Yet another discussion of whether Democracy and Islam are compatible (these folks say yes). The discussion just won’t die. I’ll keep this brief.

The countries with the largest Muslim population (Indonesia) and the third largest Muslim population (India) are democracies. Close to one in four Muslims live in these two countries. If something is true nearly 25% of the time, I’d say it is far more than a theoretical possibility.

The rejoinder to this argument is typically “well, what I really meant was Arabs.” This is true: there are no Arab democracies. Yet since Arabs account for only 20% of all Muslims, using “Muslim” as a synonym for “Arab” doesn’t work very well. Moreover, Arab is an ethnic group, not a religion, so using Islam (i.e., a religion) as an argument for why Arabs (i.e., an ethnic group) can’t be democrats doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.

Paradoxically, regulation may be necessary to ensure individual rights. One can make a pretty convincing argument that the “Nanny State” isn’t the result of over-zealous regulation, but over-zealous litigation.

Sure, governments in the Middle East could tax their citizens more thereby catalyzing a more efficient bureaucracy, economic development, and political accountability. The first doesn’t sound so bad, the second sounds pretty good, but the third…well, lots of leaders would rather not be accountable, so they stick with inefficient bureaucracies and low levels of economic development. It’s a bad tradeoff for most people, but not those at the top. Bad governance is typically a choice, not an accident.

According to the Afghan Analysts Network, campaigning during a war is dangerous and hard.

MA program alum Deborah recommends this article from the Financial Times on Facebook.  Thanks Deborah!

Have something to share with the D&S community?  Post it to Facebook, or @ reply on Twitter.  The best will be featured here and articles will be added to our delicious feed.

South Africa is on the brink of a major step backward in press freedom.

The Economist’s analysis sounds right to me. Vote rigging is pretty common in African elections, but that is not surprising in nascent/quasi-democracies. What seems more important is that Africans, by and large, see democracy as the only legitimate form of government. Even though the practice of democracy often falls short on the continent, it is more common for people to criticise the leaders of their country than their form of government. This was pretty much what I heard at the local government conference I attended in Zambia this week as well in Chatsworth last week. At the end of the day, I agree with The Economist’s optimism.