مرگه الشيخان حيث موطن امرائهم، والتي سميت في كتب التاريخ بـ(مرج الموصل) وقبلتهم هي لالش حيث الضريح المقدس لـ(الشيخ أدي) بشمال العراق ويعتبر الأمير تحسين بك من كبار الشخصيات الديانة الايزيدية في العراق والعالم.
كان الأيزيديين يسمون في فترات تأريخية سابقة بـالداسنية والتيراهية ثم بعد ظهور الشيخ عدي الهكاري اشتهروا بالصحبتية والعدوية والهكارية. ويبدو أن تسمية الأيزيدية اطلق عليهم ايام سيطرة العثمانيين على كردستان والعراق. ومن أشهر مواطنهم سابقا حسب (كتاب الشرفنامه‌) جزيرة ابن عمر (بوطان) والموصل ودهوك ودياربكر وحلب واورفا وخوي بأيران (امراء دنبلي). ولكن هذا الانتشار انكمش تحت ضغط حملات الإبادة وفرمانات الدولة العثمانية.
التسمية جاءت من (يزد) أو (يزدان) وذللك لاعتقادة هذه الفئة بـ(إله) بهذا الاسم. مدينة (يزاد) أو (يزدان) الفارسية ومعنى التسمية (الله).
رسم لتمثال الملك الطاووس
الرّب، الله: (لا تجري ماهيته في مقال، ولا تخطر كيفيته ببال، جل عن الأمثال والاشكال، صفاته قديمة كذاته، ليس كمثله شيء) (بانه الرب هو اله البشر وانّ الملك الطاووس ملك للملائكة)
الملك طاووس
وهو يحكم الكون بمعية سبعة من الملائكة. وهذه الملائكة السبعة خاضعة للرب الأعلى.
للماء والنار والتراب والهواء تعتبرا رموزا المقدسة في الديانا الايزيدية ويمثلا حياة مستقلة بحد ذاتها

ومن ابرز طقوسهم الدينية : هو (الدعاء) وهو لثلاث فترات مع شروق الشمس وغروبها، يدعو فيه الايزيديون بالخير والسلام للبشرية جمعاء عامة ومن ثم لهم والإيزيدية كديانة لها فكرها ومسلكها الخاص في أداء طقس الصلاة (الدعاء) لخالق الكون الله يسمونه بلغتهم الاريية القديمة (خودى) أو (ئيزدان) وتتجلى في عدد من الأدعية والنصوص بعضها تختص بطلوع الشمس مع الفجر فالظهيرة ومن ثم الغروب، وبعضها الأخر تختص ببعض المناسبات الدينية كالأعياد مثلاً، أو أدعية أخرى تتلى على المريض، وأخرى تقترن بحدوث الفيضانات والكوارث، ومنها ما تختص بظاهرة كسوف الشمس وخسوف القمر ووإلخ..
كتب مقدسة: كتاب الجلوة لـ عدي بن مسافر ومصحف رش (بالعربية:الكتاب الأسود)
وادي لالش في العراق هو المكان المقدس.
الحج إلى وادي لالش.
الصلاة عبارة عن أدعية مع التوجه نحو الشمس.
الصوم : يصوم الايزديون في السنة أكثر من مرة والايزدي مدعو للصيام طول السنة فهو يمكن ان يصوم متى ما شاء وهذا الصيام يكون خاصا يرتبط برغبة الشخص ولكن هناك صوم عام يسمى صوم (ايزي) (ئيزي) اي صيام(الله) لمدة ثلاثة ايام يصادف غالبا شهر كانون الأول الميلادي لان الايزديين يتبعون التقويم الشرقي القديم(الكريكوري) وفي هذه الايام الثلاث يصوم الايزدي من كل ملذات الدنيا وفي اليوم الرابع بعد الصيام يصادف العيد المسمى (رۆژيێت ئيزي).
القبلة:القبلة لدى الايزديين هي الشمس باعتبارها اعظم ما خلقه الله حيث يتوجه الايزدي أو الايزدية نحو الشمس للدعاء التي تاخذ شكل الدعاء والمصلي عليه الاغتسال اولا ومن ثم الوقوف بخشوع رافعا يديه إلى السماء وهو حافيا القدمين وهذا يتكرر في اليوم ثلاثة مرات عند الشروق وعند الغروب وكذلك في الليل قبل النوم ويتلى في كل مرة تراتيل وادعية خاصة تتميز بأسلوب ادبي ولغوي قوي جدا اشبه بالشعر الموزون والمقفى.
التناسخ كوسيلة للتكفير عن الذنوب.
التعميد المولود.
التوحيد من احدى الاسس الثابتة في فلسفة الدين الايزدي لذا الايزديون لايعتقدون بوجود الأرواح الشريرة والعفاريت والشياطين والابالسة لانهم يعتقدون أن الإقرار بوجود قوى أخرى تسيير الإنسان يعني الثانوية وتبرير لما يقوم به البشر من افعال. لذا الإنسان في العقيدة الايزدية يمثل المسؤول عما يفعله وليس الجن أو الأرواح الشريرة. وان الله هو كله خير اما الشر فياتي أيضا من بابه نتيجية لافعال البشر لذا الصراع بين الخير والشر هو في الأساس صراع بين النفس والعقل فاذا انتصر العقل على النفس نال الإنسان خيرا
قصة الخلق لديهم تشابه قصة الخلق في الأسلام في بعض النواحي ألا أنهم يعتبرون ان ابليس أو عزازيل كما يسميه الايزيديين كان من أفضل الموحديين حيث رفض السجود لادم لانه اعتبر السجود لغير الله ذل وبذلك رفعه الله لمكانه عظمية ونصبه ملكا على الملائكة.
الاحتفال في أول أربعاء من شهر نيسان في كل عام من السنة الشرقية.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

