Political Theory

Clarification of Terms
Let us first clarify our terms. Contrary to what my colleague Cassandra Lifesnadir writes below, Islamism is not a religion; Islam is the religion and Jihad is a religious concept within Islam. Islamism and Jihadism, however, are political ideologies whose goal is to bring the religious tenets of Islam into the daily functioning of a government and its laws. Jihadism is a form of Islamism that not only wishes a particularly repressive version of Islamic Law to be instituted, but believes that violence in defense of the faith is the preferred way to do this. Jihadism, like Islamism, is a political ideology rooted in Islamic religious concepts, but distorted. The distortion here is that there are many ways to advocate on behalf of Islam and the choice to exclusively use violence is a misinterpretation of the doctrine. While it is only a minority (between 10-20%) of Muslims who are Islamists and a far smaller number (<3%) who are Jihadists, almost all Islamists and Jihadists are Muslims.

Islamism and Jihadism are both modern political theories, barely more than 100 years old and while there may be some debate about whether all forms of Islamism should be opposed, there is no real disagreement outside of Islamist circles that Jihadism should be opposed. Islamism is in direct opposition to the concepts of secularism, equality before the law, and freedom of speech. Jihadism is in direct opposition of peaceful and mutual cooperation between nations.

Methods to Go About Fighting Islamism and Jihadism
Jihadist movements that actually control territory, like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), can only really be dealt with militarily and to liberate the people under their control. However, taking direct violent action against Jihadists in areas that they do not control, such using drone strikes in Pakistan, has been shown to not only be ineffective at curbing Islamism, but actually lends credence to arguments put forward by Islamists to Non-Islamist Muslims that the only way to preserve their way of life is to join the fight against the West and its values. As a result, taking direct violent action in areas not controlled by Jihadists should be avoided.

Non-Muslim Contributions
Unfortunately, the real opposition to Islamism needs to come from Non-Islamist Muslims, either those who believe in secularism and/or basic human rights and democracy. However, Non-Muslims can take some actions in this regard.

1) Awareness: Raise Awareness about Islamism and its distinct political and apartheid character. When people are informed, they can politically mobilize. Additionally, make it clear to government leaders that excising the word "Islam" and the relevant parts of Islamic theology that undergird Islamism from official counter-terrorism manuals and courses is to the detriment of the citizens.

2) Liberal Islam: Promote, within Islam, any reformers like Tawfik Hamid, Maajid Nawaz, Irshad Manji, Tarek Fatah, etc. who could create a viable non-politically oriented Islam so that there is another path for Muslims. Also support individuals like Mustafa Akyol who promote an Islamic defense of secularism. These voices need to be able to sway more people to the idea that true Islam does not promote Islamism. This also shows that only a small subset of Muslims are a problem, those who ascribe to the principles of Islamism.

3) Political Correctness: Help breach the requirements that speech be "tolerant" of different groups in society so that we can actually have discussions about the problematic entities (Islamism among others) in society, without worrying about offending people.

4) Human Rights Enforcement:Create nationwide and worldwide coalitions of people who defend the validity of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that can actively take a political and military stand to oppose the rising tide of jihads and jihadism.

5) Local Law Enforcement: In a number of Western countries there are already laws on the books that outlaw vile practices associated with Islam, such as female genital mutilation. The non-enforcement of these laws selectively on Muslims helps enforce the Islamist narrative that Muslims should have superior privileges over Non-Muslims. As a result, enforcement is key. Locations that the police choose not to enforce the law in for fear of being seen as racist must have the laws enforced there.

6) Hate Speech Laws: Enforce hate speech laws repeatedly on Imams who actually say vile and hateful statements (such as more radical Imams and Islamist political parties like Hizb at-Tahrir and al-Muhajirun) and not against those who simply point out that such things are being said by the former.

7) Cyberwarfare: As radicalization and the push for Islamist and Jihadist agendas grows on the Internet, it is critical for national governments to devote resources to surveilling or taking down these methods of communication and outreach. Police and law enforcement should know who is being brought over to the Islamist or Jihadist perspective and what are the likely targets of these new recruits. If necessary, a cyber-army should be created to monitor this open Internet expanse.

8) Ideological Profiling: In order to stop radicalization of domestic citizens and to more successfully prevent the influx of foreign agents of Islamic State, there need to be concrete forms of ideological profiling performed by police and border security. Ideological profiling means that the police and border agents do NOT look at race, religion, sex, or other immutable physical characteristics, but at things that a person has said, actions that they have performed, and ideologies that they adhere to when looking for likely suspects. Islamism and Jihadism are the most likely ideologies to lead a person to commit an act of terror and warning bells that a person that espouses clear support for these ideologies, regardless of race, religion, or sex, should be investigated, monitored, and prevented from having access to weapons.

