Variation in forms of democracy

Although it is common to discuss democracy as if it is problematic only in the Muslim world, in reality democracies all over the world have to deal with a number of controversial issues about the diverse forms of government, varieties of representation, the types of freedom citizens require or demand, the unlegislated distribution of political power, uneven separation of powers, and the breach of the system of rule by the accumulated powers. (Diamond, 2008: 17-24, 30-33)

Gulen’s intellectual contribution to the global discussion of democracy, which is determined by his adherence to Islamic values, is not limited to an analysis of democracy’s value and meaning for individuals and societies. In addition, he examines how democracy is affected by the crises which people and systems undergo, as well as the complexities of life in modern industrialized societies, and the contraction in the space available for individual and collective expression of cultural, moral and spiritual values. (Cetin, 2008: 226-30)

According to Gulen the understanding of democracy and human rights within the theoretical heritage of Islam is not dogmatic but it centers around values such as compromise, stability, the protection of the life, honor and dignity of the human being, justice, equity, dialogue, and consultation. Islamic political theory is flexible and does not bind Muslims by any rigid limits in the choice of concrete forms of government and political system. The main principle in Islamic political theory is the implementation of three fundamental values: equality, justice and consultation. The forms and means of enactment of these are vested in the hands of the community. Thus, the actual realization of the three pillars can and must take into account the conditions of Muslims’ lives, their traditions, cultural preferences, and other factors. Gulen argues that the social, cultural, political and historical aspects of societies, should be taken into account in the development of democracy in the entire world.

Observers discussing the compatibility between Western and Muslim perspectives on democracy and human rights sometimes make the error of attacking “Islam” and demanding its reform, instead of commenting on the approaches or methods of particular activists, regimes or countries and reforming those. Some observers even claim Islamic principles and institutions directly contradict democratic values in their modern meaning, and so any step by Muslim societies towards the establishment of democracy must be accompanied by rejecting Islamic political and legal traditions. At the other extreme, ideologically motivated Muslims claim to have the only correct understanding of Islam, and that Islamic fundamentals of power, politics and believers’ rights have nothing in common with Western democratic institutions. These extremists often argue that “the power of the people” is alien to Islam, which puts forward the principle of the supremacy of Islamic law instead. (Sykiainen, 2007: 122-3)

In fact, the concepts advanced in this type of argumentation are taken out of the whole context of Islamic thought and its socio-political heritage and are addressed to less well-educated Muslims (and others) in order to justify political extremism. Nevertheless, within both traditional and modern Islamic political and legal thought, there are several different perspectives on government which are more genuinely representative of the Islamic legal tradition and which do not justify extremism. (Gulen, 2004:220; also <http://en.fgulen.com/a.page/press/interview/ a1203.html>).

Islamic jurisprudence embodies the divine revelation, the art of lawyers, local and global cultures, and global relationships. Islamic law and the legal system, its common principles and the majority of its concrete norms are similar to the fundamental ideas and particular provisions of other legal systems. Islamic legal culture has always cooperated closely with and been receptive to other legal cultures. In this sense, Islamic law is of benefit not only to Muslims but to the whole of humanity. Over many centuries a great variety of views on the fundamentals of the executive and the legislature have developed within Islamic culture, and diverse notions of the relations between the state and the individual have been elaborated. (Sykiainen, 2007: 119-132)

One of the key features of the Islamic understanding of democracy is the concept of shura (collective and community consultation). Without any qualification or limitation, all members of a community are eligible to give or request consultation on any matter, except one covered by a clear-cut revelation from God. Consequently, all political matters concerning the selection of the ruler, the structure and shape of the government, the form of political system, the running of the government and of the various affairs of the state, and all other related matters are to be decided by consultation through the participation of all the members of the community. (Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

In public and government affairs collective consultation is concerned with two main issues: the selection of the head of state and running of the government together with reviewing the legality and propriety of governmental and presidential actions. On the selection of the head of state, collective consultation is flexible and adopts various forms. Elections, whether direct or indirect, are considered to be an Islamic method of selecting the head of state or members of the legislative body which satisfies the consultation process. With regard to the running of the government and control over the legality and propriety of the executive’s actions, Islamic law is also very flexible. The establishment of a representative body through direct or indirect elections is compatible with Islam and is a good application of community and collective consultation. In addition to their reviewing authorities, representative bodies may be empowered to legislate on different matters provided that such regulations do not violate any unambiguous and clear-cut principle or rule of Islamic injunctions. If democracy is the government of the people by the people for the people, shura is a process which guarantees that all affairs of the people are decided by the people and for their interests. So, the basics of democracy and the fundamentals of shura in the political field are not opposed. (Gulen, 2004:223; Sykiainen, 2007:110, Cetin 2008: 218; Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

This genuine Islamic idea is one of the most basic human rights and a means of protecting and preserving all other human rights under Islamic law, especially the right to equality, the freedom of thought, and the right to express oneself freely in order to correct or demand the correction of what is not right, even if it is something committed by the highest officials, including the head of state. State officials and authorities do not have political immunity while in office in Islam. (Gulen, 2006)

Law, order and, human rights

Gulen analyzes the different rights recognized in Islam, including freedom of religion and belief, thought and expression, to own property and the sanctity of one’s home, to marry and have children, to communicate and to travel, and the right to an unimpeded education. He underlines that the principles of Islamic jurisprudence are based on these and other rights, all of which have now been accepted by modern legal systems, such as the protection of life, religion, property, family life, and intellect, as well as the basic understanding of the equality of people, which is based on the fact that all people are human beings, and subsequently, the rejection of all racial, color, and linguistic discrimination. (Ünal and Williams, 2000:135-8)

Every single right must be respected in Islam. In particular, the right of an individual cannot be violated for the interest of the community. This idea is central to the concept of human rights in Islam and the interpretation of Islamic tradition with regard to this issue. Gulen recalls that if there are nine criminals and only one innocent person on a ship, in order to punish the criminals, Islam does not permit the sinking of that ship because of the innocent person. Though this may sound utopian today considering the mass and “collateral” damage caused by modern nations at war, Gulen argues that the bar should be set at the highest possible level for democracy and every effort to reach that level should be attempted. (Gulen, 2006; also personal correspondence, 08.11.2008).

