About us

Contact Us

What's New ?

Events

Home > Islamic Monitor > Islamic Monitor 2 > Islam And Democracy

          Islam and Democracy

Where does Islam stand in regards to the concept of Democracy? Are Islam and democracy compatible with one another, or do they stand on opposite sides of the continuum? These questions have recently received increased attention due to the fact that the period following the collapse of the Soviet Union has seen the emergence of many movements towards a democratic governance. We must begin our inquiry by properly def defining the concept of democracy, then exploring its embodiment in Islamic teachings.

There is no single definition of democracy; however, it includes a number of basic principles. In his book Modern Islamic Political Thought, Hamid Enayat defines the framework of Democracy as follows: The recognition of the worth of every human being, irrespective of his or her qualities ,the acceptance of the necessity of law, that it is a set of definite or rational norms, to regulate all social relationships, the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their racial, ethnic and class distinctions, the justifiability of state decisions on unconventional and unorthodox opinions.”

The compatibility of Islam with these basic principles of democracy, rather than the West’s notion of democracy, is what must be determined. This reasoning is based in part on the fact that in order for democracy to survive, it has to be the product of an indigenous evolution of thought and experience. Borrowed political systems do not survive if they are forced upon a population by an educated, often Westernized, elite. While British, French, Swedish, or Norwegian democratic systems Distinguish themselves from each other, they all fall under the umbrella of democracy. Their diversity is due to the differences in the political cultures and historical experiences of the respective countries.

In societies where Islam has been the prevalent political culture for over a millennium, one should not expect the forms of democracy applied in other parts of the world to be easily adopted by them. Islam is indeed compatible with democracy in theory, but not necessarily as it is practiced by all democratic nations. Scholars seeking to construct a democratic government on modern Islamic theory are heartened to find concepts of equality in Islam similar to classical Western political thought. Democracy implies a system of government opposite to that of a dictatorship. An Islamic government bases its rule on Shari’a, a body of laws and regulations drawn from the Qur’ an and the traditions. Thus, Islam envisages a system of Government defined by set guidelines as opposed to personal whims. Islam requires that a government rules according to a defined law, adapted to the wishes of its people. This concept is demonstrated in the principles of Shura (consultation), Ijma’ (consensus), and Ijtihad (authoritative reasoning), wherein the latter allows for the constant reassessment of Islamic law, thus making Shari’a a dynamic system of governance adaptable to modern socio-political needs.

While it has been argued that Islam, because it is a nomocracy (i.e. ruled by God), has no provisions for a democratic process, the general consensus among Muslim intellectuals is that Islamic rules allow a solid foundation for a representative government. Some state that the Shari ‘a may be considered as a constitution which is accepted by the majority in a Muslim country. Whereas some details of the Shari ‘a are still under debate, there is an ecumenical consensus regarding the general principles and laws that are to govern an Islamic state. The points of contention arise from the different schools of thought within Islam itself. This contention is natural due to the fact that besides Shari's, which is the revealed law, Islam also use fiqh (jurisprudence) which is mans interpretation of the law. Moreover, there is a constant emergence of certain situations that need reinterpretation of the law. Thus, the constitution may be amended as judged fit by the institutions of the law.

There exists another, more recent faction of secularists who claim that Islam was never meant to be political. Their work is represented by Nazih Ayubi in his book Political Islam. These intellectuals point to the absence of explicit directives for a type of government .in the Qur’an. This opinion, while based on extensive, but not necessarily conclusive, study, fails to provide an acceptable doctrine. The fact is that the Qur’ an also speaks in general terms about the need for alms giving (zakat) and prayer (salat), however it does not give specific guidelines as to how to conduct these obligatory protocols. Thus Muslims turn to the Traditions to locate the proper manner in which to conduct them. The same is true with regards to the type of government that Islam envisages. The Qur’ an speaks of justice (‘Adl) and the needto apply it, but it does not describe the actual institutions that are needed. The guidelines for the institutions of an Islamic governance are found in the Traditions.

Principles of modern democracy and leadership can be found in Imam is letter to Malik al -Ashtar, the recommended governor of Egypt. In his letter, Imam Ali (AS.) stresses the importance of Islamic guidelines for political leadership guidelines that seem ignored in most modern Islamic states. They include:

1)    Respecting public opinion and responding to demands of the populace.

2)    Ruling for the public good, based upon the democratic majority rather than aristocratic, elitist,

minorities.          

