Pages

▼

Why India Need of Electoral Reforms?

WebpageTranslator

Faith in politicians has eroded in India India's democracy is facing serious challenges.[see
Political Reforms for Pakistan'.
http://t.co/nWDNNWN]
Nearly a third of MPs - 158 of 543, to be precise - in the parliament face criminal charges. Seventy-four of them face serious charges such as murder and abduction. There are more than 500 criminal cases against these lawmakers. These MPs hail from across the political spectrum, writes Soutik Biswas
Twelve of the 205 MPs or 5% of the lawmakers in the ruling Congress Party face criminal charges. The main opposition BJP fares worse with 19 of 116 - or more than 16% - of its MPs facing charges. More than 60% of the MPs belonging to two key regional parties, Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party - who profess to serve the poor and the untouchables - face criminal charges.
Then there are allegations of rampant vote-buying by parties, especially in southern India.
The Election Commission seized more than 600 million rupees ($13.3m; £8.3m) in cash in Tamil Nadu in the run-up to the state elections in April. It believes that the money was kept to buy votes.
In an US embassy cable leaked by WikiLeaks in March, an American official was quoted as saying that one Tamil Nadu party inserted cash and a voting slip instructing which party to vote for in the morning newspapers - more innovative than handing out money directly to voters. The party concerned denies the charge.
Independent election watchdogs believe that candidates routinely under-report or hide campaign expenses. During the 2009 general elections, nearly all of the 6753 candidates officially declared that they had spent between 45 to 55% of their expenses limit.
After the recent state elections - in three states and one union territory - elected legislators declared that that the average amount of money spent in their campaigns to be only between 39% and 59% of their limits in their official declarations. A total of 76 legislators declared that they did not spend any money on public meetings and processions.
There is something seriously amiss in the state of democracy in India. That is why, most believe, the country urgently needs electoral reforms.
Nearly a third of MPs face criminal charges. India's most respected election watchdog Association For Democratic Reforms (ADR) has rolled out a pointed wish-list to clean up India's politics and target corruption. I am sharing some of them:
Any person against whom charges have been framed by a court of law or offences punishable for two years or more should not be allowed to contest elections. Candidates charged with serious crimes like murder, rape, kidnapping and extortion should be banned from contesting elections. India's politicians have resisted this saying that opponents regularly file false cases against them.
To stop candidates and parties seeking votes on the basis of caste, religion and to stop divisive campaigns, a candidate should be declared a winner only if he or she gets more than 50% plus one vote. When no candidate gets the required number of votes, there should be a run-off between the top two candidates.
Voters should have the option of not voting for any of the candidates.
A law against use of excessive money in elections by candidates.
Despite the clamour for the state funding of elections, it is still not clear how much elections cost in India. Political parties do not come clean on their revenues and expenses, and until there is a clearer picture of how much they spend, it will be difficult to fix an amount. So political parties should give out verifiable accounts, which should be also available for public scrutiny.
The desire for electoral reform is not new. Since 1990, there have been at least seven hefty comprehensive government-commissioned reports for such reforms The Election Commission of India has been saying since 1998 that candidates with pending criminal cases against them should not be allowed to contest.If there is an overwhelming consensus about these reforms, why have governments sat on it for more than two decades? Ask the politicians.
Comments : 
India and Pakistani political system are similar though democracy in  Pakistan has been repeated disrupted by military dictators. Both countries need to reform their political systems to make it more representative, transparent and democratic, please read '
Political Reforms needed for Stable Democracy in Pakistan...
http://t.co/nWDNNWN



[24 - comments]
1. Antony
Campaign finance reform is a must for India if it has step out of its third-world and corrupt image in the world arena. For each rally and each visit of a party official/functionary to a village, all expense report must be reported to the Election Commissioner. The list of donors and the amounts must be submitted in bi-weekly report. Criminal record (> 3 yrs) MPs cannot run elected offices.
2. Satheesan Kochicheril
The electoral reforms must be initiated by the elected representatives of the people. This will never be done by these people as they do not want to tie their own noose. This is where the Supreme Court can come to the salvation of the people. When people all over the World are demanding political changes for the better the people of India should not miss the opportunity to bring honesty in admini.

3. tkbhattacharyya
Indian democracy is laughable, the country is corrupt from top, election is corrupt, half the energy is lost in unseating any party in the provinces which do not support the centre ruling Congress the crown prince is waiting to be the prime minister. All the time vote buying quarrel dirty politics, poverty stricken land need no Governors President in palaces when half the Indians starving.

