they dismiss implicitly the legitimacy of Gods laws. Furthermore, when they assume that every person is the best judge of his good or interests than any other,

[٤]

they dismiss the reliance on Gods Knowledge in determining the conception of good.

Finally, when theorists of various accounts of democracy from Schumpeterians to radical participati onists agree that political equality is a basic principle of democracy,

[٥]

they intend to dismiss Gods right not only as a supreme competent authority for decision- making about human life, but they also reject the possibility of His unequal participation along with human beings. In the most extremist way, some liberal democrats propose that citizens( and officials )are not to base their decisions and/ or debates concerning political issues on their religious convictions. Rather, they should build the principles of political and public affairs on some sources independent of any and all of the religious perspectives to be found in society.

[٦]

The result would be a perfect secularisation of public sphere that rejects the meaningfulness of any religious conception of democracy.

However, implicit in the dominant secular discourse on democracy is the neglect of, or an insufficient solution to, the modern critiques raised by theorists of multicultural politics or the politics of difference.

[٧]

The neglect of multicultura lism shows, according to Pareck, the incompleteness of the process of decolonisation of liberalism from its dogmatic Millian legacy.

[٨]

It is worth noticing that whilst Western liberal democracies are

[١] -،، ٢،(:، ٢٠٠١)،. ١٨٢

[٢] -،،. ١٠٧- ٨

[٣] -،،(:، ١٩٩٦)،. ٢١٧

[٤] -،،. ٩٧- ١٠٠.

[٥] -، ،:،. ١.، ٥١(.، ٢٠٠٣)،. ١٦١- ٤.

[٦] -،،،(:، ١٩٩٧)،. ٧٣

[٧] -، ،(.)،،(:، ٢٠٠٢)،. ٩٧

[٨] -، ،(.)،""؟ ،(:، ١٩٩٤)،. ٨٦- ٩٥.