ON ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY IN MUSLIM WORLD

Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer
(Islam and Modern Age, April, 2001)

In a T.V. programme senior editor of a well-known national daily
threw a question at me why Islam is so undemocratic? It spurred me to
write this article. The question must be answered. Is Islam
undemocratic by nature of its teachings? Why no Muslim country has
democratic set up? Almost all-Muslim countries are governed either by
kings, sheikhs, military dictators or have semi-democratic set up?
This is an important question, which must be satisfactorily answered.
More important question in this respect is: Is Islam responsible for
this state of affairs of Muslims? Can any religion be democratic or
undemocratic? Or its followers make it so.
No religion, in my opinion, should be construed as democratic or
undemocratic. Any religion is rooted in a social structure, not
necessarily of its creation. A religion does give a vision of a new
society transcending the given society but hardly succeeds in totally
subverting the status quo. The new vision given by a religion
succeeds or fails depending on how powerful are the vested interests
controlling the society in which a religion is borne. Stronger the
vested interests more difficult it is to change the status quo. Not
only that new vested interests develop in the new society which comes
into existence based on new vision. New vested interests developed in
the Islamic society also, as we will see while dealing with the
subject further. The Qur'anic teachings are highly supportive of
democratic way of functioning. The Prophet (PBUH) himself was
required by Allah to consult his companions on worldly matters [wa
shawirhum i.e. consult them (your companions)].
Islam was borne in a society in which there was no formal political
structure or the state machinery. It was essentially a tribal society
without any ruler or formal state structure. It had no written laws,
only tribal customs. Islam gave to that society not only a new vision
more humane and guaranteeing freedom of conscience but also gave
detailed laws both written and oral. The Prophet of Islam gave laws
through his pronouncements, in addition to what was contained in the
Qur'an. This new vision of a society was far from being
authoritarian. The Prophet (PBUH) himself was essentially a true
democrat in his behaviour. He never imposed his opinion on others
except in matters of deen. He even discouraged his followers from
asking many questions as his pronouncements will then become binding
on them. He did not allow anyone to bow before him or even to stand
up by way of respect when he enters the room.
He showed great respect for human dignity irrespective of a perso's
social status. His intention was to set up a society without any
concept of social hierarchy. In those days it was really a
revolutionary step. No society was without social hierarchy in those
days. Even modern democracies have social hierarchy of their own.
Modern democracies theoretically accord equal rights to all citizens
but some citizens are more privileged than other citizens. The
Islamic vision admitted of no such privileges. Even a black slave
could claim same privileges as any other Muslim. It was not for
nothing that the Prophet appointed a black liberated slave Bilal to
be his moazzin (caller to the prayer), a high honour envied by many
of his companions enjoying higher status in society. The Prophet did
so to set an example. A truly democratic society should not only
accord equal opportunities to all citizens and make them equal before
law but should see that it is so in practice. In fact more p!
rivileged citizens are more equal than other less privileged
citizens. While Islam tried to set up a society truly democratic in
spirit the Prophet of Islam practised this rigorously to set an
example before others. He knew that some people will claim more
privileges and tried to discourage them from doing so. He gave great
importance to Ashab-e-Suffa who were quite poor and of low origin
socially speaking but were highly dedicated to the cause of Islam.
The Prophet himself never assumed any political powers. He was
essentially a spiritual guide who commanded a tremendous respect. His
concept of ummah was also inclusive one. He included Jews, idol
worshipers and Muslims in it. He gave them full freedom to follow
their respective faith without any constraint. This was also most
modern democratic approach. They were accorded equal rights in all
matters along with equal obligation to defend the city of Medina when
attacked. In no sense they were unequal citizens in the Medinese
society.
However, the Muslim states today treat non-Muslims as secondary
citizens and deprive them of equal rights. The modern democratic
society accords Muslims wherever they are in minority equal political
rights. But the Muslim countries, not all, but many, do not do so. It
is not the question of reciprocation but of principle. Moreover the
Prophet himself has set an example in this respect. He never gave any
hint of treating non-Muslims as less privileged in any manner.
Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, a noted Alim from Darul Ulum Deoband,
inferred from the Prophet's sunna that a composite nation state is in
keeping with the teachings of Islam.