3)     Opposing sectarian rule and division based upon ethnic or clan loyalty.

4)      Forming a consulting cabinet whose members are chosen based upon merit and qualification to  

 help run the affairs of the state.

There are numerous other guidelines that stress the need for a ruler to reject flattery and deification and who is merciful and compassionate in his rule. These qualities are clearly lacking in many leaders of modern Islamic states. Perhaps the most important of these guidelines is the one that emphasized the right and the duty of all Muslims to rise against tyrannical and oppressive rulers and to replace them with just and equitable ones.

Some critics attribute the failure of government in Muslim countries to Islam. However, when one reexamines history he discovers that since the assassination of Imam Au, (A.S.) and the rise to power of Muawiyah, the first Ummayid ruler, Islam has been continually exploited by dynasties and rulers to justify and legitimize their usurpation of peoples’ rights in order to maintain their privileges. Islam has never been allowed to manifest its democratic values. At the end of World War I, with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Allies used the mandate system to rule the vari­ous parts of the Islamic world. At the end of World War II, the process of decolonization resulted in the installation of puppet rulers and the imposition of unpopu­lar governments by colonial powers. In­stead of heeding the former colonies’ calls for independence and self-determination, the colonial powers deprived them of par­ticipating in the political process and of having any control over their destiny.

It is important to note that all move­ments toward independence from colonial occupation were pioneered by Islamic movements. These include, but are not limited to, the struggle of Ben-Badis and the Association of Algerian Ulama against the French, the heroic struggle and martyr­dom of Umar al-Mukhtar of Libya against the Italians, the Muntafiqtribal rebellion of the 1920s against the British in southern Iraq, which was inspired by calls from the Ulama of Najaf and Karbala. What we are witnessing now in the Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular is a state of turmoil in which the people are trying to regain what they have lost in terms of political control. So, once again, Islam is the catalyst for change and progress. The success of Islamic movements in af­fecting change in that part of the world cannot be attributed to the failure of leftist and national reform groups. Rather, its success can be viewed in terms of its ability to appeal to the masses and to meet the aspirations of the youth and intellectu­als by offering them a genuine alternative to the corrupt and decaying regimes planted in their history and culture deprives its people from participating in the political decision-making process can no longer be called truly Islamic. When maintained in its true form, Islam is conducive to demo­cratic rule. As proof, the most popular political systems in the Islamic world are those run by Islamic governments. In other regimes, whenever a democratic election is allowed, the results are in favor of the Islamic movement. This reflects the people’s confidence in Islam and its ability to end political and economic corruption, establish social justice, pro­tect human rights, and defend minorities.

For that reason, Western nations that truly believe in the message of democracy should stop brandishing it as a tool of intimidation or as a pretext for economic and military isolation for nations striving for independence and the establishment of their own form of democracy based on Islamic values, as Dr. John Esposito has keenly observed in his book, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? in which he states the following:

“In the post-Gulf War period, the struggle to articulate a New World Order has collided with an inability to move beyond the stereotypes and biases of the past. Exhilaration over the prospect of democratization in Eastern Europe contrasts sharply with the fear or at best silence of the U.S. government and indeed many in the West at the prospect of similar demands by Islamic populist movements in the Arab and broader Muslim world. The failure to speak out forcefully for democratization in the Middle East and to condemn government repression against Islamic movements in Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt in effect denies Islamic activists the political participation and human enjoyed by others and raises serious questions about a “selective” approach to democratization. At the heart of this approach is a tendency to define stability in terms of support for the status quo in Muslim countries, however much it may contradict democratic values.”

It is this tendency by Western governments to help maintain the status quo in the Arab and Muslim world Id, which entails the support of autocratic and regressive regimes, concomitant with a double standard in dealing with unjustifiably occupied lands in Kashmir, Bosnia, and Palestine, that have turned the Islamists to become bitter toward the West. It is the passionate desire of the Muslim masses to have their God-given democratic and human rights, and it is the constant suppression of those rights by unpopular governments, which are often supported by the “super powers that keep them from achieving those rights, rather than any pre-existing doctrine in Islam that is inherently anti-democratic. The question that must be examined, therefore, is not Democracy versus Islam, as some scholars, with latent political objectives (the likes of Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis), have put it, but rather Islam versus dictatorship and autocracy. Genuine scholars of the Muslim World must begin to answer this question, since scholars like those previously mentioned are intent upon putting the West on a crash course with Islam, the repercussions of which, if they are to succeed, are too grave to calculate.