|
Islam continues to
be at the center stage of the global community. Yet the Muslim world -
nearly 1/5th of the world population - is currently in a dysfunctional
state, caught between the modern as well as the mundane aspirations of
life on one hand and a disconnect from the past glories and
transcending values --beliefs that these people identify with, on the
other.
Muslim world would
like to progress past its problems without delinking from Islam. The
western countries, currently dominating the world, supposedly prefer
that the Muslim world move forward, too, but also delink itself from
Islam except at the personal or spiritual level, and most definitely,
not upset the current global status quo.
Western countries
are mostly democratic and they claim that they would like to see the
spread of democracy around the world. They consider democracy to be an
indispensable modern ideal that, they contend, is quite conducive to
attaining modern aspirations of life. The current superstructure of
the world - defined in terms of the economic, political, military and
technological power and the accompanying apparatus - definitely
reflects the strength of democracy. Modern superpowers, such as the
former Soviet Union, that did not adopt democracy, have collapsed.
Another major power, China, despite some economic success,
offers a significantly lower standard of living than any western
countries.
Democracy is
identified as a cornerstone of western civilization and it is strongly
prescribed for the rest of the world and humanity. Indeed, sometimes
it is even promoted as a panacea. Discourses involving Islam, Muslim
world and democracy are proliferating. But what really is the
relationship between Islam and democracy? Are they even compatible?
It seems that
there are four major groups with two broad agreements on this issue.
The first group from among (often Islamophobic) non-Muslims and the
second group from among Muslims (often westophobic) broadly agree -
albeit for different reasons - that Islam and democracy are
incompatible. The first group believes that Islam is inherently
autocratic and it lacks the philosophical and historical basis for
nurturing any viable democratic tradition. The second group believes
that democracy is a corrupt, manipulated system of the West and
theologically it is - in their view - inherently incompatible with
Islam.
The other two
groups also have a broad agreement on the opposite side. The first of
these two groups include non-Muslims (individuals and institutions)
who believe that Islam is quite compatible with democracy and, in the
interest of global peace and prosperity the current dysfunctional
state ought to be reframed on a democratic foundation. The last group
represents Muslims who also concur with their counterparts among
non-Muslims. These Muslims do not see any conflict between Islam and
democracy. Some would even go further and argue that democracy is
integral to the Islamic way of life. Thus, there are clusters of
perceptions and misperceptions and this is only a humble and partial
attempt to hopefully disentangle some of those.
Viewpoint #1:
Islam and democracy are incompatible
Non-Muslims who
argue that Islam and democracy are incompatible fall in two
subcategories. One group feels this way to assert or underscore that
democracy is a new, western value and institution. Some also are
afraid that a democratic outfit of the Muslim world might undermine
the current western domination. After all, these are barbaric and
backward people. Modern ideas are unsuitable to them. These people are
better suited for autocratic, repressive rules either under current
despots or the western puppets. This group of non-Muslims suffers from
acute Islamophobia based on their stereotypical understanding of Islam
and prejudiced viewpoint of the western interest.
Some non-Muslim scholars such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard
Lewis, take a pessimistic scholarly view that historically the Muslim
world has been under non-democratic rules for nearly fourteen
centuries, going back to the period that ended with the Rightly Guided
Caliphs, and thus a democratic culture has not been internally in
existence in the Muslim world. Also,
from their perspective, they find little support in the scripture or
ideology of Islam - as reflected in the Islamic history - to be
optimistic.
The Muslims who
agree with the above group that Islam and democracy are incompatible
has a different reason. They basically find any idea or institution of
western origin to be unpalatable. But going one step further, they
argue that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible because
of the difference in the concept of sovereignty. According to them, in
Islam sovereignty belongs to God alone. Human beings are mere
executors of His Will. On the other hand, in democracy (or, to be
precise, secular, western democracy), sovereignty belongs to people,
which in the view of these Muslims constitutes shirk or polytheism.
Many notable Muslim personalities, including Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi
(in his earlier writings), have rejected the secular western
democracy, at least at the philosophical level.
According to such perspective, "Islam, speaking from the
view-point of political philosophy, is the very antithesis of secular
Western democracy . . . [Islam] altogether repudiates the philosophy
of popular sovereignty and rears its polity on the foundations of the
sovereignty of God and the vicegerency (Khilafah) of man."
[Political Theory of Islam, in Khurshid Ahmad, ed. Islam: Its Meaning
and Message (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1976), pp. 159-161.]
