Among the basic values on which democratic institutions are generally founded, perhaps the most important are equality, fraternity, tolerance and accountability. It is one of the unfortunate facts of history that the Muslim Ummah, which was given a knowledge of these vital ingredients of a successful and happy social and political order, at a time when most of the human race was plunged in utter darkness, failed to develop, in the course of its history, the democratic institutions to which these values clearly pointed out and which it was left to other groups of human beings to develop successfully later on.
It is an enigma to which it is not easy to find a solution, but serious attempts must be made to find an answer to this problem if there is to be any hope for the establishment of democratic institutions in the Muslim countries of today, most of which are in the grip of some form of autocracy or oligarchy.
There are some critics who, relying entirely on the trends and events of Muslim history, have made the sweeping allegation that Islam and democratic institutions are totally incompatible. In making this assertion they appear to overlook the fact that there is nothing in the basic source documents of Islam, the Holy Quran and the Sunnah, which even remotely suggest that autocracy or oligarchy are the preferred and desirable forms for the governance of the Muslim Ummah. In actual fact the basic values of life which the Quran and Sunnah repeatedly stress, point clearly to the democratic way of life, and if these values are to Software be properly enforced by the Muslim Ummah, it appears to have no choice but to develop democratic institutions in its political life.
To take up only some of the more important democratic values which Islam emphasises again and again, we have first of all the basic concept of the equality of man. Then we have the concepts of brotherhood, tolerance and accountability, which all have a vital contribution to make in establishing and maintaining a proper democratic order.
IslamÕs emphasis on the basic equality of human_beings is much too well known to need documentation, but a reference is invited to the Messenger of AllahÕs memorable address on the occasion of Hajjatul Wida in which he proclaimed "All men are sons of Adam and Adam was fashioned out of clay", and "There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, and for a non_Arab over an Arab, nor for the white over the black nor for the black over the white, except in God_consciousness."
As for brotherhood, among the numerous references in the Quran is Ayat 92 of Surah ‘Ambiya’ which states: "Verily this Brotherhood of yours is a single Brotherhood, and I am your Lord and Cherisher therefore serve me (and no other).Ó The importance of tolerance as well as accountability and the link between the two is vividly brought out in Ayat 16 of Surah ‘Al_Anaam’ which states: "Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself, no bearer of burden can bear the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards God. He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed".
In addition to the above, there are many other Verses in the Quran which point towards the democratic way of life. In describing the qualities of the true Believers in Ayat 38 & 39 of Surah ‘Shura’ the Quran states that "they are those Who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation" and those "Who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them (are not cowed) but, help and defend themselves."
Much research needs to be carried out to ascertain as to why the Muslim Ummah, in the face of such clear guidance, failed to develop lasting democratic institutions in the course of its political history, and why it was left to other nations which apparently did not have the benefit of such divine guidance, to develop full-fledged, self-governing institutions. One has to confess that no completely satisfactory answer to this paradox is Builder readily available, but a few partial and fragmented clues can be gathered from the events of Muslim history, which taken together provide some sort of explanation for this obvious failure of the Muslim Ummah to develop proper, self-governing political institutions.
However, before proceeding to consider some of these scattered clues, it may be worthwhile taking a look at one of the earliest movements in Muslim history which had the Ravenfields potential of leading to the development of democratic institutions among Muslims, but which unfortunately went totally off the rails due to is immoderation and outrageous intolerance. This was the Khariji Movement, which, while it undoubtedly did great damage to the Muslim Ummah, also put forth some very remarkable ideas. The Kharijis are the only sect among Muslims which believes that being a Quraishite is not one of the requirements for being a Course Caliph, and that any pious and capable Muslim can be elected Caliph.
Again they are among the few Muslim sects which clearly insist on the election of the Caliph, and also believe that if the Caliph deviates from righteousness, he should be removed.
Finally, the the Kharijis differ from most other sects in holding the view that without righteous conduct no one can attain salvation, merely on the basis of ‘Iman’. It will be seen that of the four foundation values of democracy, the Kharijis had very clearly embraced two, namely, the equality of human beings and clear-cut accountability, but seemed to have rejected the other two basic requirements of a democratic political order, namely, tolerance and brotherhood. Their fanatical assertion that any one who did not agree with their views was a heretic and should be eliminated, nipped in the bud the possibility of their ideas of equality of man and accountability leading to the development of viable democratic institutions in the Muslim Ummah.
Coming back to the principal question posed at the beginning, some random reflections and observations which provide a partial answer, can be put forward, which can serve as the basis for further investigation and research on the subject. To list such factors briefly, attention is invited to deep-rooted tribal pride and jealousies, doctrinal intolerance, an almost infantile infatuation with charismatic personalities, morbid fear of insecurity and civil disorder, and neglect of ‘Ilm’ the free and far ranging pursuit of knowledge, after the first few centuries.
The obsession with charismatic personalities and the fear of civil disorder also gave rise to belief in a sort of blind obedience to whosoever held the reins of power, be he a monarch, a military dictator, or the head of an oligarchy. In adopting this attitude much support was obtained from the Quranic Ayat which refers to obedience to the ‘Ulul Amr.’ This term has mostly been interpreted to mean any one holding power in the land, irrespective of how he acquired that power and what havoc he was bringing about through the misuse of that power. Further, even those Ulema (and they are not many) who concede that rebellion against an unrighteous Imam is justified, did not spell out properly the modalities of transfer of power, which could have helped in the promotion of democratic institutions.
Finally it may be pointed out that in Muslim countries the need for democratic institutions, as has been developed in the western countries, is somewhat diminished by two factors. Firstly, the existence of copious and well developed Shariat Laws reduces the need for manmade legislation and a democratically elected Legislature, to a certain extent. Secondly, the existence of a strong tradition of independent and fearless judiciary, which has been a prominent feature of Muslim history, precludes the need for the organisation of a judiciary as part of a democratic political system. As for the executive side of Government, the Muslims have always remained on the look out for the ‘benevolent dictator’. and the ‘Just autocrat’ (who they thought could meet all their requirements of a good government, rather than bothering to develop a system of election for their Head of Government. When all is said and done, the unfortunate fact remains, that end in this respect as in many others the Muslim Ummah has failed to live upto the promise of the divine message of which it was the recipient.
|