هذا الوثائقي يرصد خلفيات ومسار أردوغان والعلامات المثيرة في مسيرته السياسية .. لعلها أفضل ما تم نشره عن هذا السياسي ذو النفس الطويل .. فلعل أبناء الضاد يعلمون لأي فصيل هم يصفقون
رجب طيب أردوغان
يحلم رجب طيب أردوغان بأن يصبح رئيساً لتركيا، وأن يبقى في هذا المنصب إلى أن تحتفل تركيا الحديثة بمرور مئة عامة على إقامتها. إذا حصل هذا فلن يكون مجرد انتصار لسياسي صاحب طموح كبير، وإنما انتصار للمحافظين والإسلاميين الأتراك. أردوغان يجسد أيضاً جزءاً كبيراً من تطلعات هؤلاء إلى الفخر والتقدير والسلطة والثروة. الرجل الذي أتى من حي عمالي فقي في إسطنبول وصل إلى كرسي رئاسة الحكومة التركية. في عام 1994 أصبح أردوغان عمدة لمدينة إسطنبول. كانت صدمة للمؤسسة الجمهورية أن يكون إسلامي محافظ على رأس أكبر مدينة في تركيا. لكن رجب طيب أردوغان يريد الآن ما هو أعلى وأهم.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan instituted a number of political reforms during his first term as Turkish prime minister. The country experienced an economic upswing and eyed accession to the EU. Now Erdogan's political style has become increasingly authoritarian, fundamentalist and anti-western. He is now running for president in Sunday's election. Is democracy in danger in Turkey?

Monday, August 4, 2014

Illiberal Democracy

My respect to Fareed is undoubted and steady; yet; I can see how he is seized in advocating the "End of Time".. Liberal Democracy is widely proven inadequate for progressive realities, not because it offers no upgrading, but because it enab...les awful parasites to uncontrollably grow.. This is happening across the world, and requires no permission to grow.. Hungary took the lead of "Illiberal Democracy" in Europe, while India and Brazil will follow..!

Will Putinism triumph?

Watch "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN
By Fareed Zakaria
When he first came to power in 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed a smart, tough, competent manager, someone who was determined to bring stability to Russia, which was in free fall at the time, reeling from internal chaos, economic stagnation and a default in 1998. He sought to integrate Russia into the world and wanted good relations with the West, asking Washington for Russian membership in both the World Trade Organization and even in NATO.
Over time, however, Putin established order in the country and control over society. He also presided over a booming economy, as oil prices quadrupled under his watch. So he began creating a repressive system of political, economic and social control to maintain his power.
As he faced opposition, particularly in the parliamentary elections of 2011, Putin recognized that he needed more than just brute force to defeat his opponents – he needed an ideology of power. The crucial elements of Putinism are nationalism, religion, social conservatism, state capitalism, and government domination of the media. They work in tandem to sustain Putin's popularity…
…The success of Putinism ultimately will depend a great deal on the success of Putin and Russia under him. If he triumphs in Ukraine, turning it into a basket case that eventually comes begging to Moscow, he will look like a winner. If, on the other hand, Ukraine succeeds outside of Russia's orbit, leaders like Victor Orban might regret having cast their lot with a globally-isolated Siberian petro-state.

Liberal Democracy had overturned the epistemic code of humanity, by practicing the "Intellectual Arrogance" to replace the heritage of "Divine Commandments".. Yes; it is a question about "Evolution of Creation"; which Liberal Democracy had chosen the first, while nations of religious context battle proven the later.. Epistemic foundations are not scattered, but closely knitted.. The replacement of religion became anarchy; which many communities had paid heavy cost during the last 50 years.. USA itself suffers the backlash; while Europe is severely and silently torn..
Sadly, Freed attach the happening to a person, ignoring the fact that it is a plural engagement across continents..

This definition also accords with the commonsense view of the term. If a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, we call it democratic. When public participation in politics is increased, for example through the enfranchisement of women, it is seen as more democratic. Of course elections must be open and fair, and this requires some protections for freedom of speech and assembly. But to go beyond this minimalist definition and label a country democratic only if it guarantees a comprehensive catalog of social, political, economic, and religious rights turns the word democracy into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive category. After all, Sweden has an economic system that many argue curtails individual property rights, France until recently had a state monopoly on television, and England has an established religion. But they are all clearly and identifiably democracies. To have democracy mean, subjectively, "a good government" renders it analytically useless

Singapore, which ranked as one of top countries on Human Development Index, is not practicing Liberal Democracy.. Its political history includes not only suppression and limited liberates, but also scandals of voluntary birth barrenness for people with low IQ rates..!

Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from Malaysia in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's ruling People's Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as the right to assemble or form associations, bearing in mind that there were race and religious riots at this times), and extended its influence over the media, unions, NGOs and academia. Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls..