Muhammad Syukri Salleh[1]
INTRODUCTION
In general, it could be agreed that there are only two prevalent approaches
to Islamic development at the moment.
Firstly, what could be termed as the top-down approach, and
secondly, what could be called the bottom-up
approach.
By the top-down approach we mean an approach initiated, undertaken and
monitored by a state from the top,
through various forms of official planning, strategies and policies.
To some extent, it involves imposition of policies and
elements of Islamic development upon the masses. It normally concentrates
more on the gradual Islamisation of the
existing development system prevailing in their respective nations.
Examples of this kind of approach include
endeavours by countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, Sudan, Malaysia and, on
a micro level, the States of Kelantan and Terengganu in Malaysia.
On the other hand, by the bottom-up approach, we mean an approach initiated
by people from below, through
various forms of non-governmental organisations and collective activities.
It evolves from below at the grassroots level
and expands upward into larger society through an evolutionary process.
Its realisation of Islamic development is
based normally on and from within the Islamic epistemological and philosophical
foundation. It emerges out of
people's own Islamic consciousness and free will, in a collective,
self-reliant and independent manner as well as,
ideally, without the intervention of their respective states. The main
players of this approach are the people, whose
mind, skills, energy and co-ordinated endeavours are bonded together
through a systematic organisation.
The present article aims to understand the merits and constraints of
these two approaches. This is done with a view of
identifying an effective approach to the realisation of Islamic development
within the contemporary socio-economic
and political realities. The article contends that both approaches
have their own merits and constraints. In
contemporary socio-economic and political realities, combination of
both approaches would not be a bad choice, and
is in fact, perhaps, inevitable.
ISLAMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ITS APPROACHES
Islamic development is a development that is deeply rooted in Islamic
faith (Tauhid), upholding both the vertical
man-Allah relationship (hablum-minallah) and the horizontal
man-man relationship (hablum-minannas) within a
wider framework, encompassing both this world and the Hereafter. While
evolving from within its own distinctive
Islamic epistemology and practice, its sole and ultimate aim is to
seek the pleasure of Allah (mardatillah). Its domain
goes beyond the mere physical development to encompass the human spiritual
development. Development, from the
Islamic viewpoint, is just a means rather than an end in itself, in
achieving the pleasure of Allah for the sake of a
comprehensive happiness, that is, the happiness in this world and in
the Hereafter (al-falah)[2].
It is therefore an act
of worship (ibadah).
In realising such a development, one is expected to hold to and implement
it in its comprehensiveness. However, an
all-embracing realisation of Islamic development is not an easy task.
Even the already self-declared Islamic states
such as Pakistan and Iran experience difficulties, more so in a multi-ethnic-religious
society like Malaysia. Firstly, it is
not simple to deconstruct instantly the existing dominant system from
its roots. And secondly, it is also difficult to have
a drastic total reconstruction of, and the prevailing system’s immediate
replacement with, the Islamic socio-economic
and political system. Within such constraints, one hopes that the present
top-down, evolutionary approach to Islamic
development endeavoured by various Muslim states, might one day eventually
lead to a total realisation of Islamic
development in its fullest meaning.
Nevertheless, one also realises that the implementation of a comprehensive
Islamic development is not necessarily
confined to the level of the state alone. Indeed, it encompasses every
level of human existence, from individual to
family, societal, state and international levels. If the implementation
of a comprehensive Islamic development at state
level suffers from socio-economic and political complexities that defer
its fullest realisation, there is still a possibility to
generate implementation potentials at individual, family and societal
levels. Such an attempt will, perhaps, attain a
quicker result. The realisation of this bottom-up or grassroots approach
to Islamic development is relatively of a
smaller scale, but at least a model of a comprehensive implementation
of Islamic development can already be seen.
Depending on the perception of the state authority, it might then be
expanded to the national level accordingly, when
and where possible. In fact, to some development thinkers, Islamic
development must first happen comprehensively at
grassroots level, that is from below, before rising to the national
level from within its own distinctive Islamic paradigm.
However, the above arguments neither indicate the total perfection
of one approach over the other nor a manifestation
of a merit- and constraint-free characteristic of both approaches.
Both the top-down and bottom-up approaches
have their respective merits and constraints, which we now seek to
scrutinise.
TOP-DOWN APPROACH: MERITS AND DEFICIENCIES
Obviously, it would be advantageous to the Muslim if the government
of any state with high political will agrees and
endeavours to the implementation of Islamic development. With facilities
and accessibility to relevant resources
needed for the realisation of the Islamic development, one could logically
imagine the probable effectiveness vis-à-vis
any non-government endeavours usually constrained by varieties of factors.
