Theocracy: good or bad?

We've been discussing in class one of the largest issues in the news recently: Egypt. After Egypt became free from their dictator, Hosni Mubarak, they had democratically elected a president; Morsi. However, now, there are so called "pro-Morsis" and "ant-Morsis" who are agreeing with and disagreeing with Morsi's values and what he is doing as a president. He is removing many governmental actions from judicial oversight and is simply doing whatever he wants to. Morsi is from the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore the constitution being constructed will be greatly affected by the Muslim Brotherhood, to people's concern. Basically, the Islamic law will be greatly incorporated into the constitution. These Islamists are constructing the constitution despite opposition and flaws (only religious freedom for some religion, freedom of discrimination but nothing about women). The people of Egypt are torn between the question of how much a democratcally elected president should be accountable. Morsi thinks that becuase he was elected and people voted for him, he can do anything he wants for the next four years. However, people are disagreeing extremely.

With this current situation in Egypt, Ramadan's ideas in this book come into place. When secularization was being extremely imposed in Islamic states, he believed that the division between Islamism and Secularism. He believed that Islamic states should not conform to westernized governments nor directly oppose them but develop their own form of government. He believes that a certain amount of Islam is needed in a government.

The question imposed during our class discussion however is the important one: Is theocracy good or bad? Honestly, I think it depends. It depends on what parts of the religion is imposed and to what extent it is. In Egypt's case, Ramandan's idea of government might actually be the solution.