4. legend_speaks
yes we direly need some the one that tops the chart for me is direct election of PM at least that would eliminate the 'coalition compulsions'

5. Karthik Manamcheri
There is an option to vote "none of the above" according to Section 49 O in the Conduct of Election Rules 1961. However the button for that is not implemented in the voting machine (thanks to the government). I have read news reports of people casting a null vote by special request at the polling booth. As with everything in India, implementation of laws is a big problem.

6. Vishnz
If vote buying, of any kind, is banned it is most unlikely if either of the Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu would ever have got a foothold in the state politics. In addition, if any supporters of a candidate are convicted of threatening behaviour or worse in relation to the election, that candidate should be banned for life. It is harsh, but that has to be done to save democracy.

7. Vishnz
In addition my previous post, all caste, religion or ethnic based campaigning should be made illegal. Better still, ban any party that is set up on those bases. I remember Tamil Nadu in the early 70s when brahmins were terrorised on the streets by the dravidian thugs including their sacred thread being ripped off. people were and still are scared to use caste names of Iyer and Iyengar!

8. Ananya78
Soutik has hit the nail on the head. Why have the politicians been sitting on the proposed electoral reforms for years? Because they dont want good, clean people to come into politics. Politics in India has become a career for semi-literate, manipulative, corrupt people.

9. Dr D M Joshi
Has compulsory voting covered parliamentary elections? Of it I heard only in civic bodies elections in Gujarat. Since Independence some changes improvements have been noticed, particularly in the functioning of Election Commission. No reforms have taken place in Judiciary. In India it is a fact that a sharp legal mind with certain amount of moral scruples avoid being appointed as Judge.

10. Jay
The discussion on almost any issue, be it on corruption, Anna Hazare, education, research, urban-rural planning, quality of life- all end up towards the same direction and with the same conclusion. We can NOT improve on any issue (mentioned above) unless common citizens gather the courage and wisdom to oppose corruption and more importantly, implement the same reform in his/her personal life.

11. Jay
How can any sane person expect that our elected representatives will do something that will hurt them, personally? Almost no person join politics to serve the country or its people. Only backbenchers, criminal minded students joined and groomed (by all political parties) during student days.Schools and universities are now breeding grounds for such politicians.Teachers are no exception either.

12. Shilpy
the Hindu people have no stomach for politics. thus, although the indian people are great in their private and social lives, their state, ie India, for tens of centuries have moved from one foreign power to the other. the modern day Indian state too is wedded to the policy of "muslims have the first right to national resources". problems of their state will go away once Hindus organize politicly.

13. IndBrit
Dear Mr Biswas, Excellent article, thank you. Do keep us posted about what's really going on in India, because parts of Indian media, when they are not very shallow, can be very shy. Since they must have good and conscientious journalists, one wonders whether there is a free press!

14. vkappu
It is one of the practical suggetion made mr southik that a candidate should bedeclared elected,only if he got 50% plus vote from a constituency one contested to ward off the religious,cast influence in politics. It is doubtful whether formal democracy is suitable to Indian conditions such as huge population multi religions,cast and poverty stricken masses who are prey of wel -to-do maliklog

15. Vivek Misra
Indian democracy is a myth; it is a corrupt play of power that is called an 'election' every 5 years. Nothing will change as people only think about themselves/their community all the time and not about the country.

16. Jay
Politics should be banned from any school, college and university. Political affiliation of both teachers, students' union is dangerous not only for the institution but also for grooming future generation of career politicians. This is ONLY possible if teachers and  shool/ college/ university admin are held accountable- for education, administration & finance; which is far from reality now.

17. Jay
Mostly immature & worried (about career) students hardly have the ability to understand the bigger picture & long term consequences. It prevent a person/student with true leadership quality and wisdom to stay away from politics, both during his early days as student and later. Corrupt, dishonest teachers & administrators do the rest to kill the potential of any able (future) leader & politician.

18. IndBrit

Justice Kamleshwar Nath (a Retd Judge, Allahabad High Court) reveals another deeply worrying vignette on the state of Indian affairs:
http://news.indiaagainstcorruption.org/?p=3050&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=derailing-lokpal-in-an-exploitative-democracy-2
Are Indian citizens being crushed with full parliamentary democratic and judicial sanctions?