Thus the Prophet's sunna quite inspiring for Muslims in this respect.
Unfortunately feudalising of Islam changed all this. Social hierarchy
became the central principle of organisation of society and Muslims
and non-Muslims both became subjects rather than citizens enjoying
equal rights. We will throw more light on this as we proceed further.
The institution of slavery also got reinforced though Islam had put
so much emphasis on emancipating the slaves. The transcendent concept
of Islam was to abolish slavery. Instead the status quoits concept of
rigid social and political hierarchy remained in place. The alien
values became part of Islamic society and were legitimised by
invoking Islam.
A new society did begin to emerge in first few years of Islam.
However, the process of emergence of this society did not last long.
The Umayyads, who belonged to a clan a clan within the tribe of
Quraysh, managed to capture power and converted a proto-democratic
society into a feudal hierarchical one. The Prophet had enjoyed an
immense moral authority but he never converted it into formal
political power. He was succeeded by four Caliphs referred to as
rightly guided Caliphs as they, despite tremendous problems tried to
follow the vision of Islam and always consulted Muslims before taking
any important policy decision. Though formally it was not a
democratic society in the sense modern societies are, it was
democratic in spirit during the first thirty years of rightly guided
caliphs.
However, during this period vested interests of different kinds began
to emerge throwing the society into political turmoil and this
turmoil resulted in assassination of 3rd and fourth caliphs (though
second caliph was also assassinated but by a slave labourer about a
wage dispute). The causes of this political turmoil have been
examined at great length by an Egyptian scholar Dr.Taha Husain in his
book Al-Fitnat al-Kubra (The Great Insurrection). He throws light in
great detail how the Muslim society was divided into various groups,
Qurayshis, non-Qurayshis, Ansaris, non-Ansaris, Umayyads and
non-Umayyads, Arabs, non-Arabs and so on.
Their political and economic interests clashed with each other and
helped create great crisis in the early Islamic society. It was this
crisis which not only resulted in civil war in which more than
100,000 Muslims died but also the Islamic vision of a just democratic
society was destroyed. Hazrat Ali tried his best to restore this
vision once again but did not succeed and political power ultimately
went into the hands of Mu`awiyah, a shrewd ruler, who converted
khilafah into a dynastic rule by appointing his son Yazid as his
successor.
On account of these tumultuous social and political conditions the
Umayyads succeeded in capturing power. They shifted the capital to
Damascus in Syria formerly ruled by the Byzantine Empire and adopted
Byzantine ways, which were thoroughly feudal. The Islamic society
which was quite democratic in spirit became feudal and hierarchical
through and through. Mu`awiyah had adopted Byzantinian royal ways and
began to sit on throne and wear expensive clothes and constructed
palace for himself to live in and made courtiers to stand with folded
hands before hi when he was governor of Syria during Hazrat Umar s
time. Hazrat Umar had even admonished him for adopting Byzantinian
royal ways. However, he got away by saying that in this part it will
not be possible to rule without adopting the Byzantinian ways. The
people are used to those ways. Thus he legitimised his adoption of
royal ways in flagrant contradiction to Islamic ways and Prophet's
sunnah.
The only challenge came from the grandson of the Prophet who
challenged the authority of Yazid who became the first ruler of
Islamic world by virtue of feudal principle of succession rather than
elective [principle like the first four caliphs. When Imam Hasan took
over as fifth Caliph after assassination of Hazrat Ali in Kufa his
assumption of power was endorsed through bay`ah by all prominent
Muslims of the time. No one hesitated to do so. But soon conspiracies
began by Mu`awiyah to destabilise his rule and at last he agreed to
abdicate in Mu`awiya s favour on certain conditions. One of the
conditions was that he will not appoint his son as next caliph and
leave the matter to Muslims to decide. Mu`awiya apparently agreed to
this condition but ultimately nominated his son Yazid and this was
beginning of what Maulana Maududi calls mulukiyyat in his book
Khilafat Aur Mulukiyyat.
