Is Islamic Political Thought a Democracy or Not - Essay Example

? TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK THAT ISLAMIC POLITICAL THOUGHT CAN BE RECONCILED WITH DEMOCRACR? BY HENRY NABEA SUMMARY To what extent do you think that Islamic political thought and democracy can be reconciled? In order to give an objective and unbiased answer to this question, we first need to analyse the meanings of the concepts democracy and the Islamic political thought. After the analysis, we then compare whether the fundamental tenets of democracy and the Islamic political thought are reconcilable or not, and to what extent can they be reconciled if any. This paper, therefore, evaluates and analysis the meaning of democracy and the Islamic political thought and draws comparisons between the tenets of these two different political systems. In the analysis, different theories of democracy in the western world are given, and also, different approaches of Muslims to democracy are analysed. Then, after analysing one of the common arguments on Islam and democracy, an argument is built to show that the basic tenets of democracy and Islamic political thought are incompatible, and therefore, Islamic political thought and democracy are not compatible. Finally, a conclusion is made based on the findings in the paper. To what extent do you think that Islamic political thought can be reconciled with democracy? Before we explore and critically evaluate both arguments for and against the idea that Islam and democracy are, indeed, incompatible, it is necessary to first define and explain Islamic political thought, and the meaning of Democracy in the western world. This will enable us to give an objective and well considered opinion on the issue. First, let us look at the Islamic political thought as elucidated and practiced by Islamic movements such as Islamic brotherhood. The Islamic brotherhood movement, also known as, Hizb al-Ikhwan al-Muslimum, is one of the oldest and largest Islamic movements in the world, known for a supporting Jihad war all over the world (Muslim Brotherhood Movement, online). Some of the main objectives of this movement are to promote the socio-political integration of all Muslims in the world, to protect Islam as a religion, and to promote the economic well-being of all the Muslims in the world. However, besides these noble objectives of the movement, the main object of the Islamic Brotherhood movement is to subjugate the entire world to the Sharia law, which is the main Islamic law. The motto of the movements clearly summarizes the main objective of the movement (Muslim Brotherhood movement, online): Allah is our objective The prophet is our leader The Quran is our law Jihad is our way Dying in the way of Allah is our highest Hope. As it is clear from this motto, for the adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Allah is the supreme leader of the Muslims and Sharia is the main law or the constitution of the Muslims. And, although, the Muslim Brotherhood movement has exhibited some elements of extremism and has been severely criticised, the movement, however, espouses many real Islam ideals on politics and governance. The term Islam itself means submission (Dahmus, 1968). Islam as a religion requires its followers to unquestionably follow the guidelines of Allah, in all aspects of their lives, as given in the Holy book of the Muslims, the Quran. For this reason, even in matters of governance and politics, Muslims are supposed to follow the dictates of their Holy Book. And according to Quran, Allah is the sovereign ruler of the Muslims, and Sharia, given by Allah, is the constitution of the Muslims. Having explained the Islamic political thought, let us now turn to the Western theories of democracy, so as to compare the two political ideologies to find out whether they are compatible or not. Of recent years, democracy has been associated with the western world. However, the idea of Democracy was first mooted by the Greeks. According to Aristotle, one of the ancient Greek scholars and a severe critique of democracy, democracy is a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people (Nichomachean Ethics, online). This therefore means that in a democratic state or nation, the people are the sovereign and they are the ones who determine who will rule and how they will be ruled. In democracy, the citizens have the power to legislate or to influence the drafting of their constitution. And since the citizens in a state are bound to differ on many matters, in a democracy, it is, usually, the majority’s opinion that carries the day in making critical decisions. So, the majority in a democratic country are the ones who determine who will rule them and how they will be ruled. In the western world, three main theories of democracy have emerged (Theories of Democracy, online). The following are the three theories of democracy in the western world. The first theory is the Majoritarianism theory of democracy. And according to this theory, during elections, the will of the half of the citizens in a country determines the democratic option. So, for instance, in presidential elections, the candidate who gets half of the total votes cast becomes the president. This form of democracy is used in many western countries including the USA and England. But the main setback of this form of democracy is that, the majority can exclude the minority and deprive them of their intrinsic rights. Also, there is a single electoral event in this form of democracy and the state/nation cannot revise decisions after elections. The second theory of democracy is the Proceduralism This theory of democracy is characterised, first, by the repetitive elections whereby the polity or the state has the right to revise decisions after the elections. Also, Proceduralism is marked by the rights to political expression. This means that the citizens are free to express their ideas and divergent opinions as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other citizens by doing so. There are also strong institutions that are meant to preserve the rights of the future state/polity. So, although the majority still are pivotal in determining the political option, their decisions are not absolute. This is because the state can still revise their decisions and if need be hold an election again. A good example of a country that uses this form of democracy is USA whereby after presidential elections, it is the Electoral College that finally determines who would become the president. This is irrespective of whether the candidate had garnered more than half of the total votes cast or not. The third theory of democracy is the Liberalism. This theory of democracy is marked chiefly by many individual rights and freedoms that are recognised in this form of democracy. Individuals are regarded as autonomous in a liberal democracy, and they are free to pursue what they feel is good for them in life as long as by pursuing their preferred good, they will not interfere with the rights of the citizens. Individuals also are regarded as being equal in a liberal democracy system of governance. Other rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in a liberal democracy include the freedom of conscience, freedom on non-political expression, right to fair trial and right to privacy. In liberal democracy, the rights of the minority are protected against the majorities. This is unlike in Majoritarianism where the majority can deny the minority their rights. These three theories of democracy are, however, not mutually exclusive, it is indeed possible to combine the positive elements of each of the three theories of democracy to come up with a better and more holistic theory of democracy. And many countries in the modern world, especially in the west have many of these positive elements in their systems of governance. Having looked at the political thoughts of the Islam world, and the political thought of the western world, the democracy, let us now look at the seemingly inevitable clash of civilizations that is bound to occur due to occur due to the realities of the modern world. As professor Huntington contends, the world is increasingly becoming a village, global village, due to the advanced technology and people now more than ever are interacting more easily and closely (Huntington, online). But due to the differences in our cultural orientations, which determine our world view, the main civilizations of the world are likely to crash in the near future. For instance as Bernard Lewis argues, for the Muslims, western civilization is the very antithesis of all the values espoused by Islam as a religion. And for the Muslims, this fact is actually the root cause of the Muslim rage against the west or western civilization (The roots of Muslim Rage, online). The possibility of the clash of the main world civilizations is made more likely by the economic realities of our days whereby different nations and civilizations of the world are now doing business together for the mutual benefits of the parties involved. This therefore means that in the near future, major world civilizations will inevitably clash. But despite these differences in the west civilization and Muslim civilization, especially in regard to governance, scholars have differed on whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy. And in this regard, Islam scholars have different approaches on Islam and democracy (Bukay, 2007). The first approach is the Rejectionist approach. The Muslim proponents of this approach argue that Islam and democracy are incompatible. They argue that since in democracy it is the people, the citizens, who are sovereign, democracy, cannot be based on the Quran. This is because according to the teachings of the Quran, Allah is the only sovereign whom we should worship. Secondly, the advocates of this position hold that Allah gave them the law to be governed by, the Sharia law, and for this reason it is wrong for anybody to take upon themselves the responsibility of making laws as is the case in democratic countries. For this reason, the proponents of this position