There are clear evidences of success in
some parts of the Muslim world in terms of Islamic financial and educational
institutions such as Islamic banks, Islamic
insurance (takafful), Islamic pawnshop (ar-rahn); Islamic
universities, Islamic research institutions; as well as
attempts at Islamising government machinery, development strategies
and penal code (hudud laws). The
implementation of Islamic development by the authority that enjoys
the power and related resources would be very
beneficial even if it is confined to only some financial and educational
aspects. This would be even more effective if
backed by a strong political will. These may be considered as some
of the advantages of the top-down approach to
Islamic development.
But looking from a real and strict definition of Islamic development,
experiences have shown that accessibility to
facilities and power does not necessarily mean comprehensiveness. The
very foundation of Islamic development as
mentioned earlier seems to be lacking in most of the top-down practical
endeavours. In spite of an extent deliberation
at theoretical level, the planning and implementation, let alone the
achievement, of Islamic development seldom reflect
its fullest meaning. In many cases, the realisation of `Islamic' development
is attempted not only in an untransformed
socio-economic and political paradigm, but also using the existing
secular definition of development.
For example, the Malaysian development strategy, Vision 2020, which
was regarded by a government-sponsored
Congress as `Islamic', redefines development as development of knowledge,
efficiency and wealth minus moral and
religious decadence. But the long held neo-classical assumptions which
regard technology and industrialisation as
important engines of development and progress, are still firmly upheld.
Islamic values are emphasised to ensure the
maintenance of moral and religious belief while the neo-classical development
philosophy remains as the dominant
philosophy of its material development[3].
Development and Islam are viewed as two separate variables[4]
and Islam
is perceived as an effective means to growth and development, or as
an `input' to development[5], or as
one of the
components of development.
Such a deep-rooted development philosophy too has not been detached
from the development philosophy of
Kelantan, the supposedly sole Islamic state in Malaysia ruled by the
opposition Islamic party, PAS[6]. Since
taking
over the state’s political power in 1990, the PAS-led government has
endeavoured at Islamisation programmes with
some success, but with unresolved theoretical and conceptual problems.
Development programme ensues from the
top, initiated by the state but without a redefinition of the development
philosophy and concept, let alone a systematic
and co-ordinated spiritual rejuvenation programme and a clear guided
socio-economic and political reconstruction.
The development programmes of the state do not seem to disengage itself
very much from the Federal government's
dominant conventional definition of development. Most of the programmes
instead are undertaken with almost
unchanged philosophy, objectives, concepts, time scale and measurements.
These are well reflected, for instance, in
its Economic Report 1994-95[7].
The Report very much reiterates the conventional development policy which
intents
to ensure a "balanced improved socio-economic and societal well-being
through economic growth uplifting efforts and
a just wealth distribution system" (UPENK 1995). What is new in this
policy is the added objective of achieving "a
happiness in this world and the Hereafter". But in its seven strategies
outlined to accomplish this `Islamic’ objective,
neither philosophically nor methodologically do they clearly comprise
an Islamic characteristic. With the exception of
the first strategy which mentions Islam as the base of its socioeconomic
development planning and implementation, the
other six sound very much similar to those of the conventional strategies:
firstly, the creation of a balanced human
resource development which takes into consideration physical, mental
and spiritual development; secondly, a
balanced regional development; thirdly, infrastructural and public
amenities development; fourthly, diversification of
the state's economic base and income sources; fifthly, exploitation
of economic resources which could entail
multiplication effects; and finally, environmental and ecological protection
(UPENK 1995).
In those strategies one could easily sense among others, a strong objective
of the PAS-led government to endeavour
for a kind of development which advocates maximisation of production
and consumption within the neo-classical
assumptions of the limited resources and unlimited wants. Such a confusion
points to a vague notion of Islamic
development the state is attempting to accomplish, as there is an absence
of a proper Islamic development blueprint.
All these inevitably leave development implementators and target groups
in an ineffectual and unguided situation.
The case of both Malaysia and Kelantan reflects clearly the very nature
of the top-down approach to Islamic
development as is found elsewhere. The endeavours in the first place
are not meant to realise an immediate
all-embracing Islamic development from within a comprehensive Islamic
development paradigm. By virtue of
contemporary socio-economic and political realities, the endeavours
have to be more of a gradual Islamisation of the
existing neo-classical development. Similar to other top-down approaches
to Islamic development elsewhere, they
have to be more of an injective and accommodative nature, inserting
and incorporating anything thought to be
Islamic, into the existing non- or un-Islamic socio-economic and political
structure.
