is the traditional western meaning of the term "Democracy";
a definition is offered and its etymology expounded below:
so, westerners have purposely set the tone for the justifications that
will follow. They proceed in their methodology by buttressing their
arguments on "would-be" historical facts, and in doing so, to bestow
legitimacy on their arguments.
what if this foundation is not what it seems to be? Would this argument
then lose legitimacy and falter? Or would it remain valid?
we pass a sound judgment on a case based on a law that is misinterpreted
or perhaps even non-existent (not on the record) ?
is an important question I hope we can answer it in advance.
accounts, the term is referred to the Late Latin, which first appears in
A.D., and not before. The word allegedly came
from two combined Greek words Demos + kratia which are found
in Aristotle's writings.
is where the problem begins.
the thirteen years (335-322 B.C.) which Aristotle spent as
teacher at the Lyceum, he composed the greatest number of his writings.
Imitating the example of his master, he placed in the hands of his pupils
in which his doctrines were expounded in somewhat popular language.
the original copies of all of Aristotle's writings were destroyed
during the burning of the library at Alexandria, and the Church's suppression
of pagan philosophy, this meant that Aristotle's writings were not
available in Latin in the early Middle Ages.
writings were read throughout the Islamic world, and the Arab philosopher
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) commented extensively on them. The
original Greek copy has long been long lost (in the burning of the library
at Alexandria), fortunately the texts had been translated and were passed
through the Syriac (al-Suwriyaniah)
being re-translated into Arabic in the 8th c. A.D.
century there was a great revival of interest in Aristotle in
Christian Europe. The great translator William of Moerbeke
about 1215; died in 1286), who was an Orientalist, and a philosopher,
as well as one of the most distinguished men of letters of the thirteenth
century, undertook a complete translation of the works of Aristotle(c.
1260) at the request of Thomas Aquinas. This was translated
from the Arabic version of
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) in
order to produce the Late Latin translations. Aristotle's works were commented
on by Thomas Aquinas and became the standard philosophical approach
of the high and later middle ages.
The Greek word "Demos"
contrary to what it is advanced to be is defined as :
The Vocabulary of the Indo-European Institutions by the famous Indo-European
linguist Emile Beneviste.
cognates with the Classical Arabic term: Damm (see
below definition in Lane's Dictionary)
the suffix -cracy (kratia) is none other than the
literal translation of the Arabic word Kursiy in Ibn Rushud's,
version. The term refers to power and dominion, as
in Kursiy al-Hukum ,or even simply as in the name
of the Qur'anic verse 'Ayat al-Kursiy which by the way has
been wrongly translated by westerners as verse of The Throne! Actually
it has nothing to do with `arsh (the correct
Arabic word for throne) or even a regular kursiy in the sense of a chair.
Further kursiy (chair) is not an original Classical
Arabic word, rather a loan word from the sister Aramaic language),
In Classical Arabic language of the Qur'an, kursiy
is not a siriyr and/or kanabah as translated
by Westerners! Rather it refers to God's Dominion (see JPEG
understanding of the concept of democracy: A form of government in the
Greek city-state, which was known as polis (cf. Classical
Arabic: balad). This form of government was base
on a relatively small, self-sufficient, citizenry, with an elite class
at the top. While the rest (the majority) of the people were
the workforce consisting of slaves, manual laborers, and women. Aristotle's
world was made up of city-states, and his political theories worked from
the assumption that the polis was the most sensible form
the model of Democracy with which we are been bombarded today?
I reiterate the question which was advanced in the beginning of this post.
we pass a sound judgment on a case based on a law that is misinterpreted
or perhaps even non-existent (i.e.not on the records)?
yes, then why the historical dressing up and the hype by westerners
for a such an elusive term?
is then "Democracy"?
it is all about a certain "elite power" that takes over the government
and rules under fictitious slogans and pretenses. They might apply the
"equal sharing the power" concept exclusively among themselves, but
always flatly denied it to the rest of the population.
this definition on the following historical examples:
Revolution was heralded by holders of property owners (mostly in the
form of lucrative plantations thanks to black slaves who were shackled
and forced to toil without charge for their white masters).
In addition, destitute white people (qualified as non-holders of
property), native American Indians, Black slaves, as well as women were
disfranchised all of them deemed "the common mob". They could not
vote or rule (hold an office). Hence, when the framers of the American
constitution prefaced their text with "We the people", in
reality only just 8% of the U.S. population had the privilege
of ratifying the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights". Source:
Late Professor Feldman Constitutional law scholar, Harvard Law school (Langdell).
the French Revolution reflected the rule of the French Bourgeoisie epitomized
as (Le Tier d'Etat). The "so called" democratic "slogans"
of the French Revolution "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality," paved
the way to the reign of "Terror" by excellence A period
characterized by a wave of executions of presumed enemies of the state.
These executions were directed by the Committee of Public Safety.
The Revolutionary government’s Terror was essentially a war dictatorship,
instituted to rule the country in a national emergency. Responsibility
for the police measures taken during the terror lay also with the Committee
of General Security, which had control over the local committees formed
to ferret out treason. The Law of Suspects (Sept. 17, 1793) defined
those who could be arrested for “treasonable” activities; it was
enforced by the Revolutionary Tribunal. Estimates vary as to the number
of victims; 18 thousands were guillotined, and over 200,000
were arrested. Eventually this bloody situation led to the dictatorship
of Bonaparte. Moreover Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France
while enslaving the people of Europe through endless wars and destruction.
The version of French "bill of Rights" sounded great
on paper but it never stopped the French from robbing the freedom of the
people they subjugated in the French empire. All of this in the name
Soviets fared no better in their 1917 Revolution. They came to power
under the emblem of the workers' Revolution, while they literally
decimated the peasantry in the country side. Estimate of 20 millions
victims perished under Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin in
the late 1920's and 1930's, and further were enslaved, many
of them non-Russians multi nationals under the umbrella of the Soviet
Union. The Communist party eventually ended up as an elite made
up of 1/100 of the population and represented by a politburo,
whose membership was mainly drawn from a Slavic/Russian ethnic group ruling
over the deprived masses of several multi national groups overwhelmingly
from central Asia.
all of these examples and facts in mind, I can only come to the conclusion
that the only "true form of democracy" thus far can only apply to
To be continued