They both want to be obeyed without any question. If they both supress their opponents.
You need to be a member of MyEnglishClub to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
They both want to be obeyed without any question. If they both supress their opponents.
You need to be a member of MyEnglishClub to add comments!
Replies
They is a big difference between the two. We have so many kings but we have no a single leader, don't we?
If we have leaders, then why do we have such terrible events, palestine , syria ,and all the world.
Most of the victories and acheivements done by leaders, not kings.
Nowadays, unfortunetly kings are weak ,selfless ,and cowards.
So that I wish I am a leader , not a king.
Dear Sophia, Thanks for your compliment, apart from our discussion, I always learn some new words from your written texts, thanks for that as well.
But let's return to our discussion, I didn't exactly get that which election and which majority you meant. 1- The election of selecting the governing regime after revolution or 2- The election of selecting the president (government), also the majority associated to the first or second one ?. but I will reply in both cases.
1- How are you sure people weren't forced to take part in the election with different strategies?
In fact in both cases, how the people can be forced ? by keeping sword over their head (millions people) in our modern world !? ,,, Can anyone force you to vote in favor of any candidates in your country !?
Maybe it was better that you would say "by instigating the people which means demagogism or populism. Unfortunately this method is so effective in case of selecting a president. The candidates do some unfair works as advertisements which might deceive the populaces of a society. That's why we must increase our political information and then inform others. The insight (vision) of people must be increased to prevent that. I remember several years ago (about 6 years ago), a candidate said in his advertisements that he will give each Iranian 200 thousand Tomans once a month, if he is selected as president :) see, this speech is so sweet for populaces, but really it was not possible.
2- Isn't it insane to give total liberty to a person or group without monitoring their actions?
No, it is not insane under some conditions, how many leaders, a typical group can have ? ,,, there are not two leaders with same ideas, opinions, ... As you know in leadership of a society the leader says the final say, otherwise the helter-skelter will be occurred. But people must be awake, must be smart, must be insight and each person must be an observer (controller) of his/her government, and at least they shouldn't be just viewer. But I won't deny to reach to ideal case, we have so much distance (we, means the world). In our country Iran, Assembly of Experts has the duty of controlling (monitoring) the leader actions and the Islamic parliament has mentioned duty against president and his government. The agents of these two parliaments were chosen by our people in different elections.
Thanks
Dear Sophia, to answer your question, firstly as an introduction I should say that, in each country as you know the people must respect and obey the rules (constitution), In all countries, people can do, say, write, publish anything, as far as it wouldn't be against the country rules. As an example, our site, as a small virtual society also has its own rules which determined by the founder. All speech, news, literature, ... are not valuable or reasonable to be listened. Such as many untruth news, rumors, books (e.g. Satanic Verses written by Salman Rushdie). I do agree with these kinds of restrictions.
I don't know exactly what you mean by saying "freedom of speech". But I suppose you have meant freedom of expression and thought in political field. I don't know what your nationality or country is :) and I don't want to say about other countries around the world. But in our country Iran, the main political sects and groups are able to say, and say everything they want in their weblogs, newspapers, meetings, interviews and so on, but not against rules.
Perhaps someone says: "OK, why the rules in Iran are too restricted and limited ??"
I will answer that, it is not restricted and my reason: In general, rules of a typical country or a society play the essential and vital role in establishing disciplines and security of the country. Hence all people, MUST respect the rules even in other countries. As all know, Iran is an Islamic republic country which has been voted by 98.2 percent of the Iran people, in 1358. Its rules are assigned, based on Islamic principles and cultures. In our Islamic cultures, the term of freedom means "free of satan" not else. So see, the definitions are BASICALLY different. In democratic government as you know, the country government is determined by majority of the country people (by election). So the majority assigns the rules.
But about freedom of expression in Iran, I surely have the liberty to talk against my government, why not?. You must know that I am a serious criticizer of president Rohaani and its government and I was a serious critisizer of Ahmadnejaad as well, at least in my family or university. Someone must go and read the newspapers, weblogs or news of Eslaahaat group (i.e. one of the main sects of Iran) and see what they write and say. Also s/he must go and see the short films of "Doctor salaam" (http://snn.ir/KeywordNews/86797). Then s/he will know and see what expression freedom is. Sophia ,,, What does fear mean? ,,, ha? ,,, is it eatable? :D ,,, I don't know about you, but I never feel that I'm a puppet :D ,,, I'm awake and ready ,,, we must be an observer not a puppet.
Perhaps someone says: "No, I didn't mean like this, I meant the worse case, meaning against the existence of the whole regime " ,,, that's OK. We shouldn't expect that all people of a country are agreed with the regime. But the point is here that the majority say what to do not minority. It is inevitable nature of the democracy. So as you see in news, in all countries there are some people against the existence of those countries government.
Thanks for your participating in the discussion and reading my sentences.
That's right Sophia, expression freedom is one of the characteristics of a democratic society.
No, If I was Aristotle then you could :) , my logic is too lame to be able to answer your all questions, but your questions are always welcome. I will try to answer, if I couldn't because of my less information or time, there are other dear active members who will be able to answer your questions.
Dear Julionus, thanks for your comment. What a nice difference between a king and leader that king does not do what his people want but a leader does according to his people's expectations.
Dear Mohammad, thanks for your thorough explanation. Be patient please.:D I accept all of your rational explanation. Maybe I am so idealist and what I have in my mind just happens in utopia. If you read my message to dear Arif you would see that i accept his nice description of leadership. Anyway thanks for your participation in this discussion. It seems that whenever i have a question in my mind i can rely on your logic right?
Dear Mishaikh, humans are so weak when it comes to money and power. Unfortunately sometimes leaders are influenced by their position and power so they turn into tyrants. Thanks for your comment.
Setareh,
It seems no one can satisfy you :D , Did you study my replies ?? if so, where is their problem ?
I think it is better to be a bit logical, by sentimental facing to the problems like this, it is hard to understand.
As Mishaikh said and you meant, if even a leader (who has been chosen by people) doesn't want to hear the voice of his protesters (in the way which I mentioned before), and even he suppresses all of his protesters, what we must call him ? he is exactly a DICTATOR not else.
But the point is here that, how the leader can listen to the voice of all protests in a society with a 75-million population?? ,,,, face to face !?
Sometimes, a society is small and it is possible that protesters do face to face and mutual debating with the leader, then if he abstains to do that, he is a dictator and doomed to be dethroned.
Perhaps you say: "No, I mean a group of people who have the same opinion which is disagreed with the leader's decisions, here the leader must listen to them and must not suppress them".
Exactly it is right, but again how he could listen to all groups ?? ,,,, the country contains many groups with different ideas, you should give all groups the same right, right ?? suppose he is able and he wants to listen to all, and apply their ideas in his decisions (wants to satisfies all). ,,,, OK? ,,,, Now as a leader of this country, how could you manage your country with many different opinions !? ,,,, it is not kidding, it is the leading of a 75-million-population country.,,,, See, again it is IMPOSSIBLE :)
Therefore we may conclude that we should find another way, the way that the maximum people satisfaction could be gained, I have mentioned the answer of this question in my previous replies to this discussion and I don't want to repeat them, hope you study them CAREFULLY again ;-)
I think it is better to see this problem from MACRO VIEW.
At the end, I would like to thank you for submitting this nice topic and other for their participating.
A King has a territory and people to rule while a leader is good character of a person that effects other people .
So a good King doesn't rule his people to do what he wants,
but becomes a leader to his people to do what he wants
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next