Unfortunately,
even though in his later life his view about the compatibility between
Islamic political system and democracy was much more favorable and
positive, what Maududi articulated earlier as a philosophical
rejection of "secular western" democracy has been perceived
or upheld by many Muslims and non-Muslims as rejection of democracy
per se. It is not all too uncommon among Muslims, especially among
revivalist Muslims, that Khilafat is what defines the Islamic
political system, and they are not willing to trade or adjust Khilafat
with democracy in any way.
Are Islam and
democracy then incompatible? Well, the reality is that they are not.
The above view of Muslims are naïve and fallacious, and furthermore,
to a great extent, shaped by a sort of dogmatic label-orientation.
Viewpoint #2:
Islam and democracy are more than compatible!
There are many
among non-Muslims (individuals and institutions) who see no conflict
between Islam and democracy and they would like to see the Muslim
world pursue a path of change and transformation toward democracy.
Robin Wright, a
well-known American expert on the Middle East and the Muslim world
writes: "neither Islam nor its culture is the major obstacle to
political modernity". [Islam and Liberal Democracy, Journal of
Democracy, 1996, pp. 64-75].
In his magnum opus
"Asian Drama", Nobel Laureate Gunnar Myrdal identified a set
of "modernization ideals" that included democracy. In regard
to religion in general and Islam in particular, he had this to say:
"The basic doctrine of the old religions in the region -
Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism - are not necessarily inimical to
modernization. For example, Islamic, and less explicitly, Buddhist
doctrines are advanced to support reforms along the lines of
modernization ideals." [p. 78] If democracy is intimately related
to egalitarianism, he further comments: "Islam and Buddhism can
provide support for one of the modernization ideals in particular:
egalitarian reforms." [p. 80]
Confronting the
view of those who suggest the incompatibility, John O. Voll and John
L. Esposito, two bridge-builders between Islam and the West
articulate: "The Islamic heritage, in fact, contains concepts
that provide a foundation for contemporary Muslims to develop
authentically Islamic programs of democracy."
In explaining some
common western misperception, Graham E. Fuller (former Vice-Chairman
of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA) writes: "Most
western observers tend to look at the phenomenon of political Islam as
if it were butterfly in a collection box, captured and skewered for
eternity, or as a set of texts unbendingly prescribing a single path.
This is why some scholars who examine its core writings proclaim Islam
to be incompatible with democracy-as if any religion in its origins
was about democracy at all." [The Future of Political Islam in
Foreign Affairs, Mar-April, 2002; pp. 48-60]
Turning to their
own Islamic root and heritage, there are now a growing number of
voices among Muslims who are convincingly making the case that Islam
and democracy are not just compatible; rather, their association is
inevitable, because Islamic political system is based on Shura (mutual
consultation). Khaled Abou el-Fadl, Ziauddin Sardar, Rachid Ghannoushi,
Hasan Turabi, Khurshid Ahmad, Fathi Osman and most notably, Shaikh
Yusuf al-Qaradawi, are just to name a few among the contemporary
Islamic scholars and intellectuals who are arduously working to move
both the Muslim world and the West toward better mutual understanding
in regard to the relationship between Islam and democracy
The
hangover from semantics and labels
All the pertinent
discourses seem to hinge on labels that are stereotypically used by
various sides.
Democracy can be
defined as "government by the people; especially, rule of the
majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the
people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system
of representation usually involving periodically held free elections;
the common people especially when constituting the source of political
authority; the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions
or privileges". [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]
The reality is
that Islam is not only compatible with the above aspects that define
or describe democracy, but also that those aspects are essential to
Islam. If we can cut through the labels and semantics, we find that
Islamic governance, when distilled from all the extraneous aspects,
has at least three core features, based on the Qur'anic vision and
guidance on one hand and the experience under the Prophet (s) and the
Rightly Guided Caliphs on the other.
1.
CONSTITUTIONAL:
Islamic government
is essentially a "constitutional" government, where
constitution represents the agreement of the governed to govern by a
defined and agreed upon framework of rights and duties. For Muslims,
the source of the constitution is the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and anything
deemed relevant, effective, but not inconsistent with Islam. No
authority, except the governed, has the right to put away (abrogate)
or change such a constitution. Thus, Islamic governance can't be an
autocratic, hereditary or military rule. Such a system of governance
is egalitarian in nature, and egalitarianism is one of the hallmarks
of Islam. It is also widely acknowledged that the beginning of the
Islamic polity in Madinah was based on a constitutional foundation and
pluralistic framework involving non-Muslims as well.
2.
PARTICIPATORY:
An Islamic
political system is participatory. From establishing the institutional
structure of governance to operating it, the system is participatory.