Such a theoretical and conceptual perception on one hand may suit the
contemporary socio-economic and political
milieu and be regarded as reasonable for pioneering efforts. But on
the other hand, it fails to mould the realisation of a
comprehensive Islamic development. The meaning, philosophy and objectives
of the Islamic development are vague
and mixed, portraying as if that development is an end in itself. Efforts
towards its realisation do not encompass all
aspects of the Islamic way of life and is in fact undertaken in a fragmented
and piecemeal manner within the
untransformed socio-economic and political framework. Their approach
is normally eclectic, selective, impositive,
accommodative and, in many instances, apologetic. Rather than emerging
from within its own Islamic paradigm, the
`Islamic’ development is endeavoured from within the existing dominant
development philosophy, structure and
system. At best, it is normally accompanied by Qur'anic and Sunnatic
evidence in justification of the maintenance of
the secular development model[8].
With such a criterion, realisation of Islamic development through the
top-down approach would only mean the
introduction and implementation of the `elements' of Islam within the
existing dominant socio-economic and political
system, rather than a comprehensive realisation of Islamic doctrines
from within its own distinctive Islamic paradigm.
The endeavours in realising this kind of Islamic development are undoubtedly
multifarious and seem to flourish, but
their links with one another are vague and the secular existing system
remains unchanged.
BOTTOM-UP APPROACH AS AN ALTERNATIVE?
As mentioned earlier, it is well understood that the creation of a comprehensive
Islamic development model at the
state level is not easy in many Muslim countries because of their complex
socio-economic and political constraints.
Even so, if looked from the angle of human creation and function, the
perception that Islamic development must begin
at state level is also in fact a fault. Based on the nature of human
existence, Islamic development must begin from
within human beings, their spiritual domain, i.e. at the very grassroots
level of the human existence. Endeavours of
Islamic development must indeed firstly deals with the development
of human inner components, the `aql (mind), qalb
(heart) and nafs (desire) which determine one's attributes:
mazmuumah
(evil attributes) or mahmudah (good
attributes). Then a sound comprehensive Islamic development at societal
and later on at the state level is possible. An
Islamic development which starts straight away at state level (the
top-down model) or at societal level by bypassing
human inner grassroots level therefore clearly suffers from a faulty
approach for it denies the bottom-up, grassroots
nature of the true Islamic development. In this sense, the bottom-up
approach to Islamic development is a must.
Thereupon at the outer physical level, realisation of a comprehensive
Islamic development, as long as the development
in the spiritual sphere has already been taken care of, could now rise
to either the state or societal level. But since
endeavours at state level which adopts a top-down approach has already
proven to have only been able to realise
`elements' and `disintegrated aspects' of Islamic development, potentials
in realising a comprehensive Islamic
development in the near future are limited. Moreover, the scale at
which it has to deal with is large and hence, the
problem is huge. Simultaneously, it has also defects, viz.: a) the
state's deep-rooted untransformed conventional
development philosophy and strategies; b) its paternalistic nature
of the formulation, decision-making and
implementation process; and c) its centralised characteristic which
imposes the so-called Islamic development policies
and strategies upon the masses without firstly educating them about
Islam, as well as various other socio-economic
and political constraints.
With the above factors, not only the top-down approach without spiritual
development is unacceptable, but also even
the top-down approach with spiritual inner development, if any, would
be ineffective. The realisation of a
comprehensive Islamic development, a development which integrates the
spiritual and physical development emerging
from within its own distinctive Islamic epistemological and philosophical
paradigm must also ensure the absence of all
the above factors.
It is due to these limitations that a bottom-up approach to Islamic
development, at societal level, is thought to be more
workable and practical. The scale is small and hence manageable and
controllable. The teachings of Islam and
development of the human inner sphere could be ensured more effectively.
A comprehensive Islamic development
could develop afresh from within the human inner-self and Islamic development
paradigm itself, side by side with the
existing conventional development system. Although smaller by scale,
this bottom-up approach would be able to
provide a more comprehensive Islamic development model which is elastic
enough to expand to state level whenever
and wherever possible.