Gulen underlines that people everywhere always demand freedom of choice within their beliefs, that is, in the way they run their affairs and in their expression of spiritual and religious values. He stresses the separation of the eternal and the evolving judgments (ijtihad) of Islamic jurisprudence. Specifically, political affairs in general and democratic institutions and human rights in particular are covered by Islamic legislative provisions which can relate and respond to the needs of changing circumstances and times. Gulen points out that democracy will continue to evolve and refine itself in the future. Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, and justice can help in this regard, provided that the injunctions of the Qur’an and the Sunna as well as any definite judgments of Islamic law are re-examined and restored in the light of advancing knowledge and changes in societies. (Sykiainen, 2007: 129-30)

It is possible to envisage a kind of democracy with a spiritual dimension. It is a democracy which contains respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, expression and religion, a democracy which prepares the necessary conditions for people to live and practice as they believe, which renders people able to fulfill their wish and need for eternity, and which takes or deals with human beings as a whole with regard to their all material and immaterial needs. For, human life does not start and end with life in this world; the world is only a temporal, transit station, and people are ceaselessly moving toward their eternal abode. The system that governs them must not ignore or neglect this crucial matter. We therefore have to seek ways to sophisticate and humanize democracy. No such stage or democracy has been attained yet, in east or west, north or south, but we can aspire to and work for such an aim. (Gulen, 2006; Gulen in Saritoprak and Ünal, 2005: 452)

Democratic culture

In Gulen’s view, therefore it is vital to encourage the building of a strong civil society in order to have and retain a ‘culture’ of democracy, and this can only be done through sound education. In a democracy, where people are entitled to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and the right to sell their labor, and other such rights, every individual should know what kinds of rights they have and what authority, weight and say they have in state and government affairs. (Gulen, 2006; Cetin, 2008: 216-20)

In all societies on some occasions, or even for extended periods, some interests will not be happy about all individuals being aware of their rights; they may see such education as an obstacle to their gaining political or economic power or even arbitrary rule. Consequently, they may attempt to limit citizens’ access to information and institutions and try to guide them in directions which do not serve citizens’ own true interests. (Gulen, 2006)

However, it is impossible to enjoy and practice democracy in a society where people are unaware of their rights and freedom, where people do not know how to seek and pursue their rights, where, in short, they do not have a developed democratic culture. In such societies occasional openings or temporary freedoms might be enjoyed, but it is always possible for special interests to come up with further impositions and undemocratic interventions. In many parts of the world we see tyrannical, authoritarian and dictatorial leaders who exploit or manipulate, for example, the electoral process, the legal system or the constitution not in the name of the progress or development of the country but for the continuance of their own power or in pursuit of self-interest or the interest of a select group around them. (Gulen, 2006)

To counteract the activities of vested interests, while individuals are being asked to fulfill their rights and duties in democratic system, in addition to knowledge they also need to have the self-confidence and the civic courage to own and defend their rights (Gulen, 2006). Here Gulen’s contribution to the development of democracy around the globe lies not only in his intellectual contribution to debate, but also in his ability to inspire action; this practical ability has led to the development of schools, universities, intercultural and interfaith dialogue groups and other institutions throughout the world.

Conclusions

Gulen’s approach is powerful proof of the democratic ideas propagated by Islam, as he is convinced that Islamic democracy and secular political liberalization are not two separate phenomena. He points out that the dominant Islamic culture in the Muslim world co-exists with democratic arrangements on the global level. So, the concept of modernization and democratization does not inevitably mean Westernization but can involve the possibility of adoption of many Western democratic achievements within the Islamic framework. Thus, political culture and democracy practiced among Muslims develop not by their isolation from or opposition to others but by giving of their own achievements and taking the best from others. Gulen proves that Islamic intellectual heritage and political culture must be revisited and respected and that Muslims’ progress depends on the development of knowledge in Islamic sciences (‘ilm) and contemporary technical education (fen). Finally, Gulen life’s work has shown that there is no inherent conflict between Islamic thought and tradition and modern democracy. He has contributed positively to the understanding of democracy, civil society and human rights. (Cetin 2008: 219; Hunt, 2007:8-9; Barton, 2005: 43; Eickelman, 2002:4.)

Muhammed Cetin is the Publications Co-ordinator of the Institute of Interfaith Dialog (IID) and also writes weekly as a columnist in the international daily Today’s Zaman. He has a PhD in sociology.

References

• Barton, G. (2005) “Progressive Islamic thought, civil society and the Gulen movement in the national context: parallels with Indonesia.” Presented at the conference “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice,” Rice University Conference, Houston, Texas, November 12-13, 2005, pp.51.
• Çetin, M. (2008) “Reductionist Approaches to the Rise and Aims of the Gulen Movement,” at the conference “Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gulen Movement,” November 14-15, 2008, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., pp. 204-40.
• Diamond, L. (2008) The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Times Books.
• Eickelman, D. F. (2002) “The Arab “Street” and the Middle East’s Democracy deficit.” Naval War College Review, LV(4), p.10. Available from: <http:// nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2002/autumn/pdfs/art3-a02.pdf> [October 9, 2006].
• Gulen, M. F. (2004) Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2005) The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic Thought and Activism. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2006) “Demokrasi Yokusu”, 02.01.2006 [Herkül online] http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/index.php?view=article&article_id=2846
• Hunt, R. (2007) “Challenges in Understanding the Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 1-10.
• Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007) Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Somerset, New Jersey, IID Press & The Light Inc.
• Saritoprak, Z. & Ünal, A. (2005) An interview with Fethullah Gulen. The Muslim World Special Issue, Islam in Contemporary Turkey: the Contributions of Gulen 95(3), 447-67.
• Sykiainen, L. (2007) “Democracy and the Dialogue between Western and Islamic Legal Cultures: The Gulen Case.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 121-32.
• Ünal, A. & Williams, A. (2000) Fethullah Gulen: Advocate of Dialogue. Fairfax, VA, The Fountain.