However, When Yazid ascended the throne Imam Husain refused to
endorse his assumption of power through bay`ah and decided to oppose
his rule. There was conspiracy to assassinate him in Madina by Yazid
s forces and hence he left Madina and went to Iraq in response to
Kufan people to lead them in fight against illegitimate rule of
Yazid. However, the people of Kufa betrayed him as they had betrayed
his illustrious father and brother. Imam Husain was besieged by Yazid
s forces in Karbala and his mighty forces were no match for Imam
Husain's handful supporters who, like the Imam himself, were all
martyred in Kerbala. Thus Islamic revolution came under the shadow of
Umayyad counter-revolution. The Islamic values of democracy and
justice were pushed aside and now dynastic rule and oppression ruled
the roost. Umayyads came to acquire a political clout and became most
privileged people as against other Muslims. All believers were no
more equal in practice though in theory they conti!
nued to be so.
The Islamic democracy as prevailed in the days of the Holy Prophet
and the four caliphs could not be revived again. All succeeding
regimes in the Arab as well as non-Arab world were dynastic and had
nothing to do with elective principle. Islamic political culture got
more and more feudalised. Perhaps it was historical necessity. There
were feudal regimes all around and an attempt, howsoever earnest, to
create a democratic political culture could not have succeeded in
such feudal universe. It could succeed in Arabia of the Prophet's
time for two reasons one spiritual and another material. The
spiritual reason was the Prophet's sincerity and truthfulness (he was
known as sadiq and amin i.e. truthful and trustworthy even before he
proclaimed his revelatory message to the people of Mecca). His
commitment to a just society ensuring human dignity was beyond any
ken of doubt.
The material reason was tribal nature of Arabian Peninsula where
there was no agricultural production and canal system requiring a
centralised rule and appropriation of surplus from peasantry. In fact
both in Mecca and Madina no governmental machinery existed no police
force, no army, judiciary or bureaucracy of any kind at all. But when
Islam spread to Byzantinian and Sassanid areas a rich agricultural
civilisation existed there with feudal political culture. And soon
the centre of gravity of Islam shifted to these agriculturally rich
areas and political Capitals were established in Damascus and
Baghdad. Mecca and Madina became holy cities of Islam and retained
only religious significance and politically lost out to
agriculturally fertile areas with more revenue gathering
potentialities.
Thus khilafah became merely symbolic and feudal dynastic rule became
substantive in nature. The Muslim rulers symbolically assumed
caliphal robes but did not adhere to its elective principle at all.
Nor did they consult Muslims, like the earlier for Caliphs, while
taking policy decisions. Even their un-Islamic decisions were got
endorsed by the Ulama either through coercion or inducement and if
they refused they were severely persecuted. This is why Imam Ghazzali
advises Muslims not to see the face of such rulers.
`The Islamic society thereafter never saw the return of early
Caliphate period despite several attempts by idealists. Muslim
society was thoroughly feudalised. Though the rulers in Islamic world
often styled themselves as caliphs but in fact they were kings and
emperors i.e. absolute rulers. These political developments also had
its impact on Islamic jurisprudence in many ways. The `Ulama, who
interpreted the Qur'an and hadith did so under the influence of
feudal values. Many of them went against the spirit of Islam and
justified the feudal hierarchy and monarchical system. The few who
resisted were isolated and lost out. The `Ulama who sided with
monarchy were often referred to as `Ulama-i-su i.e. bad `Ulama but
they wielded political clout.
The `Ulama with integrity and character could not save early
political structure of Islam though they had greater moral authority.
The Islamic world was ruled by corrupt and power hungry monarchs and
kings. The western imperialism in nineteenth century could not make
much difference as the imperialist powers reinforced these Muslim
rulers for their own selfish interests. The Islamic society was so
thoroughly feudalised that even during the imperialist rule no
charismatic mass leader emerged on the scene in any Muslim country.
Even Jamaluddin Afghani, a charismatic figure in nineteenth century,
had different priorities. He was more interested in pan-Islam and
even wanted to take help from feudal monarchies like the Ottomans to
overthrow the western imperialist powers from Islamic world. Thus
rather than succeeding he became victim of conspiracies hatched by
Ottomans.
The Wafd party of Egypt did throw a limited democratic challenge to
the British rule and thanks to this democratic movement Egypt has a
semblance of democracy today. However, it is also far from real
democracy. Jamal Abd al-Nasir had a vision but he too centralised
power in order to bring changes and reforms and that centralisation
of power defeated that very purpose. His successors like Sadat did
not have that vision also and became even more authoritarian.