Muslim Contributions
Within the Muslim Community, especially in the West, some really important concrete steps that they can take to help stem the tide of Islamism include:

1) Local Islamic Seminaries: One of the major problems for Western Muslims who are generally more liberal in their attitudes than their brothers and sisters in the Islamic World is that they end up going to mosques headed by Imams that went to Saudi Arabia for their education. This creates a mosque leadership that is more Islamist and radical relative to the Western Muslim population. Instead, develop a more liberal Western Islamic Seminary that can infuse the Islam of their students with more "liberal Western-ness" and more effectively protect the rights of all people. Tarek Fatah has discussed this problem as well, particularly in the Canadian context.

2) Protest Against Islamism: When protests arise concerning "Anti-Islamic" actions, Muslims should together for a counter-protest of "not-in-our-name" to the dominant pro-Islam protest group. While the Twitter campaigns are nice, actually marching in the street sends a more potent message. For example, somebody publishes an "Anti-Islamic" cartoon, advocate on behalf of the freedoms of the cartoonist regardless of the possible alienation of other Muslims. While doing so, the Muslims should hold signs saying "As Muslims we support the Freedom of Speech", etc. to clarify their stand. Maajid Nawaz has done similarly.

3) Debate with Other Muslims, Especially Islamists:Muslims should spend more time debating with other Muslims about how peaceful Islam should be and argue against wars and Islamism. Muslims should follow Mustafa Akyol's example and tell Muslims how Shari'a is worth more as a personal obligation than a national mandate. Muslims should discuss how they should fight for the civil rights of Non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. They should tell each other to stop blaming the "Imperialists", "Zionists", "Americans", etc. for their problems and actually examine the problems with their own societies.

4) Muslims should Demand Police Protection: Muslims should join individuals who wish to impose harsher criminalization of honor killings in order to safeguard women's rights. They should support allowing the police to learn about these particular customs that are particular to Islamic communities as opposed to its current taboo as "religious bias". Muslims should want the governments of the countries they live in to protect their families, not be concerned about how these horrible effects may "shame" the community.

because it is opposite of ancient Athens

what is that

Search for a copy of PAN Card at your place.

The enclosed letter that comes with the Card also serves as a proof for the same.

OR go and get a copy of FIR from nearest police station.

why should a political system be unitary federal or confederal, because a federal system would allow the state would not be a single fraction, state government would be smaller and more reposnive to local needs.

To make laws. Well really just like legastive

Fascism is a variant of extreme corporatist nationalism headed by an authoritarian leadership and is usually classified as a far-right political theory. It originated in Italy under Mussolini and Hitler's Nazism is a variant of Fascism. Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultra-nationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism positively and it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations since the national race was in perpetual conflict with other nations and races. It also argues that corporations should be able to maintain independence from direct government control (in contrast to communism), but that these privately-owned and run corporations should work in tandem with government interests.

A number of conservative ideologues will argue that all totalitarian ideologies are left-wing and, therefore, fascism is left-wing, but this ignores that the left/right distinction is a distinction of governmental values, not a distinction of the strength of government.

Some obvious positive aspects of Communism are that there are no rich people or poor people; wealth is divided evenly. Many more jobs are available, and there is no upper- or lower-class. Everyone makes the same amount of money. However, Communism can't really exist. People would take advantage of the fact that everyone gets money and not work as hard (or at all). Also, there is no clear theory as to how the government would function in a truly Communist society, as no country has successfully implemented Communism without having the government be a dictatorship or a totalitarian government.

Representation by population is the idea that the number of representatives your state has is dependent on the amount of people in the state.

The most basic concepts of democracy are as follows:

1. Necessity of compromise

2. Equality of all persons

3. Majority rule with minority rights

4. Individual Liberty

5. Worth of the individual

To be a good sport with otheres, following the pillars of charecter.

China began the transition to state capitalism in 1949. There cannot be a Communist country, as Communism (a classless stateless society based on production for use) can only be introduced at a global level.

A free and fair election basically means that the election is free from coercion. Voters must be free to choose their candidates without fear of persecution either from the state or other citizens. Parties must be able to nominate themselves for government without fear of persecution and violence from the current government, military or from opposition parties. The counting of the votes must also be transparent and independent to ensure that the election votes are not tampered with.