What is multicultural education?

A good place to start is with a workable definition of what is meant by the terms “multiculturalism” and “multicultural education.” Multicultural education is a progressive approach for transforming education which holistically critiques and addresses current shortcomings, failings, and discriminatory practices in education² It is based on social justice, educational equity, and respect for thought. More specifically, the components required in ensuring a multicultural education are: content integration, the knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and an empowering school culture and social culture³ It seems apparent that each element, somehow, is related to the others, and each requires considerable attention, particularly when thinking about the efforts of conflict resolution in the world. In this paradigm, to be tolerant in social interactions, to give value to every opinion, and to not criticize and object to others seems to be the distinguishing features of a multicultural society. When people are overly harsh the result is destruction, while people who are trying to be constructive bring richness and reflection⁴ The idea of “if you do not like something, make a better one” fits very well with the idea of multicultural education, in which the main task is to reduce the form, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination between in-groups and out-groups.

Why do we need multicultural education?

We live in a world in which interracial conflicts and tensions seem to have become an inevitable phenomenon of daily life. On the positive side however, the last millennium has made us more knowledgeable about the nature of global acceptance, the equal-status situation, and mutual expectations. In today’s society, as we enter the 21st century, the deepening ethnic background of nations, diversity within societies, and an increasing percentage of people who speak a second language have made multicultural education crucial. Multicultural education is seen as an opportunity to improve race relations and to help all students gain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to take part in cross-cultural interactions. Children learn the difference when playing with one another⁵ The same is true in education, as teaching has become a multicultural experience. Instead of fearing or ignoring the diversity in the classroom (and society), teachers can use diversity to enrich instruction. Multicultural education helps teachers to use diversity as a resource that can bring more meaning, tolerance, and opportunity to multicultural classroom. Both teachers and students belong to diverse groups distinguished by variables such as age, social class, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Multicultural education for a changing world

In American public schools and colleges, about 46% of the student population comes from students from different ethnicity with 14 % of school age youth living in homes in which English is not the native language⁶ Today, most classroom teachers are likely to have students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This brings its own problem in that many students are assimilated in social interaction, and are faced with cultural assimilation. To overcome these difficulties, educators keep looking for more creative, thoughtful, and meaningful educational reform movements. In this sense, multicultural education is able to help students develop a sympathy and understanding towards each group’s perception and point of view. Dewey repeatedly stresses the importance of interaction in education. This interaction is an ongoing process between the individual and the subjects and other people. Dewey talks about a person who tries to build a castle in the air; even when he tries to do that, he interacts with the objects which he constructs in his imagination. As a human being, however, we are more complex creatures than animals. Each human being is a special creature, composed of different feelings and characteristics. Dewey’s ongoing interaction between the individual and other persons becomes essentially important when thinking about the existence of cultures with their uniqueness and distinctiveness. In this sense, school is a place of social interaction between teachers and students. Teaching and learning in a school environment mostly occurs through social interactions in groups. Helping students to develop a sense of reflective and positive identification with their cultural groups does not mean that it is not possible to establish an intercultural exchange between different groups. It means that through developing and clarifying the boundaries of cultural identifications, optimistically students will acquire more positive attitudes towards their neighborhoods and communities.

The rise of multicultural education

Democratic changes in nations contribute and stimulate the growth of multicultural education. Providing people with the freedom to function beyond their ethnic and cultural boundaries keeps societies more democratic and free. Using dimensions of multicultural education (e.g., prejudice reduction) can help students to develop more democratic values and attitudes. Improving dialogue efforts and tolerance in this kind of education might help students to understand, investigate and determine how equal opportunities could be gained by giving everyone a voice. Educators today face unusual challenges and want rapid solutions to educational problems. In particular, problems associated with racism, ethnicity, and prejudice make the situation intolerable, because of the high public expectations. In this sense, multicultural education can be a promising factor in implementing intercultural exchange and in helping students to gain democratic values and attitudes. One of the most effective ways to teach respect for diversity is to eliminate unawareness. If we want to understand other cultures, whether they be superficial or insightful, we had better gain a sense of perception that allows us to distinguish things more clearly and with less bias⁷ For that reason, establishing cultural exchange programs has proven to be successful in improving understanding, insight, and eventually tolerance into the classroom. Teaching lessons that either directly or indirectly address the issues of multicultural communities in the classroom, neighborhood, and nation is another important tactic that teachers can adopt when trying to help children and young adults understand the importance of respect for diversity. Teachers who bring their healthy values and virtues to the classroom can strongly influence the attitudes of their students.

Conclusion

Multicultural education is a new trend and it will become incorporated into most school curriculums in future years. Several prestigious universities in the world today require students to take classes in social studies. Thus, by using multicultural education, teachers, in particular, can help children value the significance of treating all people with self-esteem and not judging groups of people for the actions of a few. More importantly, teachers must model tolerance and compassion in their words and behavior. They should also encourage children to explore their feelings about prejudice and hatred. In doing this, the society will secure a better chance to stop any further destruction and will be able to present potentially powerful opportunities for the next generation to learn and integrate respect and dignity for all people.

Many people today, even those who already live in a multi-cultural society, have problems dealing with “others,” and blame each other for certain issues or follow a different way⁸ Blaming each other because of our origins or culture is not the solution. Rather, trying to understand and analyze people for their personal values and cultural diversity will help to mobilize and construct a caring society. As a matter of fact, religion teaches us to tolerate others and accept that people live in different groups and societies. The beauty and uniqueness of diversity is expressed in the Holy Qur’an and in the New Testament:

O mankind! Surely We have created you from a single (pair of) male and female, and made you into tribes and families so that you may know one another (and so build mutuality and co-operative relationships, not so that you may take pride in your differences of race or social rank, and breed enmities). Surely the noblest, most honorable of you in God’s sight is the one best in piety, righteousness, and reverence for God. Surely God is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Hujurat 49:13)

You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you. (Matthew, 5:43-44)

Notes

1. Dewey, J., Democracy and Education, Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1916.
2. Gorski, P, Multicultural education and the internet: Intersections and integrations, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA:2000.
3. Banks, J., Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society, Teachers College Press: New York and London:1997.
4. Gulen, F., Pearls of Wisdom, The Fountain, 2001.
5. Dewey, J., Experience and Education, the Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series Simon Schuster, 1938.
6. http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/ (U.S. Bureau of the Census)
7. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/tolerance/3_stereotypes.htm
8. http://www.rumiforum.org/

Jalal: Let me begin first. Basing myself on the Islamic viewpoint, I argue that in an Islamic political regime, sovereignty can belong only to God. However, given that democracy means popular sovereignty, democracy is anti-Islamic.