The entire Arab world lacks any mass leader of any calibre as the
authoritarian rulers use highly repressive policies and do not allow
any such leader to emerge. What is more disturbing is that the `Ulama
in these countries are supporting the ruling establishment and using
Islam to legitimise the authoritarian rule. Any movement for human
rights is condemned as western conspiracy against Islam though human
dignity and freedom of conscience is central to the teachings of
Qur'an. Iran has been holding regular elections but there too the
orthodox `Ulama have their stranglehold over judiciary and without
free judiciary democracy remains nominal. Khatami s supporters who
are reformists are being persecuted and many papers with reformist
orientation are being shut down by the orthodox judiciary in Iran.
They are undergoing harrowing times.
Malaysia too has limited democracy and Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohammaed dubs human rights as a western conspiracy. There is no real
democratic freedom in Malaysia. Malaysia s is semi-democratic
semi-authoritarian political set up. Indonesia remained for long
under military rule and has now come under democratic spell but is
undergoing a great political turmoil. It will take quite sometime for
democracy to stabilise as powerful vested interests are out to
sabotage it to re-establish their dictatorship.
It is thus social and economic conditions, which are more responsible
for lack of democracy in the Islamic world and not Islamic teachings.
However, the Muslim intellectuals must reflect seriously on the
question as to why still Muslim countries have not been able to usher
in true democracy despite the claim that Islam is most democratic in
spirit. Without democratising the Muslim world no worthwhile changes
can be ushered in. Absence of democracy means subjugation of Muslim
masses and modern reforms will not be possible without ushering in
democratic governance.
And democratic governance is not possible without ensuring freedom of
conscience, which does not exist in any Muslim country worth the
name. Any independence of thinking even in religious matters is
violently suppressed. The Islamic shari`ah is sought to be enforced
mechanically completely overlooking its real spirit of justice and
human dignity. The principle of ijtihad is also discouraged by the
`Ulama saying there is no one having that qualification.
The Islamic shari`ah was compiled in a different social and political
environs and most of the inferences were drawn by the `Ulama in their
own socio-political conditions and hence needs to be reformulated.
The inferences drawn by the `Ulama or fuqaha cannot be treated as
divine. The expert jurists and modern lawyers need to come together
to change some of the shari`ah laws in the sphere of what is called
mu`amalat (i.e. interpersonal relations). The very foundational
principle of democracy is, as pointed out above, freedom of
conscience and freedom of conscience is not possible without
re-thinking issues of mu`amalat which also include relations between
the two sexes. The shari`ah laws, as they obtain today, are heavily
loaded against women and sexual equality is an integral part of
democratic culture. Some of the Muslim countries do not permit women
to vote in the name of Islam.
The overall approach of the Qur'an is of sexual equality but the
shari`ah reflects the medieval ethos and women are at a disadvantage.
If democracy is ushered in, in Muslim countries women s issues will
become quite central. Women s movements are strong even today in
those Muslim countries, which have some semblance of democracy. Women
scholars and activists would like to re-think issues in shari`ah and
evolve a new gender just culture in Muslim societies.
Many Muslim countries have substantial non-Muslim populations. In
democratic governance it is necessary but not enough to ensure
freedom of religion. The non-Muslims should also be ensured equal
democratic and political rights. Muslim minorities enjoy equal
political rights in several of non-Muslim or secular countries. This
must be ensured to non-Muslims in Muslim countries not for the sake
of reciprocation but on principle. However, in most of the Muslim
countries even Muslims do not enjoy democratic rights, let alone
non-Muslims. Separate electorate, if it exists in any country, should
also be done away with. It breeds discriminatory practices. There
should be a joint electorate for all Muslims or non-Muslims.
Lastly, respect for human rights is highly necessary in a democratic
political culture. Without human rights culture there cannot be a
truly democratic culture. Muslim intellectuals should ceaselessly
strive to ensure human rights for all citizens in Islamic countries.
It is this human rights culture which will strengthen democratic
forces and do away with feudal culture which privileges some people
over others.