It means that the leadership and the policies will be conducted on the
basis of full, gender-neutral participation of the governed through a
popular electoral process. Muslims can use their creativity using the
Islamic guidelines and human experience to date to institute, and
continuously refine, their processes. This participatory aspect is the
Islamic process of Shura (mutual consultation).
3.
ACCOUNTABLE:
This is an
essential corollary to a constitutional/participatory system. The
leadership and the holders of authority are accountable to people
within an Islamic framework. Islamic framework here means that all
Muslims are accountable to Allah and his divine guidance. But that is
more in a theological sense. The practical accountability relates to
people. Thus, the Khulafa ar-Rashidoon were both Khalifatur Rasool
(representative of the Messenger) as well as Khalifatul Muslimeen
(representative of the Muslims).
This point needs
further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of
Muslims in regard to democracy is based on the notion that in Islam
sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs to people.
This is a naïve and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the
true and ultimate Sovereign, but he has bestowed a level of freedom
and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has
decided not to function as the Sovereign in this world. He has blessed
humanity with revelations and his essential guidance. Muslims are to
shape and conduct their lives, individually and collectively,
according to that guidance. But even though essentially this guidance
is based on divine revelation, its interpretation and implementation
are human.
Whether people
will choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether
they will choose Islam or another path, it is a human decision.
Whether people will choose to organize their lives based on Islam or
not is a human decision. Whether Muslims would choose an Islamic form
of governance or not is a human decision. It can be argued that for
making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing negative
consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of
choice; there is no room for compulsion or imposition.
What happens when
the society and leadership faces a conflict? For example, if the
majority of the society does not want to uphold Islam, the leadership
cannot coerce the society into what it does not want. There is no
compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable
results, and the foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion. God
IS the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic reality, but not from
practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on
Ijtihad (and we could be wrong), where our constitution and policies
would be formulated through human consultation (and we can err), when
our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet,
based on the evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent
to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God is not acting as a
sovereign in this world. To think like that is not to show due and
full respect to the very freedom and responsibility that God has
entrusted us with.
Indeed, thinking
like this leaves room for big abuse, as someone or some institution
declares that God is the sovereign, and then they impose their own
rule or whims in the name of the sovereign. History is full of such
abuses, where Shariah has been enforced or allowed for the people, but
some powerful or privileged people remained above the Shariah. Even if
one person remains above such Shariah, that is not true rule of law or
Shariah at all.
Thus, based on the
above core features, it is important to recognize that Islam is
incompatible with monarchy, military rule, dictatorship, or any other
type of authoritarian political system. Islam envisions a
constitutional, participatory, and accountable system of governance.
This is the Islamic concept of Khilafat. However, we need to be less
concerned about terminology, label or semantics than substance.
In its fundamental
character based on those core features, there is no conflict between
democracy and Islamic political system, except that in an Islamic
political system people cannot call themselves Islamic while
themselves being in conflict with Islam. That is why Muslims should
not shun democracy in a general sense as conflicting with Islam;
rather, they should welcome it. , As Dr. Fathi Osman, one of the
leading Muslim intellectuals of our time, remarked: "democracy is
the best application of Shura."
This issue of
Islam and democracy is important not just for Muslims, but also for
the west. As Esposito argues, democracy in the west is arguably not a
model of perfection at the end of history; rather, a
reconceptualization of democracy is viewed as a continuous imperative.
"[S]ince we are not at the end of history and the United States
has not yet solved all of the problems of survival in a heterogeneous
world, it is as important for us to continually adapt to changing
conditions as it is for Muslims."
Esposito's well-articulated views are based on a
common-ground-seeking approach, not on a sophomoric "us vs.
them", or "good vs. evil". Rather, Esposito contends,
we ALL have something to benefit from each other in light of our human
experience.
Concluding
Remarks
The Muslims who
consider Islam and democracy to be incompatible need to discard their
biased position based on misperceptions. In addition, those who
consider these to be compatible need to jettison their apologetic
approach. If Muslims find adequate convergence between Islam and
democracy, it is not because some or many scholars - Muslims or
non-Muslims - think so and that they would like us to tread the path
of democracy. Rather, Islamic governance - a constitutional,
participatory and accountable form - is essentially based on the
consent of the people or those who are governed, and thus democratic.
The benefits of accumulated human experience are important to us
Muslims as well. However, our interest in Islamic governance, based on
people's consent, is not and should not be because the west wants us
follow them or because we need to modernize ourselves; rather, because
we need to cherish and uphold consent-based governance, founded on the
core principles and values of Islam.
April
/
May 2002
|