Jamal: Your argument is based on your reductionist worldview. There is only right or wrong for you. Your world is black and white, and has no room for any gray area. Real life is fuzzier than your rigid opinions.

Contrary to your claim, God’s ontological sovereignty and the people’s political sovereignty are not contradictory. I believe that God, in His capacity as the ultimate Creator, created everything. Therefore, God is sovereign in the universe.

However, His creation in the material universe is different from His creation in social life. He has given each person the freedom of choice and free will; no other member or part of creation has these abilities. Given this, God can create something in social life even though it does not seem appropriate. For instance, He creates heroin and creates the people’s actions when they use it. However, God does not like the people to use it. In other words, He orders them not to use it but does not force them not to use it. God provides the people with free will and thereby makes them responsible for own decisions.

So, God creates whatever happens. Therefore, electing a leader is ontologically a creation of God and cannot contradict His sovereignty, although we cannot know whether this is an appropriate election in His sight.

Jalal: I still think that any popular vote is incompatible with Islam. Think about the designations of Prophethood. God is the ultimate decision-maker Who chooses the Prophets, regardless of what the people think.

Jamal: Perfect example! Of course, the people cannot elect a Prophet through voting, because by definition a Prophet is God’s messenger. Political leaders, however, are the people’s representatives, not God’s. Also, the Qur’an states that no Prophet will come after Prophet Muhammad. Thus, the people are free to elect their own leaders.

Furthermore, democracy based on popular sovereignty is an alternative to monarchy and oligarchy, not to God’s sovereignty. Why don’t you accept that monarchical and oligarchic sovereignties also contradict His sovereignty? Can you really claim that the various royal dynasties received their right to rule from God? Similarly, are the militaristic regimes the shadow of God upon Earth? I don’t think so.

Jalal: Frankly, I never thought of that. But I’m still curious about what you would say if a man-made rule happens to contradict a Divine rule. In Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith reflect God’s commands and so are accepted as absolute truth. In a democracy, however, ideally the people have the absolute power and legitimacy to create the law.

Jamal: But there is no paradox here. First, Muslim populations normally do not support laws that contradict the Revelation. Second, the Qur’an or Hadith contain no concrete and fixed political principles. Politics deals with temporary and mundane issues, which are subject to change according to time and place. Thus, the people can pass laws that are compatible with the constant, general, and universal principles of Divine rule on one hand, and with changeable sociopolitical contexts on the other. Third, it is more likely that the sovereignty of dictators, dynasties, or oligarchies will contradict the Divine rule than the sovereignty of the people will.

Finally, democracy has different forms, such as direct and representative. In direct democracy, the people vote directly in referendums for almost every political issue. In representative democracy, however, politics is conducted by the people’s representatives. Moreover, some representative democracies (e.g., the U.S.) have a Supreme (or Constitutional) Court to restrict law-making. In sum, possible contradictions between popular sovereignty and Divine rule can be minimized by creating institutions (e.g., a representative system and a Supreme Court) that include some Divine rules as pillars of the constitution.

Jalal: You try to show that democracy is compatible with Islam

Jamal: Moreover, I accept democracy as being more compatible with Islam than with non-democratic systems. The Prophet’s statement that my community will never agree upon an error reveals that the people are the source of political legitimacy. Moreover, the fact that the four Rightly Guided Caliphs were elected shows that election is a more suitable political institution for Muslims than any monarchic or oligarchic alternatives, despite the fact that such elections may not necessarily be considered purely democratic according to modern standards.

Jalal: If everything is so smooth, why did classical Islamic thinkers oppose democracy?

Jamal: First, evaluating classical thinkers by modern paradigms is an anachronism. Historical ideas need to be examined in their historical contexts. Don’t forget that until the French Revolution, monarchy was the dominant political institution. Second, many classical Islamic thinkers (e.g., al-Baqilani and al-Mawardi) generally emphasized the necessity of elections in determining a new caliph. They did not legitimize hereditary systems. Finally, the non-democratic components of classical thought are the results of historical sociopolitical contexts instead of the essence of the Islamic thought. Therefore, Islamic political thought can easily adapt, adopt, and legitimize democratic systems.

Jalal: If Islam and democracy are so compatible, why are so many Muslim countries non-democratic?

Jamal: As I have tried to demonstrate, Islam does not necessarily oppose democracy and is not the only cause of non-democratic regimes in the Muslim world. While discussing the lack of democracy in Muslim countries, one should consider such other factors as the economic, cultural, and international conditions that shape these countries’ political systems.

Second, Islam can be interpreted from different political viewpoints. While Islam encourages obedience to the rulers (4:59), it also encourages resistance. For example, the Prophet said: The best jihad is to say the truth to a tyrant’s face. Non-democratic Muslim rulers have their own interpretations of Islam, which have been shaped by their particular conditions. Therefore, their practices cannot represent Islam’s theoretical principles and essentials and its relations with democracy.

Jalal: Sounds interesting. Are you saying that democracy is the only political system compatible with Islam?

Jamal: No. Muslims may have changeable opinions, although Islam has absolute and universal values. The essentials of Islam are unchangeable and eternal truths. Political ideas, however, depend upon circumstances. Thus they are not absolute and change along with the sociopolitical and economic transformations. For that reason, Muslims could accept multiple political arguments. At this point in time, I personally prefer democracy to other political systems. However, if another system proves to serve humanity better, I might favor that one.