19. Jay
Previously politicians used to use the criminals & businessmen to win elections. In return the criminals & businessmen used to enjoy immunity and get lucrative deals. Lately (around 1980s) those criminals & businessmen themselves started becoming politician, for obvious reasons. Bottom-up approach will never be a reality here, at least to start any meaningful reform.It have to be imposed from top.

20. Jay
That's why effective Lokpal bill, that includes PM, judiciary & MPs, is important.Whenever reform movements start with ideal goal, it always get derailed by opportunists, sometimes among its own ranks, sometimes implanted by govt. Lack of courage &/or opportunity force many of us to remain decently honest. But given a chance, they prove to be no less corrupt. Autocratic regimes begins that way.

21. peacebot
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

22. munasabah
I love India much of the rich works of literature come from India. In this day and times I ask leaders to start to look within the Indian Philosophy and wisdom of the past.Leave not the ramayana and the mahabharata.Peace shall reign again.

23. IndBrit
Study of Philosophy & Religion is fine, but ...India is a secular state with millions of non-Hindus, and so she should remain! The problems under discussion face all Indians irrespective of religion, caste, wealth or gender. Any solution must have support of all the people - even including those who may have caused the problem. Social cohesion is crucial to build a better India.

24. IndBrit
Most readers would share your frustration. But, any change would come ONLY IF people try to change things. So I would urge you and everyone else who feels like you to direct your conscience / energy towards building a better India, however tortuous the path might be, or however long it takes, and NOT give up.

Also see: 
Related Links:

How to fight back Extremism

WebpageTranslator
Winning Minds:First, the extremist ideology must be countered effectively. They take shelter behind Islam, pretending to be only true Muslims, fighting the infidels and their supporters [who, according to them fall outside folds of Islam]. Very little is done at national and tactical levels to effectively counter this false ideology based upon misinterpretation of holy text. Resultantly society, even ranks and file in armed forces are divided.The extremists find sympathisers among intellectuals, politicians, media and other segments of society. Public support to a terrorist [gorilla] is important like water to fish for survival. To deprive extremists from this, there has to be a mass campaign to educate the people, create awareness about basis teachings of Islam for peace, moderation and tolerance. While the media experts can evolve the campaign, immediately while breaking the news of any terrorist act, media  [TV] should display the verses from Qur'an an Hadith rejecting suicide, killing of innocents, creating anarchy and mischief  on land [fasad-fil-ardh] with Urdu and Pashtu translations. Minimum visual  coverage would discourage glorification and terrorisation of public. [Lessons from British media against IRA are worth consideration]. More details at  “Don't be Deceived, Know enemies of peace”. Read more... http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-fight-back-extremism.html

Don't be Deceived, Know enemies of PEACE ...“Therefore, do not yield to the unbelievers, and make Jihad (strive) against them with this (Qur'an), a mighty Jihad (Jihad Kabira)” (Qur'an;25:52). “Permission to fight back (Qital) is hereby granted to the . ...

    Fighting corruption in India

    WebpageTranslator

    As government scandals continue to plague the nation, can a law bring reform and transparency?

    Watch Video:



    A recent series of big-ticket corruption scandals in India ranging from the Delhi Commonwealth Games to the 2-G telecom scam have plagued the nation, triggering massive public outrage. On Tuesday's Riz Khan we ask: Has the problem of corruption been exaggerated and if not how can Indians tackle it?Earlier this month 71-year old social activist Anna Hazare held a four-day fast to pressure the Indian government to form a committee of politicians and social activists to finally come up with an effective anti-corruption bill.
    We speak with Kiran Bedi, a social activist and draftee of the anti-corruption Jan Lokpal Bill; and Jagdish Bhagwati, a professor at Columbia University and a senior fellow in international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. 

    Related Links:

      Democracy: Voting Systems

      There are basically two systems in parliamentary elections,
      - the Majority Election System
      - the Proportional Representation System.
      Both systems do have advantages and shortcomings and there is no generally accepted preference. Two important points to be considered are equal and just influence of every vote on the electoral result and stability of the political system.

      Majority Election System

      With the majority election system, only one member of parliament is to be elected per constituency [area and group of voters living therein that is taken as a unit in the election process].

      Basic Idea

      The most qualified personality shall be selected to represent the constituency.

