|
We are living in a
world desperately dismal with rampant lack of respect for others'
life, property, dignity and valid aspirations. Yet the professed
values of different sections of humanity are not yet depleted of their
true potentials. It is unfortunately the distorted application of
those values that oftentimes precludes the realization of their
potentials. Democracy is no exception. "Democratic values"
is a very widely used statement of our time. Yet it is one of the most
misunderstood and most abused. A proper understanding, internalization
and practice of the democratic values by the members of the society in
general, and the privileged few in particular is very important for
democracy to bear palatable fruits.
In the backdrop of
the current hopelessness, if attaining peace and harmony is one of the
most coveted goals of any civilized collective human entity, then it
can be safely said that neither disrespecting the view of the
objectively informed majority nor undermining the importance of
genuine divine guidance will ever help achieve this goal. Democracy,
insofar as it is used in the sense of the majority's rule whenever
warranted, is a valuable tool in making decisions on issues where
people are not unanimous.
But does unanimity
necessarily imply correctness? One should not forget that
indiscriminate use of the majority's rule could bring about more harm
than good to any system. Literal application of the concept of
democracy without any regard to divine guidance and scruples of
conscience can be disastrous. Suddenly, a scene depicting a widely
told story flashed into my mind - a group of boys pelting stones at
frogs beside a pond. In the story all the boys agreed on doing
something together for fun - killing frogs. Theoretically speaking the
boys behaved in a so-called democratic way. But what they did based on
the consensus of everybody in the group was purely incorrect and
unethical. Most people would blame the boys' lack of maturity for what
they did. But do we adults behave maturely enough so as to avoid
consensus on committing unethical things? Many of us would rather try
to manipulate public opinion to redefine ethics than saying
"no" to the dictates of our whims. An allegedly democratic
system can very easily degenerate into a rule of the mob in the
absence of a set of enduring values that constitute the essence of
that system. Continuation of a system's existence depends intimately
on its very essence The Ethical essence of a just system cannot be
subjected to the majority's voting every now and then. But there are
so many issues and problems of practical life of a nation for which
invoking public opinion should be the norm. Otherwise, in the name of
safeguarding essence of the just system, a section of the people will
try to perpetuate their grip on the power. Provision for correcting
and changing the government for betterment of the society is a must
for a system's viability. Democracy offers a viable mechanism for
this.
Democracy is not
cheap, but it should not be audacious either. Vox populi vox Dei (the
voice of the people is the voice of God) may sound very attractive as
a slogan against despotic theocracies, but people's voice that revolts
against the Wisdom of a Caring, Compassionate and Just God is
certainly misguided. In
today's world, for instance, the popular voice of one country can be
invoked without immediate accountability to build an edifice of
prejudice and injustice against another country - all in the hallowed
name of democracy. Centuries-old and time-tested moral values and
norms are being declared as regressive and irrelevant by moral
relativists apt at manipulating public opinion. All adherents of
democracy have a sacred responsibility to watch that it is not cheaply
used for undermining precious values and institutions.
That democracy is
a double-edged sword like so many other institutions and systems of
human achievement can hardly be overemphasized. The essential sequence
of any democratic process consists, among others, of at least three
dimensions, namely, freedom of speech, respect for others' opinions,
and majority's rule. Unfortunately in many democratic systems the
effective freedom of speech eludes the majority. It is the privileged
few belonging to the elites, special interest groups and lobbyists
who, equipped with money and all the blessings of the technological
developments of communication media, and above all an attitude of
exclusivism, are engaged relentlessly in "manufacturing
consent" (using Noam Chomsky's terms) for their respective
agenda. The practically mute majority has no other choice than being
convinced. This exclusivism and elitism at the level of effective
freedom of speech makes "respect for others' opinions" a
redundant dimension, because of the automatic reduction in the number
of "others". As to the final dimension of "majority's
rule", yes, it is the statistical strength of the
"convinced" majority that prevails. Therefore, we see that
an excellent institution like democracy loses a great deal of its
raison d'etre in the absence of some guiding principles like
sincerity, justice, true respect for others etc. which can only be
nurtured in an ethically strong environment, in an environment where
forces inspiring peace and harmony are stronger than those
manufacturing consent for ulterior agenda. For a democracy to be able
to stand for people's rule, divine guidance is a sine qua non.
Whenever the lust of a small section of the society for
"-cracy" (ruling, governing etc.) overwhelms their
perception of the true well being of the "demo-" (people),
democracy loses all its appeal.
A distinction has
to be made between democracy as an exclusive philosophy of life and
worldview and democracy as a methodology. Whereas the latter should be
an important component in the decision-making mechanism of any
collective entity, starting from the family to the international
community, the former can be reasonably perceived as directly
conflicting with the worldview of some sections of the people. The
reason is that not everyone can accept human beings as the sole and
supreme legal authority thus rendering God's role irrelevant in their
practical life. Therefore, when democracy is pushed beyond a useful
methodology to assume the dimension of a philosophy and worldview, it
can no more be viewed by everyone as an unmingled blessing.
Paradoxically, those who look up to democracy as the prime solution of
all the problems of humanity totally disregarding the necessity of any
divine guidance, and those (including many Muslims) who want to reject
any and all shades of democracy saying it is incompatible with their
belief, are both neglecting the above-mentioned essential distinction.
Democracy in the methodological sense - consulting others before
deciding - is highly recommended and required in the decision-making
mechanism in Islam. The Qur'an describes those deserving lasting bliss
in the Hereafter as, among other things, "those who conduct their
affairs by mutual consultation (Shura)" (The Qur'an, 42:38).
The scope of the Qur'anic term Shura (consultation) is vast. It
covers the widest possible range of human activities and institutions,
from a group of travelers to a whole nation. The beauty of the
institution of Shura is that it is democratic, yet it does not
challenge the prerogative and precedence of God in certain matters. A
one hundred percent consensus of a whole people cannot legalize
drinking alcohol and gambling in Islam because God prohibited them in
the first place. Whether
we term it consultation or democracy (in the methodological sense),
maintaining the institution requires the cultivation of certain values
on our part. Taqwa (God-consciousness) and Adl (justice) are two key
values that should not be neglected. Consultation based on
God-consciousness and justice will be far more productive than
ulterior agenda-driven propaganda One may contend that
God-consciousness is an abstract thing. But my question is: are not
the casualties of lack of it concretely observable? Indeed flagrant
violations of the noble concept of "justice for all" in all
parts of the world are all too apparent. God says,
"O you who
believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses; and let not the
enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is
nearer to piety; and fear Allah. Verily Allah is Well-Acquainted with
what you do." (The Qur'an, 5:8)
Yes, standing out
firmly as just witnesses is a pre-requisite for a responsible
democratic system to continue bearing fruit. An environment that
nurtures the inner human urge for wishing justice to prevail has to be
maintained. It is not easy, especially when forces active against the
very concept of justice and fairness have already monopolized their
hold on the rein of affairs of a system. Assuring human dignity and
effective freedom of speech is indispensable for democratic processes
to be meaningful. The world has already seen enough of their
travesties. Let conscience imbued with true God-consciousness and
ultimate accountability triumph over our greed for power and hatred
for others when we voice our opinion in a democratic process. Our
freedom of speech is more of a sacred responsibility than a license
for spreading prejudice and hate and "manufacturing
consent". Let inspiring peace and harmony through human dignity
and justice be the driving force of all democratic institutions, and
let the hate-mongering quarter take a back seat.
April
/
May 2002
|