Honesty, defined as honor gained by action or conduct, is an inevitable part of our private and public life. But its implications for public life in a democracy are far more important. We can do a better job of passing on a sense of the value of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility to the next generation in a democratic society. Teddy Roosevelt, while governor of New York, said: Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community.(1)

It is not an easy task to resolve the problem of honesty in democratic governance. To the extent that knowledge gives power, to that extent do lies affect the distribution of power; they add to that of the liar, and diminish that of the deceived, altering his choices at different levels.(2) Bok, a writer and philosopher currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, explains the importance of honesty in public life by emphasizing how lying harms social trust:

The importance of honesty in public life is as follows. Lying and deception clearly do not affect only isolated individuals. As lies spread “ by imitation, or in retaliation, or forestall suspected deception “ social trust is damaged. Yet trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. Social goods are non-excludable, individuals cannot be prevented from sharing them, and they are available for the public to enjoy. Examples include the lighthouse, peace and security, and law and order. When social trust is damaged, the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.(3)

In the public sphere, lying or the suspicion of lying has an added consequence: the proliferation of bureaucracy and regulation.

Gutmann and Thompson see deception, the action of deceiving or cheating, as closely related to secrecy and confidentiality. They consider the following factors in which citizens can permit public officials to engage in deception: the importance of the deception’s goal; the availability of alternative goal-achieving means; who will be deceived (other officials, other governments, all citizens); accountability (the possibility of approving deception in advance or discovering it later); and containing the deception (its effects on other actions by officials).(4)

Requirements of honesty

The principle of honesty, when applied to public policy and administration, has several requirements. The first one is the obligation to avoid lying. The Iran-Contra affair and other cases raised the perennial question of whether official lies should be permitted for the public good. When John M. Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security advisor, was accused by Congress of an unapologetic embrace of truth, he replied that he had acted in what he thought were the country’s long-term interests. Even those who disagree with Poindexter’s judgment acknowledge that certain situations warrant deception. But was this particular situation exceptional enough to warrant it?

The second requirement is being truthful when presenting information to superiors and the public. For example, a public official cannot make exaggerated claims (or vice versa) about what a proposed program will do in order to generate enthusiasm for it.

The third requirement is respecting other people’s ability to gather and present accurate information relevant to public policy. In other words, honesty requires that an official does not try to prevent or suppress studies that challenge his or her view. Deception involves intentionally (or negligently) causing someone to believe something that the deceiver knows (or should know) to be false. Political deception is not always easy to recognize, because it seldom comes in the form of an outright lie.(5)

The fourth requirement is to keep the public well-informed. This cannot be overemphasized, for an informed public is an essential ingredient of democracy. Yet in practice, some officials (e.g., the president, mayor, policy makers, or military people) have found an easy justification for both secrecy and deception. They believe that ordinary citizens, even sometimes other government officials, cannot understand such complex problems as military operations, international security and national defense issues, and other such matters. The people’s apparent inability to do so gives public officials a kind of right to deception. Since average citizens cannot possibly know the whole truth about specialized subjects, lying to them is permissible “ provided that there are some good reasons. Sometimes, government officials use the same ethic when they decide not to inform citizens of government involvement in various complex issues.

Conclusion

In a democratic society, these reasons cannot be used to justify giving anybody permission to deceive whenever they consider it necessary. The social good and public interest should not be used as excuses for deception; rather, they must be a reason for honesty. The ethical education of public officials, public awareness, open and transparent public administration, clear rules, policies, and regulations might ease the job of public officials in terms of ethical dilemmas. Such practices also might help them by providing consistency in decision-making, understanding the values reflected by that decision, and reaching more reflective judgments. Findings reported in several analytical studies indicate that ethics education is making a difference. We cannot afford, intentionally or unintentionally, to be a partner in producing a new generation of leaders who are ethically illiterate and morally misguided.

Footnotes

1. Theodore Roosevelt, The Eighth and Ninth Commandments in Politics, Outlook (12 May 1900). Online at: www.bartleby.com/58/7.html
2. Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 20.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Gutmann and D. F. Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1998), 48.
5. Ibid.

Social capital has a long intellectual history in the social sciences. In this paper, social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions. Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions underpinning a society; rather, it is the glue that holds them together.

Lyda Hanifan, a West Virginia school reformer (1916), was the first to use the term social capital. Jane Jacobs reinvented it during the late 1960s, Glenn Loury elaborated upon it during the late 1970s, and James Coleman used it to examine Chicago schools in the 1980s. Coleman and Loury prefer to view social capital as a bottom-up phenomenon that is not directly amenable to public policy intervention. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed a contemporary approach, though Anglo-American scholars remained unaware of it until the late 1980s.

The major momentum for scholarship on social capital, however, came with Robert Putnam’s seminal work on democratic governance in contemporary Italy (1993) and his subsequent challenging thesis that late twentieth-century Americans were bowling alone, by which he meant that they were becoming increasingly disengaged from active participation in public life, a trend with disconcerting implications for active democratic participation. He developed his thesis with his bowling alone article (1995), which led to scores of active research projects around the world on social capital.

Organizational-level social capital cannot be measured merely as an aggregation of individual networks, for attention has to be given to inter-organizational networks as well as to the study of this network’s nature. Community-level social capital resides in groups and in the networks among these organizations/groups. Strong society-/community-level social capital creates a civic infrastructure that supports formal and informal processes of decision-making and public involvement. The idea of social capital has coalesced around several fields: families and youth behavior problems, schooling and education, community life, work and organizations, democratic governance, collective action problems, and economic development. Building and maintaining networks is not a natural given; rather, it requires investments that yield a return.

Since Putnam’s identification of the social capital in regional governance and economic development in Italy (1993) and his latest suggestion in the U.S. (1995, 2000), a virtual industry of interest and action has been created around the implications of his findings for the development of low-income communities. Putnam attributes a significant portion of differences in government effectiveness, economic health, and community well-being to the presence (versus absence) of social capital. Stated simply, he considers the main elements of social capital to be trust and cooperation. Social capital consists of networks and norms that enable participants to act together effectively to pursue shared objectives. There is a strong collective aspect of social capital, as the social and economic system as a whole functions better because of the ties among the actors that make it up.

