Author: Asghar Ali Engineer
Publications: The Indian Express
Date: March 14, 2001
What became of Islam's democratic
vision?
IS Islam undemocratic by the very
nature of its teachings? Why is it that no Muslim country has a democratic
dispensation? Why is it that almost every Muslim country is governed either
by a king, a sheikh, a military dictator or has only a partly-democratic
set up? These are important questions which must be satisfactorily answered.
But the more important questions are this: is Islam responsible for this
state of affairs or Muslims? Can any religion be democratic or undemocratic?
Or do its followers make it so?
No religion, in my opinion, should
be construed as democratic or undemocratic, since it is rooted in a social
structure not necessarily of its creation. A religion provides a vision
of a new society but hardly succeeds in totally subverting the existing
society.
Islam was born in a society that
was basically tribal and in which there were no formal political structures
or a state machinery. Islam provided that society not only with a new,
humane vision, guaranteeing freedom of conscience, it 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 Koran. However,
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 an inclusive one and it included Jews, idol worshippers and Muslims
within it.
A new society did begin to emerge
in the first few years of Islam. However, that phase did not last long.
The Umayyads, a clan within the tribe of Quraysh, managed to capture power
and convert 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 tried to follow the vision of Islam
and always consulted Muslims before taking any important policy decision.
Although, formally, it was not a democratic society in the sense that modern
societies are, it was democratic in spirit during the first 30 years of
the rightly guided Caliphs
However, during this period, vested
interests of different kinds began to emerge throwing society into political
turmoil. This turmoil resulted in the assassination of the third and fourth
caliphs. 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 emperors, and adopted
Byzantine ways, which were thoroughly feudal. In the process Islamic society,
which was quite democratic in spirit, became feudal and hierarchical.
The only challenge came from the
grandson of the Prophet who resisted the authority of Yazid, who became
the first ruler of the Islamic world by virtue of the feudal principles
of succession and not through the elective principle of the early caliphs.
However, in the encounter, Imam Husain and his supporters were all martyred
in Kerbala.
The Islamic society thereafter never
saw the return of the early Caliphate period. Muslim society was thoroughly
feudalised. Although rulers in the Islamic world often styled themselves
as caliphs, they were in fact absolute rulers. These political developments
also had its impact on Islamic jurisprudence. The Ulama, who interpreted
the Koran and the Hadith, did so under the influence of feudal values.
Many of them went against the spirit of Islam and justified the feudal
hierarchy. The few who resisted were isolated and lost out.The Ulama with
integrity and character could not save the early political structure of
Islam, although they had great moral authority. The Islamic world was ruled
by corrupt and power-hungry monarchs. Western imperialism in the 19th century
could not make much difference as the imperialist powers reinforced the
regimes of these rulers for their own selfish interests. Islamic society
was so thoroughly feudalised that even during imperialist rule no charismatic
mass leader emerged on the scene in any Muslim country.
The Wafd party of Egypt did throw
a limited democratic challenge to 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 defeated
the very purpose of democracy. His successors, like Sadat, did not have
even that vision and became even more authoritarian.
The entire Arab world lacks any
mass leader of any calibre as its authoritarian rulers use highly repressive
policies and do not allow persons of this kind to emerge. What is more
disturbing is that the Ulama in these countries support the ruling establishment
and use Islam to legitimise authoritarian rule. Any movement for human
rights is condemned as a Western conspiracy against Islam, although human
dignity and freedom of conscience are central to the teachings of the Koran.
Iran has held regular elections but there, too, the orthodox Ulama have
exercised a stranglehold over the judiciary and, without a free judiciary,
democracy remains a nominal construct. Khatami's supporters who are reformists
are being persecuted and many newspapers with a reformist orientation are
being shut down by the orthodox judiciary in Iran.
Malaysia, too, has limited democracy.
With Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed dubbing human rights as a Western
conspiracy, there is no real democratic freedom in Malaysia. Indonesia
had for many years remained under military rule and has only now come under
a democratic spell. But is experiencing great political turmoil and it
will take quite some time for democracy to stabilise here as powerful vested
interests are out to sabotage it.
Clearly, then, it is social and
economic conditions which are more responsible for the lack of democracy
in the Islamic world and not the teachings of Islam. However, Muslim intellectuals
must reflect seriously on why 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 change can be ushered
in. And the absence of democracy only means the further subjugation of
the Muslim masses.
