Importing technology and foreign systems of Government not only encourages meaningful exchange of cultures, but also provides new ideas and solutions from a different perspective. Some might see that the core nations are extending its hegemony on peripheral nations by imposing its own version of development based on democracy and capitalism. Many are weary about foreign influence on native culture and see it as a new form of colonialism.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that democracy is product of diverse culture and civilizations from the ancient Greco-Roman tradition to the Islamic concept of shuraah and to the American declaration of independence and the British Magna Carta. Many diverse philosophers have contributed to democratic ideals like Aristotle, Ibn- Rushed and Mill. No one can deny the cumulative nature of science across time and culture and how the language of science and technology is universal. International commerce was an intricate part of human development, since the silk road and the Arabic caravans.
However, it is not appropriate to impose a system or copy and exact system from outside. A system might work great in a social, economic and culture environment, but may not work in a different one. A good example is the west failure to impose its version of democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan. One has also observe the stark difference in American, British, French and Israeli democracy, each was successful because they were products of their environment and years of their citizens struggle to gain freedom and build institutions.
This should not be convenient excuse for totalitarian rulers to delay reforms and use foreign pressures as a means to rally popular opinion around the flag and delay reforms. Many Arab regimes unleash the media to accuse their political rivals of treason; this unfair play will ultimately backfire. Political oppression creates wide discontent and makes citizens less likely to defend the regime; one has to look at how Saddam's regime crumbled in front of American invasion and how different opposition parties allied themselves with the invaders because they were not able to take part in the political process.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The quest for the right job
Many of my former students, younger relatives and friends have asked me to choose a career for them. Most of them got disappointed when I tell them I do not know and it is for them to find out. One has to find his or her call and each person is unique; there is no silver bullet or a one size fits all answer.
To know what one wants, one has to engage in deep soul searching; I mean here being honest with oneself and being able to differentiate between real ambitions and faulty desires. One has to know what really makes them happy and enjoy life. Some people are thrill seekers, others prefer a predictable life, some enjoy offering others help, some want to make money, some want fame and prestigious few want to extend human knowledge.
Generally knowing the source of one joy could be translated into an array of careers, for example enjoying helping others could be in careers extending from health care to teaching. It is important to narrow one's choices by comparing the skill and knowledge required and the skills and knowledge that one has. This will narrow the choices, but it is important to know that even if one does not have the necessary skills and knowledge, one can always acquire them by going to school or get the training necessary if one has the will.
To make sure that you are in the right direction, it will a good idea to interview someone who likes their job and successful in it to know what it takes. It is a great idea if you were allowed to shadow them , follow them closely, this will give you a more realistic feeling of a typical day on the job and if you enjoy what you see them it may be the job for you. To make sure that you want this career try getting an internship to get closer look IE if you want to become a lawyer get a job as a law clerk or volunteer in a hospital to learn more about the work enviroment.
Finally, be ready to follow on your plans by getting the necessary education and training and try to excel in acquiring it to be the best you can be .
To know what one wants, one has to engage in deep soul searching; I mean here being honest with oneself and being able to differentiate between real ambitions and faulty desires. One has to know what really makes them happy and enjoy life. Some people are thrill seekers, others prefer a predictable life, some enjoy offering others help, some want to make money, some want fame and prestigious few want to extend human knowledge.
Generally knowing the source of one joy could be translated into an array of careers, for example enjoying helping others could be in careers extending from health care to teaching. It is important to narrow one's choices by comparing the skill and knowledge required and the skills and knowledge that one has. This will narrow the choices, but it is important to know that even if one does not have the necessary skills and knowledge, one can always acquire them by going to school or get the training necessary if one has the will.
To make sure that you are in the right direction, it will a good idea to interview someone who likes their job and successful in it to know what it takes. It is a great idea if you were allowed to shadow them , follow them closely, this will give you a more realistic feeling of a typical day on the job and if you enjoy what you see them it may be the job for you. To make sure that you want this career try getting an internship to get closer look IE if you want to become a lawyer get a job as a law clerk or volunteer in a hospital to learn more about the work enviroment.
Finally, be ready to follow on your plans by getting the necessary education and training and try to excel in acquiring it to be the best you can be .
Friday, August 28, 2009
Secularism and the popular misconception
Contrary to what many believe, secularism is not the denial of religion and it role in human life, it is just a separation between religion role in one's personal life and politics. A healthy society cannot function without ethical members observing morals and social rules. Religion provides a rich source of guidelines helping ethical behavior. Many studies have shown that religious people live a happier, healthier and more fulfilling life.
Nevertheless, religion should not be part of politics in a democratic society. Good political dialogue is based on free exchange of idea and free debate, thus any ideas are fallible and nothing in politics is scared. The use of religion will either lead to questioning religious symbols and dogmas, thus debasing and humiliating them, or will limit political debate for respect of religion. Putting people faith to questions at least anger people that may evolve in to sectarian conflicts and civil wars. Limiting political debate weakens democracy and the free exchange of ideas.
Applying religion as a source of legislation puts a group of small elites like Sheiks, Priests or Rabbis in charge and gives them absolute power. One can freely question ideas and laws proposed by politicians, but, it would be impossible to question someone claiming to represent God. One can hold humans accountable for their actions, but it is more difficult to question representatives of the Lord. This leads to oppression in his Almighty's name, since people with absolute power tend to abuse it. On the long run, society not only revolts against abusers of religion, but also against religion itself. Many Europeans countries that had Christianity imposed on them, have very militant anti-faith laws; for example France banning religious symbols in schools.