State-Nonprofit Partnerships

Government partnership includes partnering with for-profit corporations and nonprofit organizations, such as social service agencies, cultural groups, neighborhood organizations, hospitals, and health organizations. Alexis de Tocqueville, while touring America in 1831-32, noticed how different Americans were from Europeans in their enthusiasm for banding together to support a good cause. We see the result of this cultural characteristic today, for America did not follow the model of a European welfare state. American policymakers used taxes and direct subsidies to deliver services. America has created a welfare state through nonprofit organizations, the vast majority created since 1959.

State-nonprofit collaborations involve nonprofit organizations addressing local, state, and national problems through negotiated efforts or partnerships with business, government, colleges and universities, or other public or social institutions. Public organizations should look for opportunities to work with other nonprofit organizations-even with their competitors-in solving growing public problems in a timely and efficient manner. These efforts encompass several categories: governments often seek to execute their efforts via structures of interagency collaboration; the role of not-for-profit organizations is large and growing; and the frequency and variety of links with for-profit firms is impressive and government contracting remains a growth industry.

Generating social capital

Putnam (2000) states that civic engagement and social connectedness are practical preconditions for better schools, safer streets, faster economic growth, more effective government, and even healthier and longer lives. Without an adequate supply of social capital, meaning civic engagement, healthy community institutions, norms of mutual reciprocity, and trust, social institutions falter.

The value creation process of public and nonprofit partnerships generates incremental social capital to the partners, members, and to society as a whole. Benefits generated by an effective partnership often exceed the partnership’s purpose and enable the social mission to be accomplished more effectively. Public-nonprofit partnerships focused on social problems can also serve as motivating informative models for others to follow. As a partnership evolves, the value of the benefits can erode. Skills acquired by one partner from another, for example, may no longer be a transferable benefit. Relationships are dynamic and subject to alteration due to changes in the external environment. Also, partners’ need and priorities can change.

Public-nonprofit partnerships can be seen as vehicles for generating social capital by creating and strengthen organizations and collaborations within the community. For example, they enable community members to participate in those aspects of community life that concern them by setting priorities, developing programs, and participating in them. Creative action by public organizations can foster social capital, and linking mobilized nonprofit organizations and citizens can enhance governmental efficacy.

The role of nonprofits

According to Putnam: By almost every measure, Americans’ direct engagement in politics and government has fallen steadily and sharply over the last generation, despite the fact that average levels of education-the best individual-level predictor of political participation-have risen sharply throughout this period. At the same time, membership in and the number of nonprofits has increased (although there has been increased competition among nonprofits for this membership). This would seem to contradict de Tocqueville’s thesis. But, as Putnam points out, contributing to a nonprofit organization or joining an association and reading its newsletter does not necessarily translate into greater civic participation.

Nonprofit organizations play a vital role in creating and sustaining social capital, namely, those bonds of trust and reciprocity that seem to be pivotal for a democratic society and market economy to function effectively. But one would expect American individualism to make it difficult to sustain such organizations. De Tocqueville understood this point well when he wrote in Democracy in America in 1835: Feelings and opinions are recruited, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed, only by the reciprocal influence of men upon one another these influences are almost null in democratic countries; they must therefore be artificially created and this can only be accomplished by associations.

Thus the perpetuation of a vital nonprofit sector is essential to developing and sustaining a sense of community, which is required to uphold contracts and enable both a market system and a democratic policy to operate.

Investing in social capital by attempting to increase civic participation therefore will strengthen democracy. Since nonprofits reach so many people, and because some nonprofits are powerful secondary associations, we are targeting nonprofits. They are an important source, if not the main source, for discussing critical public policy issues. Thus, nonprofits may play a unique intermediary role in helping to stimulate civic participation through a series of actions aimed at public education, research, advocacy, mobilizing, and so on. Public-nonprofit partnerships have emerged as an important institutional arrangement for addressing important societal concerns through the collaborative efforts and, as a result, the combined strengths of organizations from the public, private, and non-profit sectors.

Education is a very important field in which states can have a direct influence upon the generation of social capital. Educational institutions do not simply contribute human capital; they also contribute to social capital in the form of social rules and norms. States can foster the formation and creation of social capital directly or indirectly by providing public goods and public safety. They also can hinder its formation and creation by undertaking activities that are better left to nonprofits. If the state organizes everything, people will become dependent and lose their interest in and ability to work together. If states cannot contribute directly to the creation of social capital, they should create an environment in which nonprofits can do so.

References

• Briggs, S. Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of Social Capital. Housing Policy Debate. volume 9, no. 1 (1998): 177-221.
• Coleman, James. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
• De Tocqueville, A. Democracy in America. Edited by J. P. Mater. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1994.
• Evans, P. Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy. World Development 24, no. 6 (1996): 1119-32.
• Hall, P. Historical Perspective on Nonprofit Organizations. In The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, edited by Robert D. Herman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
• Huntoon, L. Government Use of Nonprofit Organizations To Build Social Capital. Journal of Socio-Economics 30 (2001).
• Kanter, R. Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances. Harvard Business Review (Jul.-Aug. 1994): 96-108.
• Light, P. Making Nonprofits Work: A Report on the Tides of Nonprofit Management Reform. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
• Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
• Salamon, L. America’s Nonprofit Sector: A Primer. New York: The Foundation Center, 1999.
• Young, D. Complementary, Supplementary, or Adversarial? A Theoretical and Historical Examination of Nonprofit-Government Relations in the United States. In Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict, edited by Elisabeth T Boris and C. Eugene Steuerle. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1999.

I argue against these claims, based upon strong empirical evidence indicating that war does not occur among democratic states, the so-called zone of peace. As democratic regimes replace authoritarian regimes, future generations will study wars as an obsolete part of history.

This article has three parts: tracing the roots of the democratic peace argument and providing supporting evidence, examining the three mechanisms offered to explain the absence of war among democratic states, and critically evaluating the democratic peace argument.

Does democratic peace exist?

One should define democracy before answering the above question. Democracy is a combination of two Greek words: demos (people) and kratos (rule)”rule by the people. In a direct democracy, citizens are directly engaged in the law-making process though a majority system. In a representative democracy, as we have today, citizens use their legislative powers through their elected representatives. Both types also require a constitutional framework through which the majority can exercise its power and through which the individual and collective rights of people are guaranteed.

The roots of democratic peace argument can be traced back to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Perpetual Peace essay, published in 1795.(3) He argued that although state rulers decide to start a war, it is the people who suffer the consequences (e.g., the loss of money, property, and lives). Thus they are reluctant to engage in war. Since rulers of democratic states are accountable to the people, they are less inclined to initiate a war.

Kant also identified commerce as another reason for perpetual peace among democracies. Increasing trade leads states to realize that they have much to loose from conflict and thus reinforces their desire to avoid war. Finally, the existence of a pacific union prevents the outbreak of war between democracies. Such a union reinforces the idea that democracies have common goals and interests, and further mitigates the desire for armed conflict.

Michael Doyle, a former professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton and now assistant secretary general of the UN, revisited Kant’s perpetual peace argument.(4) He showed that, as Kant had predicted, there is no historical case of two democratic states fighting each other. Using the correlates of war data prepared by University of Michigan researchers, he listed all the democratic states and interstate wars occurring after 1815. He pointed out that although wars occurred between non-democratic states and between democratic and non-democratic states, there has been no war between democratic states since 1815.

Doyle listed three different factors to account for this: caution, respect, and interest. Democratic leaders are cautious when initiating military conflict, for otherwise their constituencies will punish them by removing them from power. Rulers of democratic states respect each other because they respect their populations. Democratic rulers may reason that military dictators will not respect the citizens of a democracy because military dictators do not respect their own people. Finally, the level of trade among democratic states is so high that they become dependent on each other. This interdependence decreases the utility of military force during disputes.

Supporters of the democratic peace argument have examined such long-term rivalries Argentina and Britain, Pakistan and India, Greece and Turkey to see whether being a democracy has had any impact on military hostilities between these pairs. Greece and Turkey provide an example of how dictatorships are more prone to war. They have fought three wars, but not when both of them were democratic. This also has been true with Ecuador and Peru, Argentina and Chile, and Brazil and Argentina, all of which have had bitter rivalries. The Falklands War between Argentina and Britain took place when Argentina was a dictatorship and resulted in the military rulers being replaced by a stable democratic regime.

Like inter-state conflicts, civil wars provide another set of empirical support for the democratic peace argument. Democratic states rarely experience civil wars. Why would any group launch a war to control a state when they could pursue their goals peacefully through electoral participation? Democratization is, then, a way to prevent civil wars. Dean Babst and William Eckhardt conducted a 42-year study of all independent countries from 1950 to 1991. Their study found that although 90 percent of dictatorships have experienced some form of civil war, no civil wars occurred in democratic states during that period.(5)

The end of the cold war

The end of the cold war popularized the idea of democratic peace. However, there were some differences about the new world order that was to replace the cold war. Robert Kaplan predicted a coming anarchy,(6) in which a state’s control over its population vanishes and different armed groups create an anarchic environment. Samuel Huntington saw a coming clash of civilizations,(7) in which states belonging to different civilizations would fight each other. John Mearsheimer defined the new world order as back to the future,(8) in which the superpowers’ departure from Europe would create a power vacuum that various European countries would seek to fill through conflict. The democratic peace argument offered an alternative model for the new world order.

American officials upheld the democratic peace argument. In 1992, Secretary of State James Baker said: The cold war has ended, and we now have a chance to forge a democratic peace, an enduring peace built on shared values”democracy and political and economic freedom. The strength of these values in Russia and the other new independent states will be the surest foundation for peace”and the strongest guarantee of our national security”for decades to come.(9) Similarly, President Clinton declared in his 1994 State of the Union Speech: Ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other.(10) And at the height of the crisis in Haiti in 1994, he supported military intervention on the grounds that: Democracies here are more likely to keep the peace.(11)

The idea of democratic peace is not new to American foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson made a similar argument as early as 1917: A steadfast concert of peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith w/in [a concert]. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common end and prefer to the interest of mankind to any narrow interest of their own.(12)

Two explanations

There are two key issues here. First, democratic peace does not mean that democratic states are peace-lovers, for democratic states do initiate war with authoritarian states. In addition, pacifist public opinion cannot explain democratic peace, for such a situation would lead to democratic states having peaceful relations with all states, whether democratic or not. Therefore any explanation for democratic peace must account for the absence of war between democratic states and the persistence of war between democratic and non-democratic states.

Second, correlation does not mean causation. Correlations establish empirical and observable regularities between two variables (democratic states and war), but do not explain the underlying mechanisms causing the observed empirical regularity. For example, there has been no war between states having McDonald’s restaurants. This perfect correlation, however, does not mean that McDonald’s restaurants lead to peace (the so-called McDonald’s peace theory). Clarifying underlying mechanisms prevents explanations based on spurious correlations.

Researchers offer two mechanisms to explain peace among democratic states: normative and institutional.

Normative: Normative democratic peace researchers assume that decision-makers use conflict resolution tools developed in domestic politics when dealing with external problems and expect other decision-makers to follow a similar strategy. As a result democratic leaders, when dealing with a democratic state, try (and expect other democratic leaders) to establish consensus through nonviolent means to solve external problems. While dealing with non-democratic leaders, however, democratic leaders tend to resort to violence easily because they expect authoritarian leaders will use violent means.(13)

For example, when dealing with Hitler or Stalin, democratic leaders inferred that they would use negotiations to gain time for military preparations, for these leaders did not come from a culture where problems were solved through negotiations. Thus, democratic leaders do not expect to reach a negotiated agreement with authoritarian leaders.

Institutional: Institutional democratic peace researchers argue that democratic institutions cause peace among democratic states. In democracies, the presence of checks and balances and high levels of public involvement in the political process constrain state leaders and prevent hasty decisions. These constraints also slow down the decision-making process. As a result, third parties have time to intervene among democratic states and help them solve their problems peacefully.

Democratic leaders do not fear a surprise attack when they have a problem with other democratic states, because they are aware that those states have democratic institutional mechanisms. Since there is little, if any, constraint in an authoritarian state, authoritarian rulers can make quick decisions. Therefore democratic rulers fear a surprise attack by an authoritarian ruler. Furthermore, since authoritarian rulers know that democratic leaders are constrained, they tend to push democratic leaders for more concessions. Such a tactic might escalate a crisis into a war.

Lastly, democratic rulers are elected and are cautious about using violence, for they can be punished by their constituencies. Authoritarian rulers do not have to worry about elections.(14) For example, Saddam can start a war quite easily because he needs no one’s approval and is not affected by the outcome. So far, Saddam has launched and lost two wars, both of which inflicted enormous misery on Iraqi people”and yet he remains in power. In democratic countries, however, people punish rulers who start wars without their approval by not re-electing them.

Problems

The democratic peace argument is not immune from problems.(15) First, there is no one definition of democracy, for researchers use different data sets with different codifications to measure levels of democracy. Various definitions (e.g., free elections, at least one peaceful transfer of power, universal suffrage, free press, free expression, and human rights) make it harder to test democratic peace argument. It also can cause one researcher to codify a given country as democratic while another will classify it as authoritarian.

Second, there is no consensus on how to define war. This is important, for even though democratic states did not openly fight each other, they did conduct covert operations against other democratic regimes and brought less-democratic regimes to power. For example, the US and Britain overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953 and replaced him with the less-democratic Shah. Similarly, the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in 1973 and replace him with the authoritarian Pinochet.

Third, democracies have been quite rare in history. Therefore, chances for a war between them were low. The geographical distribution of democratic countries further weakens the importance of the democratic peace argument. For example what is chance of democratic New Zealand fighting democratic Spain?

Only after WWII did the number of democracies begin to increase. During this period, however, all democratic states were allies. Thus skeptics argue that security concerns rather than regime type explains democratic peace. Mearsheimer for example, argues that European democracies may experience another war after the end of the cold war.

From democratic peace to perpetual peace

Overwhelming evidence indicates that democracies are better in terms of providing internal peace for their citizens and can serve as the building blocks of a global and perpetual peace. Democratic norms and institutions provide a strong basis for peace among democratic countries. At the turn of the twentieth century, there was only a handful of democratic states; there were 22 by 1950. By 2000, according to Freedom House criteria, 85 counties had governments that came to power through free elections and respect basic human rights and the rule of law. As the number of democracies increases, the zone of peace will expand.

The end of the cold war provided the opportunity to design a new world order. After more than a decade, it seems we can claim that the US foreign policy establishment believes in the democratic peace argument and actively supports democratization throughout the world. Time will show the success of these efforts. 

Footnotes

1. The author can be reached at.
2. Charles Kagley and Eugene Wittkopf, World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 7th ed. (St. Martin’s Press: 1998), 347.
3. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, (1975). Online at: http://home.freeuk.com/ethos/kantperpe.htm.
4. Michael Doyle, Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983): 205-35
5. Dean V. Babst and William Eckhardt, How Peaceful Are Democracies Compared with Other Countries? Peace Research (1992).
6. Robert Kaplan, The Coming Anarchy (Vintage Books: 2000).
7. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
8. John Mearsheimer, Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, International Security 15, no. 1 (1990): 5-56.
9. Entire speech online at: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/ b920615.htm.
10. Entire speech online at: http://www.crisny.org/government/us/ us.sotu94.html.
11. The Economist (1 Apr. 1995).
12. Entire speech online at: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1917/ wilswarm.html.
13. Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
14. Ibid.
15. For critiques of the democratic peace argument, see David Spiro, The Insignificance of the Democratic Peace, International Security 19 (Fall 1994): 50-86; Joanna Gowa, Democratic States and International Disputes, International Organization 49 (Summer 1995): 511-22; and Mearsheimer, Back to the Future.

This fundamental teaching of brotherhood and sisterhood regardless of religious affiliation is being overshadowed by suspicion, anger, mistrust, and other negative trends and emotions that continue to arise from our pursuit of ever-more comfort and possessions and our refusal to realize that such things are finite. As we continue to gather them into our hands, others are deprived of what they regard as their fair share and become fertile ground for resentment and either passive or active resistance. Their negative worldview is only strengthened and expanded by the continued lack of modern education, meaningful employment, adequate health care, freedom from fear, and many other things that those of us who are more fortunate take for granted.

Underlying the above quotations is the need to understand others, for there can be no love among people without mutual respect and acceptance of one’s right to be different. Calls to celebrate diversity and accept multiculturalism abound, but many individuals and institutions have yet to go beyond mouthing the words while doing nothing to make them a reality. This is the true challenge of the new millennium.

In this issue, we present several articles on what we should expect from believers; certain similarities among the monotheistic religions; the roles of men and women, parents and children, and how they should work together to create a better society; the place of prayer in one’s life; and the need for joining scientific and spiritual knowledge to improve the quality of life for everyone. In addition, we present several short articles on the values of introspection and self-reflection, self-reliance and the need to stop blaming others for what happens to us, and how we should view other people.

We analyze one nation’s successful quest for development to see if its methods can be applied by other nations. Also discussed is the potential of e-learning to spread relevant knowledge in areas that previously had no access to it, and the hope that they will be able to benefit from it. Two of our authors explain how democratic governing institutions prevent wars between democratic nations and civil wars within those same nations, and how the formation of social capital increases society’s overall well-being.

Our scientific articles discuss the benefits of lightning on our health and even our moods, and how the existence of what scientists call ‘dark matter’ could signal a change in how we perceive ourselves and our place in the universe.

We hope that you enjoy this issue and, as always, look forward to your comments.