user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It is political Islamists. They are the msot organised, widespread, and successful threatening ideology to established governments in the Islamic world. Their pressures are real and existent. Political Islam and the Islamic Resurgence that has taken place across the world is very significant. Very often these organisations resort to terrorism to push for their agenda- and in such cases religion is indeed an issue. Some nations in the Islamic world have responded with hard-line approaches against them, while others have sort to accomodate and appease them by adopting increasingly theocratic political positions.
An outbreak of sanity and humanity to their fellow man.
FiddleFaddleOnLSD- the ballot question is not about what *should* be the greatest internal threat, but rather realistically what it actually is. What it 'should' be is completely beside the point.
In the last 20 or so years, political Islam has dominated and often monopolised the opposition to governments in Muslim countries. Their strength is in part due to the weakness of the alternates. Communists/socialists have lost credibility, especially after the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the end of the Cold War, and the very secular dogmas of the ideology. Liberal, democratic opposition does and has existed in Muslim countries, but an unsentimental emotionally detached analysis would reveal that they are limited in numbers of intellectualists and otehrs with Western roots or connections. With only a few exceptions, liberal democrats have been unable to gather sustained popular support among the Islamic world., and even 'Islamic liberalisn' has failed to take root. The success of Islamist movements also is linked to their popularity in involvement in social organisation in helping the poor (especially as urbanisation there has created a lot of problems) and other humanitarian and social work. Another factor is that the established governments have during history supported and even encouraged such groups (not only for populist support) but also to counter to external enemies and other movements (cultural and political). Lastly, is the Islamist Resurgence itself which has given rise to political Islam as a synamic ideologyu and a pan-Islamic consciousness.
The secularists are very powerless, divided, lack organisation, are relatively less activist, and are persecuted and have much less public support. Political Islamists constitute the largest most organised and active oppositional bulk. A vote for secularists seems to be based more on wishful thinking than reason or logic.
This is a tough question Socrates but I would have to say that the greatest threat to M.E governments are Islamic radicals.All most all M.E governments are despotic in some aspect so their hold on power is not threatened by Democratic,Socialists or Secular movements because those groups are throughly supressed.The only group that can seriously threaten a M.E governments monopoly on power are the Islamic fundamentalist because they often have popular support and can execute terrorist attacks against heads of state.A good example of an "Islamic" government that is threatened by Islamic faundamentalist is Pakistan.There have been several assassination attempts on the president's life,that nation is one terrorist attack away from falling to the Jihadist.
Governments in the Islamic world are so utterly corrupt that the average citizen feels completely cut off. So where do people turn in the hopes of some kind of relief? Religion. In this case, extreme Islam to counterbalance extreme governments.
the need for freedom
Actually Socrates, my point is valid. A population of people who think for themselves and are not being led by religious nutcases would be a group of sane people. That would be a threat as they would push for change.
Humanity as in treating fellow humans is also a threat. This would show the corruption of those in power.
Either of these two would be a severe threat to the governments in that area. The governments are corrupt, pander to religious extremists, and try to suppress the masses. What then causes problems is when a portion of the population becomes aware of what is going on.
FiddleFaddleOnLSD- your idea is based on a future hypothetical and not a current/present organising activist faction. This is shown by your own language: 'when a portion...' and 'would be a severe threat' and 'would show'. As it is now I do not see such an activist movement taking place, and seems more based on wishful thinking that it may happen in the future. Presently, speaking without any sentimentalism, the very religious extremists themselves, which you accuse the governments there of pandering to, are so influential, that they are the most significant of the threats to the established governments in the Islamic world. Not only because they are highly organised and structured, extremely activist, have a clear set outlined agenda and doctrine, are a disciplined group, and are often appeased by the governments, but also because they are quite popular with the people themselves to quite a significant degree.
kerradolche - the assumption that people in the Islamic world in large masses want Western liberalism is doubted. There has been a back-lash to Western liberalism in the past twenty years or so in the Islamic world and elsewhere. As for democracy? Those calling for democracy are divided, are in insignificant numbers, don't have as much public support, and are greatly oppressed. But democracy itself does not necessarily equate to freedom or liberalism, as evidenced by the Palestinian election victory of Hamas.
|
|