claim that Islam and democracy are inherently incompatible. The second approach is the accomodist view. This is the middle view between the advocates of rejectionism and liberalism. This group of Muslim scholars, however, rejects liberal democracy and advocates for procedural democracy which guarantees the rights of the minority. The scholars in this group view the tenets of liberal democracy as being contrary to the teachings of Islam. This is because liberal democracy respects the autonomy of the individuals to pursue their own interests as long as they do not jeopardize the interests of other people. This is contrary to the teachings of Quran, which does not give individuals autonomy to pursue their interests, but calls upon individuals to submit to the teachings and to the will of Allah. This group, however, does not reject democracy, but advocates for the middle position, procedural democracy. In their advocacy of procedural democracy, they advocate the use of Quran and Hadith as guides in coming up with the best governance system. Also, they advocate for the use of Shura in matters of governance. The third approach is the liberal/ progressive approach. The proponents of this position hold that Islam and democracy are not necessarily opposed. The Muslim scholars in this category view Islam and democracy as being compatible. And to support their claim, they contend that the underlying principles of Islam and democracy are the same, i.e., both Islam and democracy aims at promoting the overall interests of people and ensuring that justice is upheld. They argue that just like democracy, Islam protects the rights of its people and ensures that their rights and freedom is upheld. And on the legislation authority bestowed upon the citizen in democracy, the proponents of this view contend that there is nothing wrong with people legislating as long as they do it within the teaching of Quran. They see democracy as the best way of putting into practice the teachings of the Quran, and they criticize the western scholars for monopolizing definitions of democracy, arguing that the term democracy is complex and each society has a different understanding of democracy and different approach to it. Having looked at the different theories of western democracy and the different Islamic approaches to democracy, the question now is, is Islam really compatible with democracy, and is the tenets of Islam teachings reconcilable with the tenets of democracy? There are a number of arguments on whether these two are compatible or not. One of such argument was put forward by John L. Esposito. In his arguments, Esposito argued that democracy is a complex term and that it has varied meanings (Bukay, 2007). He went on to argue that different cultures have different meanings of democracy, and in this vein, it is possible even to have religious democracy. He went on to argue that a critical look at the main teachings of Islam reveals that Islam and democracy aren’t incompatible with Islam. For instance the main emphasis on, shura (consultations), ijima (consensus), and ijtihad (independent interpretive judgement), in the Holy book of Islam reveals that Islam is indeed democratic. But a look at the history of Islam world reveals, minimal, if any element of democracy. This therefore means that Esposito’s argument is not tenable. The recent upheavals in the Arab spring were purely clamour for democracy. If Islam is as democratic as Esposito wants us to believe, then we could not witness these catastrophic uprisings in the Arab spring. But Esposito would respond to such a claim by saying that, although there is democracy in the Islam world, Democracy in Islam is different from the western world. He would contend that the democracy found in the Islam is a different form of democracy that combines spirituality with democracy. However, the main problem with Esposito’s view in this point is the fact that, it is not true that democracy is as complex as he claims. This is because, if the term democracy has to have any meaning, then we should look for that meaning from the people who first came up with that theory, and who taught us its meaning. And from the Greek scholars who came up with the idea of democracy as a system of governance, democracy simply means the rule by the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. So, Esposito is falsely giving the term democracy a complexity that it really doesn’t have and in this sense his argument is false. Esposito’s claim faced a lot of criticism from the Muslim scholars who felt that Esposito was gravely wrong in his claim that Islam and democracy are compatible. One of the fiercest critiques of Esposito was Hasan al- Banna, the founder of Muslim Brotherhood. In his criticism of Esposito, al-Banna argued that for the Muslims fidelity to the teaching of Quran override any other teaching. And for that reason, the teaching of Quran is the only sure guide for the Muslims on all matters. Al-Banna viewed adherence to democracy by the Muslims as an infidelity. Mawdudi, another Muslim