Articles' Diary

    When disobedience becomes a duty Thomas Jefferson, a prominent figure in the establishment of the United States, said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Yes, you heard right—he is obliged to do so. When faced with an unjust law, it becomes the duty of a person to defy it. Failure to do so would mean neglecting their obligation. In ancient Greece, speaking out against rulers was forbidden, but Socrates challenged this norm by posing thought-provoking questions. Consequently, he was presented with two choices: to cease his questioning and comply or face death. Socrates, a respected philosopher, opted for the second option and refused to obey the unjust law of the time. Just as it is a duty to comply with just laws, it is also a duty to disobey unjust laws. Laws become unjust when they benefit only a specific portion of society while harming others. They are unjust when they are selectively enforced against the weaker wh

"Love is moral even without legal marriage, but marriage is immoral without love." - Ellen Key   Ellen Key, a renowned Swedish feminist writer, expressed this quotation, emphasizing the significance of love in the context of relationships between individuals, particularly within and outside the institution of marriage. The quote underscores the moral and ethical dimensions of these relationships. Society often considers the legal aspect of relationships as the basis for their morality, even if they may actually be immoral. Conversely, relationships that may not conform to legal standards can still possess moral values. Ellen Key's message conveys that love is the fundamental element in relationships between men and women. When love is present, the relationship is moral, regardless of its legal status. Conversely, any relationship, even a legally recognized marriage, devoid of love, is immoral. One of the supporting arguments for this viewpoint stems from nature. All

  Advancing Democracy while retaining Absolutism at the top?     Is it possible to simultaneously love two conflicting concepts, such as democracy and absolutism? Your immediate response would likely be "no." However, upon closer examination of the Security Council, the world's highest governing body, confusion may arise. Within the Security Council, how significant decisions are made, whether through democratic or autocratic means? But what exactly does an "autocratic process" entail? As commonly understood, autocracy refers to a form of governance where an individual possesses absolute control. You may disagree and argue that the Security Council does not operate as an authoritarian entity. It consists of fifteen members, five of whom hold permanent positions and ten who are non-permanent. A resolution can only be adopted if it garners unanimous agreement. Now, consider this: What if one of the five permanent members refuses to consent? In such a case, y

           Democracy without Justice is tyranny The founding father of English political philosophy, Socrates the Great, was sentenced to death by a democratic parliament in ancient Greece just for raising his voice and questioning the status quo. Therefore, his pupil, Plato the Great, strongly criticized democracy and named it a tyrannical form of government due to its unjust behavior and attitude. It demonstrates that democracy is only wanted and desired for justice, and if there is no justice in a democracy, it can be termed "tyranny. Justice and democracy are interrelated concepts. Justice is the basic pillar of democracy and therefore, democracy must uphold justice. The first and most important principle of democracy is the equality of citizens before the law; if citizens are not equal before the law in a democracy, it is injustice, and injustice leads to a tyrannical form of government where different people are treated differently. Another major principle of democracy is

  When time gets tough, we don't give up. We get up: A lesson for Pakistan. Barak Obama, one of the most renowned American presidents, said: "When times are tough, we don't give up. We stand up." The head of a living nation accurately stated that the USA has had several difficult periods throughout its history and that its notable figures and nation responded to these times with fervor, succinctness, and dedication. For instance, the United States did not gain independence through a piece of paper but rather through a war of revolution; immediately following independence, the USA faced one of the largest civil wars in world history, which it eventually overcame; the USA fought in two world wars, both of which had successful outcomes; furthermore, the USA faced one of the greatest economic crises, the Great Depression, and it came out of such an economic crisis with positive results. In addition, the USA fought multiple wars on different battlefields around the world

  Faultlines in Pakistan's political culture Pakistan's political system has never, not even momentarily, seen a smooth evolution. Pakistan has had ongoing political crises since its inception on the world map, which was then followed by economic, judicial, and constitutional problems. The political culture of Pakistan has certain fault lines that lead to political crises, and unless these fault lines are acknowledged, discussed, and rectified, the political system cannot be altered. Major fault lines in Pakistani political culture include the lack of ideological politics in the country, the lack of internal democracy in the so-called political parties, the legacy of dynasties, the lack of national political parties and a divided house, the practice of revenge politics, polarized politics with populist political leaders and the practice of US vs. THEM, the blame game with propaganda politics, the civil-military divide, the strong establishment and weak judiciary, controlled m