The Pros And Cons Of Western Modernized Governments

We must render extremist ideologies as unattractive as soviet communism and Stalinism are today. When the new ideology is unleashed, beliefs worldwide will be transformed forever, evidently, this transformation is necessary if there is to be peace.

Throughout history, the rise of cultures led to the rise of cultural difference, and those differences both separated people and brought people together. Every culture must choose whether they will allow their differences from other cultures to cause political unrest and war or collaboration and growth. While most people within almost every culture strives for peace, political and religious radicals cry out that deaths of infidels will lead to the greater good. But the sons and daughters of the mothers and fathers, and the brothers of the sisters and the husbands of the wives, taken from them fail to feel justified.

When was the last time you sat down, evaluated your life and previous experiences, and thought about how fortunate you are to be alive and have all these people and possessions by your side? After reading the story, “Left to Tell,” by Immaculée Ilibagiza and “Girls of Jihad: Western Women and the Lure of ISI,” by Erick Stakelbeck, I understood the tragedy of genocide, as well as how other humans have little to no value of life. In this paper, I will provide a comparison and contrast of the genocide in Rwanda of the Tutsi by the Hutus, as well as the ongoing current genocide of the Christians, Shites, and Yazidi minorities by the different factions of ISIS, which consisted of Al- Nusra, Al- Qaeda, and Al Shebab. Genocide is also always combined

Does Modernization lead to Democracy or does it not? My hypothesis for this research question is that modernization does not lead to democracy even as I explore the different kinds of literature written on this subject. As part of my research design I have decided to use a single case study as a comparative method. This is because case studies offer a detailed explanation of the topic of discussion transforming “journalism into political science” (Hague & Harrop, 2013: 361). I have decided to look at Singapore to provide a well-rounded description which will therefore show how it operates in the context of modernization and democracy. One of the primary authors who decided to study the relationship between economic development and democracy was Seymour Martin Lipset in both this books titled Political Man and The Social Requisites of Democracy. (Heo & Tan, 2001) Since his literature came out more and more social scientists began to expand or critique on the words of Lipset in carrying out their own research. It is clear to see that discourses around economic progress and democracy are still debated to this day. Arguments around whether or not democracy should come first then development follows are also being discussed in other areas. However there is a general consensus across the board of most authors that the two are closely related. Many argue that they go hand in hand; it is not wise to have one without the other. In helping to answer my research question the work of

Many politicians argue that foreign interventionism is a responsibility of the United States, as the “world’s policeman,” but perhaps the responsibility lies instead with the church. For example, protestant reformation started as a push for religious freedom and correct theology, yet it fundamentally altered political thought and the governments of many nations. The people of the Middle East suffer primarily from bad government. Therefore, it can be fixed by a turn to government based on a Biblical worldview. The proper entity to fix the Middle East are the Christians living there, who must apply their worldview across the board, and who should reform their society on the basis of reality. Islamic law, beliefs, and unfriendly foreign interference have to halt before the Middle East can be a less violent and dangerous area.

Iraq’s constitutional guarantee of religious freedom has done little to control sectarian violence, with the government and military lacking the capacity to hinder attacks by religious insurgents. In Iraq, Islam is the state-religion in which no legislation may contradict its tenets, however, the Iraqi Constitution grants religious tolerance and the right to freedom of belief to all citizens. Yet, while these freedoms exist in theory, they have been difficult to exercise in practise (Langely, 2013). It is obvious that the religion-state relationship in Iraq is inconsistent with Iraq’s declaration of religious freedom and democracy in its constitution.

In Raymond Helmick’s article, Does Religion Fuel or Heal in Conflicts, he wastes no time in admitting that many problems evolve when religious values are introduced into situations of conflict. However, he points out that the real “religious fuel” to conflict occurs not because of religion itself, but really a group’s perception and interpretation of the religion in question. He argues it is when religion is used for political purposes in conflicts, tracing it as far back as the Constantinian arrangement, describing both religion and the state as parallel institutions that reflect one another within a political and national entity. Helmick (2001) states, “All governments have caught on to the fact that churches are the custodians of the Just War theory. When war begins, every government appeals at once to the church to get up in the

Throughout history, there have been many wars started because of the need to help others from living under a supposed harsh regime and save them from being persecuted because of their race, religion or class. Many of these types of wars have been unsuccessful in achieving this goal and only one notable, historical crusade has done this and has succeeded, but at a price.