However, this does not at all mean that the bottom-up approach is a
problem-free approach. At the theoretical level
the bottom-up approach is certainly much more comprehensive and precise
than the top-down approach. But at the
level of implementation, the bottom-up approach inevitably has to face
with problems, some of which are discussed
below.
THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH AND ITS PROBLEMS
By the bottom-up approach we mean an approach which consists of two
levels of bottom-up development. The first
is at the individual level, that is the development within human's
spiritual domain, manifested inwardly in his relations
with God by iman (faith) and taqwa (peity) and outwardly
in his relations with mankind by noble and good attributes.
The second is at the society’s level, that is the development founded
on the spiritual development, inspired and
initiated at grassroots level of the society by people and for the
people themselves. Ideally, it must emerge from within
and mobilise by the masses themselves, with self-reliant and self-governed
nature. A common goal and method of
realising its aspiration under a common leadership and organisational
structure also binds it. Its main operational
characteristics are communal, collective and sharing of mutual benefits,
led by a charismatic, committed, sincere and
unselfish leader.
In reality, it has to be anticipated that charisma, commitment, sincerity
and unselfishness are characteristics of a rare
leadership. But even if there is any and especially if he has the ability
to Islamically transform and mobilise the masses
for the establishment of an all-embracing Islamic system independent
of the government, he naturally could not escape
from the apprehensiveness of the state. This is due to several reasons.
Firstly, such a leadership and the mobilisation of the masses might
be thought of as potential threats that not only could
eventually pose a challenge to the national leadership but also to
the prevailing system in the country. Secondly, the
self-reliance itself, though advocated by many governments, must have,
from the government's perspective, its own
limit. A self-reliant community within the paternalistic pattern of
the national leadership is surely encouraged and hence
acceptable. But one which goes beyond the realm of the government and
moreover which has been attained through
independent, collective endeavours would not, understandably, be allowed
to expand without demur.
An endeavour carried out in the midst of the conflicts such as above
obviously would not favour an effective
realisation of the bottom-up approach. Experiences have shown that,
almost not even a single grassroots organisation
has ever won over any ruling power, in its fullest definition, through
conflicts, let alone establishing a comprehensive
Islamic development model through the bottom-up approach. Even in rare
and exceptional cases like Iran and
Kelantan which have managed to take over political power through mobilisation
of the masses and legal electoral
systems respectively, a bottom-up approach to Islamic development is
not happening. Instead, the experiences and
drawbacks of the top-down approach are repeated for they are only replacing
the power rather than the whole
socio-economic and political system. Consequently, the similar nature
of imposition, paternalistic and accommodative
system of operation prevails.
THE SOLUTION
In order that the bottom-up approach could be effective, there is a
need to adopt a harmonious strategy that
accommodates negotiations and compromises with the government without
sacrificing the principles of the approach.
Such a strategy would not only avoid unnecessary troubles, disorders,
predicaments, sufferings and unrest, but also
would be able to realise together the comprehensive Islamic development
in particular and Islamic system in general in
a united way. This could mean a blend of the top-down approach adopted
by the state and the bottom-up approach
practised by the people. While the government works at the top, the
people should be allowed to operate at the
bottom to establish a comprehensive Islamic development model at the
grassroots level.
Clearly, in such a co-operation, the readiness to work together must
not only come from the people, but more
importantly from the ruling power itself. While permitting an expansion
of the comprehensive Islamic development
model initiated by the people, Islamic development programmes through
the top-down approach should also be
endeavoured and encouraged. Eventually, the elements of Islamic development
introduced by the top-down approach
would become an integral components of the comprehensive Islamic development
emerging from within its own
Islamic epistemological and philosophical underpinnings at grassroots
level, forming a strong, comprehensive
development system at the national level.
CONCLUSION
While realising the theoretical and conceptual deficiencies of the top-down
approach, this article also admits the
effectiveness of the approach if undertaken with a strong political
will and if combined with the bottom-up approach.
In the present socio-economic and political reality, the top-down-bottom-up
combination is indeed argued to be the
best solution in overcoming the problems of the incomprehensiveness
of
the top-down approach and the probable
political problems of the bottom-up approach.
NOTES
[1] Dr. Muhammad Syukri
Salleh is Associate Professor and Head of Islamic Development Management
Project (IDMP) at the School
of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
E-mail: [email protected]
[2] For a more detailed
definition and discussion on Islamic development, see Muhammad Akram Khan
1969, Shaykh Muhammad
Qutb 1977, Khurshid Ahmad 1979, Sadeq Al-Mahdi 1983,
Muhammad Syukri Salleh 1987 and 1990, and Aidit Ghazali 1990. For a
comparative study on Islamic and contemporary development,
see Ibrahim A. Ragab 1980 and Masudul Alam Choudhury 1990.