Basically, to ensure they are free and fair you need someone who will make them so, regardless of any bribes or threat attempts against their person. If you can't guarantee they are fair via a transparent process (keeping records of who did what, allowing impartial inspectors to oversee certain parts of the process, etc.) then nobody can trust the results; if you can't guarantee freedom of choice then there is no point in having an election and it is therefore not democratic.

The challenges, however, are revealed by differences in liberal democracies. The USA does not have a compulsory voting system, which means many American citizens do not register to vote. Some of the reasons given for this is that voting is difficult or inaccessible (difficult to access polling booths, voting times coincide with work times, etc.). So from this perspective it is not free and fair since the voting system itself must be easily accessible for the population.

In some nation-states, there is no cap on election campaign spending. In this sense, parties that can amass wealth are able to afford better and more pervasive election campaigns. Again, this questions whether elections are free and fair since political parties that are funded by the wealth of high-earning populations have an unfair advantage.

Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, it is thus definitely possible for democracies to possess strong authoritarian elements, for both feature a form of submission to authority.

I would say not really. But the bad democracy can progress where as the military rule will most likely become a terrible dictatorship and the democracy would (obviously) be better. This is my opinion.

It's tough to answer whether it's good or bad, as with all ideologies it has its bad sides and good sides (which is often neglected in this case due to it being associated with intolerance).

Fascism is supposed to be a movement that combines the best of the capitalist system and the socialist one. It is authoritarian and nationalistic in nature, however while nationalistic it isn't racist in most cases, nazism is a unique form of fascism that blends the fascist system with biological racism. This is where most people get it wrong, fascism is monocultural, not necessarily monoracial.

Fascism is good to get the economy running, much more efficient than democracies, however at the cost of personal freedom, since Fascism puts the state before the person, and only those who contribute to the state get the benefits. It recognizes the struggle between classes however unlike communism it does not try to destroy the classes, instead it seeks to find a common ground between the rich, middle and poor. It's run by a single party and it's leader who has almost absolute power, however he is limited due to the fact that he needs to rule in the interest of the entire party.

I hope this cleared it up

The main point of this statement is that the two-party system is based on tradition. A firmly established tradition tends to perpetuate itself. Thus the two-party system began in the earliest days of the republic when two factions differed on how to interpret the new Constitution. The Federalists favored a liberal interpretation which gave the Federal Government greater power, while the Anti-Federalists favored a stricter interpretation that would give more power to the States. While party labels have changed over the years, this division of opinion over the interpretation of the Constitution still exists.

Andorra, Australia, Austria

Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria

Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic

Denmark

El Salvador, Estonia

Finland, France

Germany, Greece

Hungary

Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy

Jamaica, Japan

Kiribati, South Korea

Lithuania

Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia

Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway

Palau, Peru, Poland, Portugal

Romania

San Marino, Sao Tome & Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Suriname, Sweden

Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu

United Kingdom, United States of America

I like turtles Because there cool!

There have been more than one version of fascism in the 20th Century. The most common elements of most fascist governments have been:

A. Lack of a free press;

B. One party rule;

C. An oligarchy of people associated with the normal fascist position of dictator;

D. Restrictions on industry and service;

E. A strong military; and

F. A "secret" police force to ensure that opposition to the fascist regime remains in power.

These are the common traits of a fascist regime. There are specific traits related to individual regimes. The above answer does not cover these as it's to versified.

There were a lot of differences (especially in the beginning before Italy became dependent upon their alliance with Germany and changed to be more Nazi-like). In fact, Nazism and fascism are quite different. Nazism is basicly Hitler's racist ideas draped in with some fascist polices and ideas to make them seem more like a philosophy. But three glaring differences were: 1) Fascism was not racist or anti-Semetic (e.g. the Italian Fascist party had a higher percentage of Jews in it than the general population of Italy; Fascism considered "race" to be a matter of culture, not biology. Looking at race this way, white, black, American Indian, Hispanic and Asian Americans are all of the same "race" because they share the same culture.) 2) Nazism developed and stressed the Fuehrerprinzip (Leader-Principle). This said, in essence, that the Leader was the country. Only he could interpret what the country wanted/needed. His words was in effect law; and his opinion was truth. Fascism, although it did stress a powerful Government, did not put that sort of emphasis on a single person. (But that was definitely changeing by the end of the war.) 3) As stated above, Nazism developed out of Hitler (and others of course) racist ideals and concept that race and race-competition drove history. Fascism, on the other hand, developed out of socialist-anarchism.

Athens was known for its system of direct democracy.

The Bharat Ratna is an esteemed civilian award in India. It was given to Nelson Mandela in recognition for his work for peace and against apartheid. He received many other awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize.