Black & White...but no room for Grey?

The true essence of studying political science is to come up with the best regime or political society. Since the Enlightenment, philosophers have thought that liberalism was the best way to live because it valued human reason and individualism. In the West, many countries have adopted democracy as a form of government that functions according to the Hobbesian view of "live, and let live" in which human rights are greatly valued. Although it is great that the West functions in this manner, it is foolish to think that this way of political society is applicable to other groups of people that have different needs. A good government is one that can suits the needs of the people. Thus, in some societies, theocracy is a plausible form of political society. In my opinion, theocracy fails when it does not allow people of other religious communities to participate in society. Ramadan is very optimistic in his approach to have a government that has Islam as the majority religion but also one that is fair and equitable. He says, "respect for the popular will and the mandates of elected representatives; the promotion of equality, justice, and education; the fight against corruption, cronyism, and illegitimate rule: all must bow before a structure of "political ethics"" (Ramadan, 106-7). From these words, one can infer that any citizen would want their country to uphold the above mentioned values since they are very universal. The line that is drawn between these universal values and ethics stemming from Islam is where the issue lies. Thus, Ramadan states that ethics stemming from Islam must be seen as a form of social justice and not religious implication (Ramadan 113-4). This leads to another issue. Some countries that have Islam as their majority religion implement strict laws upon their citizens that they believe serve as social justice. For example, the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia have a very strict sharia law that does not necessarily promote religious freedom (openly) or individualism. Therefore, there are both sides to the spectrum: a theocracy that forms citizens who are ethically-sound or one that imposes on individual rights (and many grey areas in between).