If there is no way to foresee a political decision, the political decision mechanism is at least a partial answer

Question

In this question, it was asked, how does the current (de facto) Afghan government implement the islamic image ban of living things.

My this answer was deleted in the question.

The answer did not and could fully answer the question. Because it is impossible to say for sure, what do others think about a topic. However, the answer tried to detail the mechanism of the actual implementation.

The very likely reason of the delete vote was that I did not condemn their political system (islam fundamentalism) in the post. I am really sorry, but in my opinion, it is not and should not be a requirement. Btw, it has actually a rhetorical value: by not condemning them, by explaining the things as they would do, gives a suggestive value to the explanation.

Partial answers as fine on the site.

I find this change of the site moderation customs quite a disgusting one, note as I did the same about North Korea, no delete vote happened. Yes, I know, there was no WW3 and USA elections both on the horizon at the time.

But even if that is the case, a well-governed site should resist much better this "periodical excitation" of your contributors.

Please undelete that answer, it was unfairly deleted.

Answer 1

What can be said, how do they decide.

[...] That will be a well deliberate political decision of well educated and rational decision-makers.

In summary: "trust they are wise, Obi-wan". Answers are generally expected to be more than this. Simply because one can insert the above platitude as a (propaganda) "answer" to almost any Q. (Funnily, enough related Q.)

And yeah, don't confuse the length of an answer with its substance. Going on a multi-para detour how the Jewish leaders supposedly had the same problem 3000 years ago is only so-so convincing. After all, you admit they didn't have to grapple with TV.

Just for the sake of the exercise, consider your most recent Q on how Russia destroying US satellites would affect the US election. How useful is if you got an answer like:

IDK, but I trust the wise American people to elect the right leaders to deal with this. America got through many wars, some hot and some cold. And also made peace.

---

And as you want to compare your own answers, the other one...

They elect Kim Jong Un, always and forever, because he is a unique genius in the world history, who freed them from the Japanese/USA suppressors and got them the freedom. The freedom and well-being of the whole country depends on him, no one in the government is even close to Him.

This was the theory. You can see the reality in the news.

At least that one sounds slightly less propagandistic, by the latter sentence. And it happens to be closer to the Q asked there, which wasn't what NK said will do about this or that but "How is North Korea democratic". One can disagree that your latter answer is good but somewhat less so whether it's even on-topic, given what the other Q was.

But even there, the actual Q [of the OP] is how democratic is to have just one party, and your answer doesn't even touch on that. (Yeah, the premise of the Q is technically slightly wrong, as they have multiple parties, albeit only one is declared leading in their constitution. And they have single-candidate elections. Your answer alas addresses none of that.)