      Characteristics, Pros and Cons

      • With the majority election system, small parties have no chance to win a mandate unless there are some constituencies with a population having political views differing much from those in the rest of the country. With the size constituencies in big nations do have (some 100,000 voters) this is rather unlikely. Therefore the majority election system will inevitably lead to parties uniting or building blocks (tight alliances) until only two major players remain on the political scene. So voters are forced to select between the candidates of two big parties basically. While the this tends to create a stable parliamentary majority for the government it is not likely to represent a pluralistic modern society adequately.
      • Supporters of a minority party might feel not being represented by the member of parliament rooted in their region because he or she represents the other party and other political concepts.
      • In a big nation, one member of parliament is going to represent some 100,000 inhabitants. Evidently these people do not live in towns of exactly this size. To assign fairly equal numbers of inhabitants to every constituency, several villages and and small towns must be grouped to form a constiuency while large cities must be divided into several constituencies. There is no "natural", evident rule of assignment.
        In the past years it has repeatedly been reported that minor changes in the definition of constituencies were deliberately planned by governments of several countries (U.K., France and others) to ensure that their party could win a few mandates in a situation where government and opposition party have almost the same strength.
        The trick herein is the following: if there is a constituency with a solid majority for the government party, subtract a few towns voting overwhelmingly for the government and add them to a neighboring constituency where the government party just needs a few percents more of the votes to win the election and exchange these towns for a few towns known to be voting for the opposition - so the government's party will win both seats.
        In principle, this kind of manipulation is just as much electoral fraud as counting some votes twice or having some votes uncounted. The problem is: the existing old borders of a constituency might have been created by the same kind of manipulation by a former government and it is almost impossible to find a really neutral solution.
      • While the majority election system seems to be straightforward and simple at first glance, it leads to rather complex decisions that are not transparent to voters. This is definitely not a basis to create trust in democracy.
      With the proportional representation system several members of parliament are to be elected per constituency. Basically every political party presents a list of candidates and voters can select a list, that is they vote for a political party. Parties are assigned parliamentary seats proportionally to the number of votes they get.

      Basic Idea

      Political parties play a key role in creating political solutions (even in a majority election system). A reasonable number of competing parties will create more and better ideas while just two big parties (resulting from the majority election system) tend to be at a deadlock with inflexible positions.

      Characteristics, Pros and Cons

      • With several parties there is more choice and voters are more likely to find a party that does represent their major political convictions than would be possible in a two-party system.
      • Supporters of a small party are likely to be represented by at least one member of parliament rooted in their region and sharing their political views and convictions.
      • The size of constituencies is bigger and there are less possibilities to manipulate their borders than with the majority election system. Usually the borders of the constituencies are fixed by historical considerations (provinces, federal states, counties etc.). As several seats are assigned to parties proportionally to votes even within a constituency, the borders of a constituency are not as relevant to the election result as in a majority election system.
      • With an increased number of represented parties a majority for a single party becomes less probable. If the government must be based on too many small parties they may disagree when new issues emerge. This may become a danger to political stability and cause anticipated elections absorbing the attention of politicians. If instability gets notorious in a country, the state as a whole will just not be able to perform the tasks it should.
      • Small parties may also abuse their position to get support for special interests (for examples subsidies for institutions related to the party) in exchange for support for the government policy. This is nothing less than a form of corruption.
      • In most countries with proportional elections the parties decide who will represent them in parliament. There may be a difference between the party hierarchy deciding on the top places on the party's list of candidates and the voters preferences.
        In some countries, there are additional rules to make sure that voters may have some influence which candidates will represent them.
        The most sophisticated system of this kind has been established in Switzerland: Voters may replace candidates on a party list by other candidates (even from a different party) and favorited candidates may appear twice on a list (while the total number of candidates on a list may not exceed the number of seats, of course). For those who think this is too complicated for them there is always the possibility to use an unchanged party list. This way, a major drawback of the proportional election system is eliminated while preserving the obvious advantages of proportional representation. (For details see:Switzerland's refined proportional election system)
      Related Links:

      Democracy: Voting Systems : Both systems do have advantages and shortcomings and there is no generally accepted preference. Two important points to be considered are equal and just influence of every vote on the electoral result and stability of ....
      http://www.democracy-building.info/voting-systems.html

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
      Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace


        Secularism for Religion- Compatible?