In addition, a good society should tolerate religious diversity and respects the freedom of faith for all its citizens. Hence, one faith could not be a source of legislation for a whole nation, because, it imposes religion of the majority on the minority. Some try to solve this problem by having multiple faiths as source of law, for example having Christian law apply on Christians, Jewish canon on Jews and Islamic Shariah on Muslims. Sudan is experimenting with this idea by applying Shariah on Muslims only and it is causing lots of problems. This is not only impractical, but also against the legal principle of uniformity within the law. It goes against fairness to cut someone's hand for stealing and put another in prison for the same crime.
Finally, religion is an individual choice and should be left to the individual. Democracy is rule of the majority by consensus, thus it is wise to separate between God's domain in the individual conscious and Cesar's domain of politics.
Nevertheless, religion should not be part of politics in a democratic society. Good political dialogue is based on free exchange of idea and free debate, thus any ideas are fallible and nothing in politics is scared. The use of religion will either lead to questioning religious symbols and dogmas, thus debasing and humiliating them, or will limit political debate for respect of religion. Putting people faith to questions at least anger people that may evolve in to sectarian conflicts and civil wars. Limiting political debate weakens democracy and the free exchange of ideas.
Applying religion as a source of legislation puts a group of small elites like Sheiks, Priests or Rabbis in charge and gives them absolute power. One can freely question ideas and laws proposed by politicians, but, it would be impossible to question someone claiming to represent God. One can hold humans accountable for their actions, but it is more difficult to question representatives of the Lord. This leads to oppression in his Almighty's name, since people with absolute power tend to abuse it. On the long run, society not only revolts against abusers of religion, but also against religion itself. Many Europeans countries that had Christianity imposed on them, have very militant anti-faith laws; for example France banning religious symbols in schools.
In addition, a good society should tolerate religious diversity and respects the freedom of faith for all its citizens. Hence, one faith could not be a source of legislation for a whole nation, because, it imposes religion of the majority on the minority. Some try to solve this problem by having multiple faiths as source of law, for example having Christian law apply on Christians, Jewish canon on Jews and Islamic Shariah on Muslims. Sudan is experimenting with this idea by applying Shariah on Muslims only and it is causing lots of problems. This is not only impractical, but also against the legal principle of uniformity within the law. It goes against fairness to cut someone's hand for stealing and put another in prison for the same crime.
Finally, religion is an individual choice and should be left to the individual. Democracy is rule of the majority by consensus, thus it is wise to separate between God's domain in the individual conscious and Cesar's domain of politics.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Nukes Bad idea for the Middle East
Nuclear technology is a double edged Word, one edge is the peaceful application that can benefit humanity and the other edge is nuclear weapons that may lead to the demise of humanity. Alhtought death and destruction is always pointless, neuclear arms will have little to contribute to the regsion's security. Middle Eastern countries are located within close geopraphical promimity, thus use of such arms will lead to radioactive pollution in the whole regsion.
Remmber, the Charnobeyl nuclear fallout that reaked havoc not only in the former USSR but also across Europe.It would be very wise of Iran and Israel to remmber that Samson died along with his enemies, when he took down the temple.
Some Israeli leaders point to the deterrent value of Nuclear arms, but how would using a weapons that will lead partial destruction of the enemy and total annihilation Israel is a deterrent. Israel use of nuclear arms will lead to the unification of the whole Muslim world against her ie. gaining the enmity of 1.2 billion people across the world. Conventional weapons and Superior technology will have a more profound impact and will affect the power balance more.
Iranians should know that possessing nuclear arms will not solve its economic and social problems. This will also unite its enemies like the neighbouring Gulf countries, Israel, USA and Europe against their country. Iran should learn from the fate of its neighbour Iraq and how its regime cracked due to sanctions.
Arms race is a waste of resources that could have been spent on much needed development and poverty alleviation programs. Security could be better guaranteed by economic dependency of all countries in the region. When neighbouring countries trade with each other their economies become intertwined, relationships between people improve and stereotypes dissipate, due to movement of capital and people across borders.
Remmber, the Charnobeyl nuclear fallout that reaked havoc not only in the former USSR but also across Europe.It would be very wise of Iran and Israel to remmber that Samson died along with his enemies, when he took down the temple.
Some Israeli leaders point to the deterrent value of Nuclear arms, but how would using a weapons that will lead partial destruction of the enemy and total annihilation Israel is a deterrent. Israel use of nuclear arms will lead to the unification of the whole Muslim world against her ie. gaining the enmity of 1.2 billion people across the world. Conventional weapons and Superior technology will have a more profound impact and will affect the power balance more.
Iranians should know that possessing nuclear arms will not solve its economic and social problems. This will also unite its enemies like the neighbouring Gulf countries, Israel, USA and Europe against their country. Iran should learn from the fate of its neighbour Iraq and how its regime cracked due to sanctions.
Arms race is a waste of resources that could have been spent on much needed development and poverty alleviation programs. Security could be better guaranteed by economic dependency of all countries in the region. When neighbouring countries trade with each other their economies become intertwined, relationships between people improve and stereotypes dissipate, due to movement of capital and people across borders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)