scholar, also, viewed western democracy as the anti-theses of the Muslim values. Mawdudi taught that Quran is supreme and any other ideology must be subordinated to its teachings (Mawdudi, 76). Abu Bakar Bashir, an Indonesian cleric on the other hand called for a jihad war against the Muslim leaders who had embraced democracy in their countries for this, in his view, democracy amounts to serious transgression against the teachings of Islam. These severe criticisms of Esposito’s views by the Muslims themselves show that Esposito was wrong on his views on Islam and democracy. A critical analysis of many of the arguments that support the view that Islam and democracy are compatible shows that the arguments hinges on two fallacies. First, the false view that the meaning of the term democracy is relative and can be applied to varied systems of governance and even to religion. The second fallacy that these arguments are built on is the claim that Islam teachings on governance are actually compatible with democracy. But both analysis the true meanings of Islam and democracy, and a look at history and recent events in the Islam world, shows that Islam and democracy are actually not compatible. As I explained in the introduction, the term Islam means submission to the teachings of Allah as found in the Holy book of Islam, the Quran. Muslims therefore, are expected to strictly follow the teachings of Quran. And many of the teachings of Quran, especially teachings on women, and leadership are completely opposed to the tenets of democracy. For instance while Quran teaches that leadership is exclusively for men, democracy advocates equal rights for all persons in all realms of life, including in leadership. Also, Islam teaches that God is the sovereign while democracy holds that the citizens are the sovereign. For the Muslims, Sharia is the final law and the Muslims are expected to strictly follow the Sharia law, but democracy holds that the people, the citizens, are the ones to determine how they want to be governed, they people have the legislative authority in democracy. With these fundamental differences between the tenets o Islam and democracy, how can these two possibly be compatible? Those who claim that Islam and democracy are compatible should clearly demonstrate how the basic tenets of Islam are reconcilable with the fundamental tenets of democracy. Anything less than that is misleading and false. The claim that democracy and Islam are compatible simply because the two aims at promoting individual rights and freedoms is misleading also. This is because some basic teachings of Islam are oppressive and denies people’s intrinsic rights and freedoms that are advocated for by democracy. Also, although Islam in many instances, actually, does uphold individual’s rights and freedoms, it does not do so democratically. Islam is a religion upholds their believer’s rights by following the teachings of Allah, but not through secular and democratic means. All these facts mean that Islamic political thought and democracy are, actually, not compatible. A look at attempts of democracy in Turkey (Ataturk reform), and Indonesia (Post 1998 Indonesia), which are both Muslim majority countries, would further show that Islamic political thought and democracy are completely different and incompatible political systems. In Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, was the pioneer of democracy in Turkey. Ataturk was the leader of Turkish liberation struggle in 1919. Ataturk successfully led his country to independence in 1923, and by that he put an end to the Ottoman rule in Turkey, that had lasted for centuries. Ataturk brought about a complete overhaul in the governance of Turkey, and he declared Turkey a republic. Before the declaration of the republic Turkey was a Caliphate. Ataturk, therefore, brought democracy to Turkey and he created a government in which sovereignty rested with the citizens. Turkey’s government became a government for the people, as opposed to the previous system of governance, caliphate, where the sovereignty was the preserve of the ruling class. This radical change from Caliphate to Republic, and by extension from Islamic political thought to democracy shows that the two systems of governance are completely different and opposed, they can’t go together and that is why Ataturk had to make a complete overhaul in all the spheres of governance in the newly declared republic of Turkey. The clamour for democracy in Indonesia started the killing of four University students by the country’s security forces. Following this unfortunate event, the students organised and formed a movement calling for the resignation of President Suharto, claiming that the president’s regime was authoritarian (Indonesian Youth in the post-1998 era of democratization, online). The student’s movement for change later became very strong and more and more people joined the movement. The movement became a formidable liberation movement and the government had no other option, other than bending to the will of the people and embracing some