[3] See Mahathir
Mohamad 1992:18-21.
[4] Such a view could
be seen clearly, for instance, in a proposal for an "integration of development
and Islam" at the Congress
discussing the Vision 2020. See Proposal Number 13.1.7.ii
in Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) 1992:293.
[5] The term `input'
too was used and agreed by the participants of the above Congress. See
Summary of Discussion Number 2.1.1
and 2.3.2 in Institut Kefahaman Islam (IKIM) 1992:278-279.
[6] See Muhammad
Syukri Salleh 1994.
[7] This is the latest
Report available at the time of writing this article.
[8] See, for examples,
justifications given by Ismail bin Haji Ibrahim (1992:29-89) and Sidek
Baba (1992:91-102) for the Malaysian
Vision 2020.
REFERENCES
Aidit Ghazali, 1990. Development - An Islamic Perspective, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications.
Ibrahim A. Ragab, 1980. "Islam and Development", World Development, Vol. 8, pp. 513-521.
Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) 1992. Kongres "Menjelang Abad
21: Islam dan Wawasan 2020",
Kuala Lumpur.
Ismail bin Haji Ibrahim, 1992. "Sejauh Manakah Wawasan 2020 Menepati
Kehendak Islam?", in Institut Kefahaman
Islam Malaysia (IKIM), Kongres "Menjelang
Abad 21: Islam dan Wawasan 2020", Kuala Lumpur, pp.
29-89.
Khurshid Ahmad, 1979. "Economic Development in an Islamic Framework",
in Khurshid Ahmad and Zafar Ishaq
Ansari, eds., Islamic Perspectives:
Studies in Honour of Mawlana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Leicester,
UK: The Islamic Foundation; or in Khurshid
Ahmad, ed., 1980. Studies in Islamic Economics, Leicester,
UK: The Islamic Foundation and Jeddah:
International Center for Research in Islamic Economics, King
Abdul Aziz University.
Mahathir Mohamad, 1992. "Opening Speech at the Launching of Malaysian
Institute of Islamic Understanding and
Congress `Menjelang Abad 21: Islam dan
Wawasan 2020", in Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM),
Kongres "Menjelang Abad 21: Islam dan
Wawasan 2020", Kuala Lumpur, pp. 7-22.
Masudul Alam Choudhury, 1990. "The Concept of Islamic Socio-Economic
Development in Contemporary
Perspectives", The Journal of Development
Studies, Vol. X, pp 1-10.
Muhammad Akram Khan, 1969. "Concept of Development in Islam", The Criterion, July-August, pp. 7-16.
Muhammad Syukri Salleh, 1987. Pembangunan Berteraskan Islam, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Penerbit Fajar Bakti.
Muhammad Syukri Salleh, ed., 1990. Konsep dan Pelaksanaan Pembangunan
Berteraskan Islam, Pulau Pinang:
Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Muhammad Syukri Salleh, 1994. "Pelaksanaan Pembangunan Berteraskan Islam
di Kelantan: Masalah dan Cadangan
Penyelesaian" (The Implementation of
Islamic Development in Kelantan: Problems and Proposed Solutions),
a Premier Lecture delivered at Dewan
Teratai, Kota Darulnaim, Kota Bharu Kelantan, organized by the
State's Economic Planning Unit, State
of Kelantan, 23 April.
Sadeq Al-Mahdi, 1983. "Development - The Islamic Approach”, Extension
Lecture delivered at the Second
International Conference on Islamic
Economics, Islamic University Islamabad, 19-23 March.
Shaykh Muhammad Qutb, 1977. "The Islamic Basis of Development", in The
Association of Muslim Social
Scientists, Islam and Development, Proceedings
of the Fifth Annual Convention of the Association of
Muslim Social Scientists, Indiana.
Sidek Baba, 1992. "Keserasian Wawasan 2020 Dengan Nilai-Nilai Islam",
in Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia
(IKIM), Kongres "Menjelang Abad 21:
Islam dan Wawasan 2020", Kuala Lumpur, pp. 91-102.
UPENK (Unit Perancang Ekonomi Negeri Kelantan), 1995. Laporan Ekonomi
Negeri Kelantan 1994/95, Kota
Bharu, Kelantan.
Back To Publications Page | Back To Main Page |