        WebpageTranslator

        The controversial reformist Abduhalli An-Naim has a penchant for writing contentious works on some of the most divisive issues facing the Islamic world. In the past he wrote Towards an Islamic Reformation, an ambitious book arguing for a radical reformulation of Islamic law and rethinking the field of Usul-al-fiqh and the method of interpreting religious texts. In a way his new book, Islam and the Secular State, is a logical extension of his vision for reform.

        The book is a blend of theory and practice which makes An-Naim such a convincing public intellectual — he not only has a grasp of the intricacies of legal philosophy but can also demonstrate their relevance to real life. In his case studies on Turkey, Indonesia and India, he illustrates the diversity of Muslim interactions and models of secularism.

        While before An-Naim worked within the Islamic tradition to reinterpret a more humane and liberal version of Islamic public law, this is a much more political work. Here, An-Naim combines his own unique theory of “Islamic Secularism’’, characterised by this now famous statement in the opening pages of the book, “In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state.”

        For An-Naim, without freedom there is no Islam, because freedom is what sustains and animates the whole ethical ideal and spiritual philosophy of Islam. To his credit An-Naim makes this statement with justification from familiar Quranic verses employed by Islamic liberals and reformists, which all emphasise personal responsibility. An-Naim’s ethical and religious arguments for secularism are hinged on the ideals of personal responsibility, individual conscience, the sanctity of the individual’s relationship to God and universal justice for all citizens. But that’s the end of An-Naim’s theological argument.

        Next he elaborates practical reasons for a secular state, to prevent discrimination, provide justice and to secure religious freedom. Although he does make references to Islamic sources, one can’t help but feel he has left himself exposed in this case.

        To make a truly Islamic case for secularism perhaps requires a more robust interaction with the religious texts and traditions. An-Naim could have followed Abdulaziz Sachedina’s works, (The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism and Islam and the Challenge of Human Rights) or Khaled Abou El Fadl’s (Islam and the Challenge of Democracy) as they ground democracy, human rights and secularism using a particular religious ethic.

        An-Naim, however, radically deconstructs the fiqh tradition arguing that all human beings are essentially fallible and what the Islamists present as “Sharia’’ is only ever an incomplete, imperfect and fallible interpretation, becuase Sharia is man-made and not handed down directly by the Quran. An-Naim’s assault on clerical authority is therefore connected to the philosophical attitude that no human being can determine the will of God with complete confidence.

        His argument arises from intellectual and spiritual humility. He sets out his vision early on in the book: “The purpose of the proposal presented here is to secure the political, social, and intellectual space for debate and reformation, not to prescribe a particular approach to that debate.’’

        But to be sure there are contentious statements, that some Islamic intellectuals and scholars will take issue with, for example that Sharia principles cannot be instituted by the state: “By its nature and purpose, Shari‘a can only be freely observed by believers; its principles lose their religious authority and value when enforced by the state.”

        The point he makes is that following the Sharia is a spiritual and religious obligation which requires individuals to make decisions and choices freely without the interference of the state. This is a classical argument for secularism put forward by liberal Christian philosophers like John Locke during the Enlightenment and in many ways echoes Locke’s sentiments of moral agency.

        Here again, An-Naim’s intellectual approach can be critiqued; what mechanism can allow the Sharia to function in total independence of the modern nation state? Furthermore, it would be easier to argue that Islamic law includes two elements, a divine, unchanging injunction and a human interpretation and application (fiqh). In his quest to humanise and deconstruct the articulation of religious knowledge An-Naim misses out on making this distinction between spirituality and worldy application — he tries to reimagine the entirety of the Sharia as a religious-moral concept.

        Again An-Naim’s reading of Islamic history to grant functional secularism some sort of legitimacy is eloquently argued but shaky. The question to ask is what if the authority of the Sharia contradicts the authority of the nation state with its human rights regime? Clearly, An-Naim has examined the conflicts between modern human rights and classical Islamic law with his solution of a framework of liberal ijtihad as a solution.

        An-Naim’s “Islamic arguments’’ are weak and could be entirely dismissed by a more unsympathetic reader, but his knowledge and comments on the experience of the post-colonial Muslim encounter with secularism in Turkey, India and Indonesia are superb.

        A thoroughly contextualised approach to each of these three scenarios leaves no doubt that

        An-Naim is all too aware of the multi-lateral challenges of modern politics. His commentary on political philosophy and critical analysis of the different models leaves little doubt in the reader’s mind about the diversity of challenges different Muslim societies face in their transition to successful democratic states.