fundamental principles of democracy, which would ensure that the individual rights of the citizens are guaranteed and protected by the country’s constitution. This incident of Indonesia also shows that indeed, Islamic political thought and democracy are incompatible. Had the two been synonymous, then the liberation movement would not have called for the overhaul of the system, but they would have asked only for the resignation of the president. But because the root cause of their woes lay in the system of government, they had to ask for the complete overhaul. This therefore means that the two systems of governance cannot go together. These two incidents of Turkey and Indonesia clearly show that there is nothing like Islamic democracy; Islam cannot be democratic because the two are irreconcilable and inherently incompatible. Although we have two different approaches of Islam to democracy, the only approach that clearly and rightly shows the position of the Muslims in regard to democracy is the rejectionist approach. The other two approaches, the accomodist and liberalism, are not based on facts and are therefore misleading and incorrect. The unanimous decision taken by many Islamist movements in regard to Islam and democracy further supports the view that, Islamic political thought and democracy are, indeed, incompatible. For instance the Islamic Brotherhood movement view democracy as being an evil system of governance that is not in line with the will of Allah. Sayyid Qutb, a renowned Islam scholar and a severe critique of democracy, in his political vision argues that, democracy does not bring about progress, but regress (Rahnema, n.d). The unanimous anti-democracy positions taken by all the major Islamic movements show that loyalty to the teachings of Islam calls for denouncing of democracy as a system of governance. To sum up, we can say that Islamic political thought and democracy are inherently incompatible. And to any argument either in support or denial of this view has, of necessity, to strictly stick to the analysis of both the Islamic political thought and the concept of democracy. This analysis would help us to get rid of many biases, errors and fallacies that we are likely to fall into, in our arguments of whether or not Islamic political thought and democracy are compatible. But the analysis of the tenets of these two political systems shows that the two concepts are completely different and irreconcilable. This is because, while in the Islamic political thought God is the sovereign and the legislator of the law of the Muslims, the Sharia law, which the Muslims are expected to unquestionably abide by, in democracy the citizens, and not God, are the sovereign and the legislators of the laws by which there are to be governed by. This fact therefore shows that indeed democracy and Islamic political thought are inherently incompatible. Also, a review of all the three Islamic approaches to democracy shows one common element: that Allah is the supreme and Sharia is the constitution of the Muslims. All the Muslims are agreed, even the proponents of the so called illiberal democracy, that Allah are the sovereign and Sharia is the holy constitution of the Muslims. But having affirmed these two premises, you cannot go ahead to hold the contrary view that democracy and Islam are compatible. Doing this would amount to self contradiction because both Allah and the citizens cannot be the sovereign; it can only be one of them. The analysis of the above three Muslim approaches to democracy point to the fact that Islam and democracy are incompatible political systems. This therefore shows that the Islamic political thought and democracy cannot at all be reconciled to democracy because there are diametrically opposed systems of governance. There is no extent to which the two can be reconciled, they are simply irreconcilable. And the only way to reconcile the Islam political thought and the rejectionist/extremist position is to accept that in many ways both Islamic political thought and democracy contributes to the well being of the citizens or the subjects. And in this sense, none of these political systems is intrinsically evil as the rejectionist approach holds of the democracy. Reference List Ataturk: creator of Modern Turkey, n.d, web. Bukay, D, 2007, ‘’Can there be an Islamic Democracy?’’ pp. 71-79, Web Dahmus, J, 1968, The Middle Ages: A Popular History, Doubleday company, USA Huntington, S, 1996, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Orders, Simon and Schuster, Ney York Indonesian Youth in post 1998-era of democratization, n.d, web. Lewis, B, n.d, The Roots of Muslim Rage, web Mawdudi, A, 1976, ‘’Political Theory of Islam’’, pp.13, 15-7, 38, 78-82, Islamic publications, labore Muslim Brotherhood Movement,n.d, online, retrieved on 12/04/2012, from: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/muslim-brother Rahnema, A, n.d, Pioneers of Islamic Revival, Zedd Books, London Rickaby, J. (2oo7), Moral Philosophy, the Echo Library, USA Theories of Democracy -Democracy,n.d, online Read More