For a long time western media has been highlighting that the Syrian government is „Allawi-led“. Even if this were true: So, what?
Since when and according to which logic should a country be ruled by members of its ethnic or religious majority? Even in truly democratic countries the president or parliament are not elected along ethnic or religious lines. To illustrate the ridiculousness of such thinking we could add two other parameters that describe or define a persons character and personality:
– sexual orientation
– support for football teams
Now, should – according to the „majority logic“ (which is in fact a fallacy) – the German chancellor be lesbian if the majority in Germany were lesbian women?
Or should the British premier be a member or a fan of Manchester United if that team is the most popular football team in England?
The election or appointment of politicians and authorities should be according to competency and skills and not a matter of that persons ethnic or religious background.
So, theoretically the parliament of a country with 90% Shia Arabs could consist of the 10% Sunni Kurds, if the latter are the „best people“ for their various departments and tasks. This is neither undemocratic nor unjust.
The argumentation along ethnic/religious (or other) majorities becomes only relevant under particular circumstances: If namely the minority leadership tries to suppress and discriminate the majority in a systematic way.
An example: Considering the „public share“ (ethnic/religious affiliation) aspect alone, I don´t have a problem with the minority Sunni al Khalifa family ruling Bahrain where the Shia constitute the majority. The issue becomes however an apparent matter of injustice and sectarianism when the Bahraini monarchy naturalizes Sunni Pakistani, Jordanians and others in order to change the demographic balance, integrates these new „Bahrainis“ into the security forces and let them go against the regular Bahrainis who are totally absent from government and army and police.