Democracy and Muslim Countries
1.
I have gone through your note “Why has
democracy not taken root in most Muslim countries?” and your
conclusion that “The reason is Islam”, which you sent me about a
fortnight ago. Its contents does not surprise me at all because they
depict, as usual, your anti-Islamic propensity. You are, of course,
entitled to have your opinion against Islam but do reflect upon the
points below.
2.
Those with ideas similar to yours will certainly
find your opinion very well argued but, in fact, it is not and it
lacks logic and a wider outlook. Your writing appears to be a
collection of populistic ideas, which seeks to appeal to the
interests of a certain class of people – in short, playing to the
galleries. My reasons for reaching this conclusion are outlined in
the following paragraphs.
3.
Earliest forms of recorded democracy are known
to be around 6th century BC in ancient India(!) and
Vaishali (now Bihar) was the world’s first republic(!!). Around 4th
century BC, Greek philosophers also recorded the existence of
states, in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan (!!!), where “form
of government was democratic and not regal.” You see, very few
people are aware that Asia gave the notions of democracy to the
West!
4.
In the West democracy takes its roots in
“Athenian Democracy” which was prevalent in Athens around the 5th
century. The word is coined from Greek “demos” meaning people,
ordinary people, mob, and “kratia” meaning power, rule.
5.
Plato, if I remember correctly, enumerated four
kinds of governments and specified that each kind has two faces: a
good one and a bad one. For him, out of the four, the best kind of
government was that of the people. He considered democracy as the
bad form of this kind of government – the good form was the
government by the philosophers (say, highly learned people).
6.
That it is the bad form of the best kind of
government should not come as a surprise as in modern psychology it
is taught that the intelligence quotient of a group of people (of a
mob), is always low. So much so for those who deify democracy and
the “sovereign will of the people”.
7.
The other big problem with democracy (government
of the people, not the philosophers) is that it is based upon
“Institutionalized Opposition.” Whatever the other party does,
it has to be opposed. I observed this and learnt this lesson during
the period of 1960’s and 70’s. In UK, the Labour Party Prime
Minister Harold Wilson wanted to join the European Common Market at
the end of 60’s. He was opposed by the Conservative leader Edward
Heath. When Heath became Prime Minister, now he wanted to join the
ECM, but now Harold Wilson opposed it. Wilson was once again elected
Prime Minister in 1974, and once again changed his stance and joined
the ECM. Sic!
8.
Now for the notion of “sovereign people”,
“sovereign power”, making their own “sovereign laws”. As a
scientist you must know that a fundamental standard or a criterion
must be fixed and should not be changed according to place or time.
A constantly changing standard is irrational, unjust and an outrage
to common sense. This is the great advantage of “Divine Laws”
that they are immutable. People’s laws, on the other hand, change
and you have no fixed reference in a society. For example,
homosexuality was a crime in Britain, but about forty years ago
House of Lords voted that it will no longer be considered a crime.
And those who were held responsible under the old law? Was it right?
Was it wrong? [The debate here is not if homosexuality is right or
wrong; the crux of the matter is the changing of laws being made
subservient to the will of the majority – which is always biased,
on the right or on the left, on the extreme right or the extreme
left, of the political spectrum.] And these changes in laws can go
on. What if the people decide to decriminalize bestiality or incest?
In people’s (mob’s) government they have the right and they may
do it but I wonder if in people’s (philosophers’) government,
they would do it.
9. Early Islamic history also showed four different
kinds of governments. The selection of a candidate, and then his
acceptance through allegiance by the community; this was the case
with the First Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr. The nomination of a
candidate and then his acceptance by the community; this was the
case with Hazrat Umar. The nomination of a panel of candidates and
then the selection of one, followed by his acceptance by the
community; this was the case of Hazrat Usman. The direct selection
of a candidate by the community and his acceptance; this was the
case of Hazrat Ali.
10.
I fail to understand why for you “to accept a
nominated or selected ruler by allegiance is not a democratic
election.” Why not? You consider the above Islamic forms
undemocratic because you are obsessed with the actual definition of
democracy. The essential is not a certain form of government or a
certain pattern of the election procedure, considered to be the best
by a group, and which should be imposed upon each and every one. The
well-being of the society and of the people should be the ultimate
goal of a system of government. What does it matter if this is
achieved by any other form of government, even if it is not what you
call democratic, in your terms?
11.
A society can not, and should not, be judged by
the values prevalent in other societies. For example, a person given
to alcoholic drinks is considered bad in Muslim societies, rightly
so, for he does something which is not accepted by the cultural
values prevalent in his society, by the laws of the society, and by
the laws of the religion of his society. However, in the West, it
will be wrong to consider everyone who is drinking as bad. For this
act is accepted by his society, by his religion and by the prevalent
laws in the place. So do not be under the impression that democracy,
only as it is known in the West, should be established in all Muslim
countries. It is as ridiculous as saying that women in Muslim
societies will progress only if they start wearing skirts and
clothes as women do in the West.
12.
The problem of government in the Muslim World
began with the usurpation of political power by their leaders who
made it hereditary. This was quite probably because of the influence
of all other surrounding societies which presented a model in which
ruled kings and absolute monarchs. Islam
has nothing to do with this deviation of political power becoming a
“Family Affair”.
13.
When democratic ideas began spreading in the
West, around the 19th century, at that moment all the
Muslim countries were subjugated by the Western Colonial Powers.
They had really no intention of imparting true democratic values to
their colonies. With the actual democratic system of one man - one
vote, they would have been democratically voted out of power
immediately; for example, the British in India, the French in
Algeria, etc. The system that they introduced in their colonies was
a very diluted form of democracy where some administrative branches
were democratized but absolute power was above democracy. They were
not interested in introducing true democracy, they were primarily
interested in preserving their power. Unfortunately, this system
that we were given as a model is still being followed by the now
independent colonies under unscrupulous leaders who want to maintain
their sway at all costs. Islam
has nothing to do with it.
14.
Now to conclude. I firmly believe that the
primordial reason that there is no democracy in the Third World
Countries, be they Muslim or non-Muslim states, is the suppression
of the intellectual development of the masses (this, mainly by the
French, Spanish and Portuguese) and then the model of Absolute
Authority being above democratic values (this by all Colonial and
Imperial Powers). Islam has
nothing to do with it.
15.
So you are wrong when you say that the foremost
single factor for the absence of democracy is Islam. As I said in §
2, you did not widen your scope of study before giving your
anti-Islamic conclusion. I wonder if you did it deliberately to
malign Islam! Islam is not the bane, the main reasons have been
given above in § 14.
16.
How else can you explain the fact that democracy also did not take roots
in Latin America and in most Black African countries? All the
dictatorial regimes there, and their societies are not Islamic; they
are Christian (strongly Catholic) or animist. The foremost common factor of lack of democracy in Muslim countries,
therefore, is not Islam, but the outcome of the intellectual
suppression in the colonies and the self-serving “democratic
rule” of the Colonial Powers that helped them to stay in command
as long as possible.
17.
Eventually, I recommend to you an important
treatise on the theory of Islamic State. This is written by Abu
Nasar Muhammad Al-Farabi, a 10th century Muslim
philosopher (not a theologian!). The book is Al-Madina Al-Fadila (Madina
Fazila in Urdu, The Ideal State in English), or at least the
detailed commentary on it by E.I.J. Rosenthal in “Political
Thoughts in Medieval Islam,” Cambridge University Press, 1958.
Mustayeen
Ahmed Khan
Angers,
May 12, 2006
|