Contemporary Western populism stands in a bilateral relation to digital communication: as a necessary underside of democracy, it amplifies and, at the same time, is amplified by the imbalances between the micropolitical logic of presentation and the macropolitical logic of representation, which are being constantly produced and reproduced within the digital networks. Populism points to the inevitability of macropolitics, but the current modes of governance of the digital networks tend to reinforce the micropolitical forms of practice. As this project maintains, these imbalances belong to a specific affective regime on which populism can effectively feed and where, from a theoretical point of view, the political and technological paradigms collide.

As the world increasingly becomes more interconnected and globalization continues at an alarming rate, radical Islam is now at the forefront of the global agenda. While Islamic extremism is not a new concept, and has arguably been around since the dawn of Islam, it only now has become a truly global affair, engaging every nation in the world. With the rise of attention on radical Islam also comes another concept, the misunderstanding of Islam. Some choose to argue that Islam a religion of peace, while others, the greater majority, choose to argue it is a religion of violence, but frankly, neither are the case. The Quran, history, and modern politics all show that Islam is not a religion of peace or violence, but simply a religion of reaction;

It has even been argued by some that religious minorities have fared better under Muslim rule than Christian rule. Even as late as the 1950's Jews and Christians lived peacefully under Muslim rule (Zakaria 1). In deciding why these events have unfolded now, one must look at the history of the US and Western influences in the Middle East since 1948.

From the perspective of the West, the war on terror can seem to be as never-ending as battling Hydra. For every terrorist leader struck down, three more arise from the dust to take his place, and themselves take positions of power in numerous countries. It’s difficult for Western powers to understand that it is the cutting down of that one leader that gives rise to the others. In the wake of 9/11, the American approach to the war on Terror has poured oil on what was once a small fire of fundamentalist fervour. This is not to say that fundamentalism did not have a public and influential role in the politics of many Middle Eastern states, but instead that the spectacle of 9/11 and the reaction provoked served to give a platform to

In the Islamic world, the decisions of a select group of individuals are affecting the lives of thousands of innocent people, whether it’s on a political or social level. It is obvious that when conflict arises between two states or different groups within the same state¬¬¬, it is the lives of ordinary people whose lives are mainly affected. We can observe this from 9/11 attacks against the United States or the more recent attacks targeting Christians in Lahore, Pakistan. In John Gallagher and Eric Patterson’s book, Debating the War of Ideas, Eric Patterson writes concerning “Democracy, Religion, and the War of Ideas.” He explains that “it is a “war” because apostasy and blasphemy laws are on the books of many Muslim-majority countries and people of non-Muslim faith are routinely prosecuted by the state or persecuted (either officially or unofficially).” As a result, this is a war within the Islamic world itself the problems are social, legal and political. Furthermore, the people of Non-Muslims religions do not have a voice and their human rights rest with the powers that be. Patterson’s emphasizes how the “western circles find it

Throughout history, the rise of cultures caused the rise of cultural difference, and those differences separated and brought people together. Every person in every culture must choose to either allow their differences from people in other cultures to cause political unrest and war or collaboration and growth. While most people within almost every culture strives for peace, political and religious radicals cry out that the deaths of infidels will lead to the greater good. But the Sons and Daughters of the Mothers and Fathers and the brothers of the sisters and the husbands of the wives taken from them, fail to feel justified.

This new global order, Fareed is quick to remind, has in fact proven remarkably peaceful. While a conclusion that would perhaps be initially met with raised eyebrows, Fareed proceeds to explain this in a manner that makes eminent sense. For instance, he argues that Islamic threat is overrated and that the struggle between governments and terrorists will persist, but with the former holding the upper hand. For instance, he explains, Al Qaeda may have been a movement out to rally the entire Muslim world to jihad against the West, but the many variations within Islam undermine its ability to merge into a single monolithic force. He goes on to suggest that ideological watchdogs have focused so much on jihad rhetoric that they have ceased to take into account the actual Muslim societies - which are frustrated with the fundamentalists, wish for modernity (that allows for dignity and cultural pride), and pursue practical solutions not martyrdom. Equally telling is his explanation for this artificial and unnecessary state of paranoia we live in. The problem, to him, lies in the mismatch between people’s perception and fear of the danger (i.e. war, terrorism, organized violence) that allegedly surrounds them, and the actual reality. This, he argues, can be partly attributed to