        As a side point, An-Naim could have analysed Pakistan in addition to his existing three case studies. His comments on Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement could have been revealing and perhaps he would have found Jinnah’s vision of “Islamic democracy’’ similar to his moral arguments for a secular state.

        An-Naim, too, understands the dangers of authoritarian secularism and although recognises that there has to be a division between religion and the state, he strongly believes in an interconnectedness between politics and religion. Failure to recognise this link between religion and politics and to distinguish between the state and politics conceptually leads us to authoritarian models of secularism as seen in the policies of the Kemalist establishment in Turkey which An-Naim criticises in strong terms.

        But what about the Sharia? An-Naim throughout his work has always recognised that Sharia should have a public role but should not be exclusively defined by the state. Sharia values can influence legislation but only through the use of “civic reason’’ and via the democratic process. Only through robust debate and mutual consensus can Sharia influence legislation. In this sense, Sharia is imagined as a moral culture that acts as an ethical imperative for civil, legal and political participation.

        In other words, Sharia norms should be articulated rationally rather than be taken as eternal religious truth. The meaning of Sharia has to be democratically disputed in the public sphere rather than be defined by an exclusively clerical class.

        Finally, although An-Naim’s work has received a lot of critical attention in the West, it has not received the attention that it should do from the intelligentsia and activists from the Muslim world.

        An-Naim seeks a separation between religion and the state, but does not want to marginalise religion from civil society. He wants religion not to be granted exclusive institutional privileges but rather be involved and play a liberating role in the public conversation and public policy. This subtle vision of a “civic religion’’ An-Naim proposes is an attractive model and in the Pakistani context is perhaps the most apt description of Jinnah’s vision of a theocracy-free Muslim democracy. An-Naim’s work could solve the perceived paradoxes of Jinnah’s politics in the Pakistani context — and for this reason Pakistanis should seriously consider what An-Naim has to say.

        Book Review on 'Islam and the Secular State': Negotiating the Future of Shari’a. (RELIGION), By Abduhalli An-Naim, Harvard University Press, US , ISBN 674027760
        http://www.dawn.com/2011/06/19/non-fiction-secularism-for-religion.html
        Also>> Secularist Turkey & Islamic Freedom Lessons for Pakistan ...

        Secularism for Religion- Compatible? 
        Creeping Islam- Turkish Model 
        Here, An-Naim combines his own unique theory of “Islamic Secularism'', characterised by this now famous statement in the opening pages of the book, “In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, ...

        France's governing party plans to launch a national debate on the role of Islam and respect for French secularism among Muslims here, two issues emerging as major themes for the presidential election due next year. ...

        "Whereas secularism forthrightly calls for learning from the West, reformism selectively appropriates from it. The reformist says, 'Look, Islam is basically compatible with Western ways. It's just that we lost track of our own ...
        There has been a certain expectation of Muslim intellectuals to confront thorny and difficult issues such as secularism, gender equality and religious discrimination, but Ramadan will not have any of that. He says he has already tackled 
        Clearly the place of Christian faith [say Religion in general] within the 21st century is indeed under attack from those who demand that the values of secularism alone be used as the measure of what is permissible in public debates. ..
        On the other hand many Islamic activists, using extremely broad, simple and sometimes crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, reject democracy as rule of Man as opposed to Islam which is rule of God. Islamists who reject democracy...
        By Asghar Ali Engineer, The writer is an Islamic scholar, who also heads the Centre for Study of Society & Secularism, Mumbai.http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/01/a-progressive-muslim.html. Related Links: Moderate Muslims? مسلمين المعتدلين ...
        ... state courts from considering; Islamic law, and a federal judge's injunction against the referendum; Turkey, a strategic ally of the US and Israel, moving from 80 years of legally mandated secularism toward Islamic governance.....
        Muslims Today: Changes within, challenges ".......
        Clearly, the empty moral discourse of procedural secularism does not do enough to provide a source of ethical reflection, so instead Muzaffar looks back to the spiritual wellsprings of faith traditions. He articulates an alternative 

        Islam and Democracy

        In his book, A Theory of Universal Democracy, Khan provides a critique of liberal democracy and secularism. He presents the concept of "fusion state" in which religion and state are fused. There are no contradictions in...