Democracy and Political Order within Islam

Research Essay
By

Nereid (Redi) Shehu

BEDR University Science Communication Department Science Master Programe

Tirana - January 2012

Table of Contents:

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

Political system within Islamic governance order........................................................................ 4

Al - Tewhid ........................................................................................................ 5 Shura or Majlis al Shura ..................................................................................... 5

The Caliph ......................................................................................................... 6

The Qadi ........................................................................................................... 7

Islamic political system and debates about it ............................................................................... 8

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 9

1. Introduction

The Arab spring and recent development in this region have modeled the debate started at the beginning of this century regarding the Arab- Muslim countries capability in structuring rule of law societies whereas basic principles of their function would be; equality in front of law, member society equality rights, separate powers and political representation through right and fair election. This old debate that started in Western countries under the topic Islam & Democracy, tried to face in non proportionate manner, Islam as a living system, with Democracy, a juridical and administrative set of procedures based on institutions. This comparative effort itself contains an indirect acceptance from Western thinkers that Islam has strong juridical and administrative elements for being comparative. The exact approach to have right comparative results between both Islam and Democracy, would be putting democracy in front of the Islamic government order which lies inside Islam. Only in this form putting democracy and Islamic political system in front of each other, we will have proportionate premises in the comparison.

Democracy is one of the ruling forms based on elected institution derived from voters, causing transformation of institutions themselves into administrative and service entities toward the population. This is understood under the self-definition terminology and in the free practicing of this self-definition. The term Democracy comes from antic Greece meaning peoples government including series of rights starting from human rights, civil rights, open court rights, equality in front of law, and plurality of thinking and political organization. Many people attributed all these rights to liberal democracy which wrongly is understood as the unique democracy model. But democratic model of governance has many forms which essentially guarantee the same rights. Actually beside Liberal Democracy, there are Social Democracy, Monarchic Democracy, Consensual Democracy, Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy and Religious Democracy. The late form is a well known form of democratic governance based on a certain religion. We find this type of religious democratic system in Greece, Norway, and Argentina associated with Christianity and in Israel associated with Hebraism.

In essence, what is common between these typologies of democratic systems is the distinction of power based in: The Sovereign (where in Liberal Democracy theoretically should be the people or the Monarch in Monarchic Democracies).The Legislative (equivalent of the Parliament or Assembly which are the source of law). The Executive (is the authority of governance and daily administration of the state). The Juridical (the Juridical System composed by a chain of Tribunals
3

interpreting the implementation of law from institutions and individuals). Essentially, this is the main institutional axes of democratic system laying independent from each other and in the same time exercising the control-balance pressure against abuse.

2. Political system within Islamic governance order

Historically the articulation related to Islamic governance is characterized of poor terminology mainly comparing the phenomena starting from Western thinker premises. In few words, considering Western Democracy as an independent variable from which every other forms of governance should be analyze as dependent variable. This approach excludes the fact that Islamic governance order is one of the most ancient systems which were spread in three continents for more than 13 centuries, and being like this, it has strong democratic components in its chains of power.

Islamic political system is composed from main power pillars, the same like Democracy. In this system there is The Sovereign (in this political order it is understood as Gods Oneness Unity, known with the original terminology Tewhid, as an ontological argument of supremacy and sovereignty of the Creator over the creatures). Shura or Majlis Al Shura (meaning consultation and decision making based on majority. Using the western terminology its like a Representative Democracy, a parliament social life of the community. Part of this is Ijm a consensual condition from which derives the legislative life.) The Caliph (Is the executive institution represented by the Caliph as head of executive. This terminology means the word vicegerent in political context as follower of the head of the first Islamic state, the Prophet Muhammad. Meanwhile in ontological context meaning governor of the Creator on Earth.) The other important pillar of Islamic governance order is the institution of Qadi (Its the foundation of juridical system in Islamic governance. This is an independent institution which controls law implementation. Its decision proceeding are based on consensus or so called Ijm.)

As we can see the institutional governance in Islam is well defined and functionally separated. At this point we think that it will be better when we compare both systems, to say that Islamic political system as earlier system than Democracy is not a depending on a later concept, but that Democracy is compatible with the Islamic political system. For this reason is necessary a thorough analysis of the Islamic political pillars to better understand their implication and influence on the system.

2.1

Al - Tewhid

The Sovereign, its Oneness and Unity is reassembled in God, The Creator based on teleological arguments of its existence, which has sovereignty over institutions in Islamic political order. This authority (in the liberal democracies sovereignty of the people is meant to be on institutions, or the monarch authority in monarchical democracies) over institutions, is built on the postulate of a Creator, in the vertical plane, and its vicegerent on earth in the horizontal plane, which lie in an equal format toward The Sovereign, making possible the participation, role and influence equality of all human beings. This horizontal institutional equality element is the point where democracy is expressed within this political system. John Esposito in the context says:It is now argued that the Al Tawhid application doctrine, needs a democratic system, because all human being are created equal, so, any system that denies this equality, is not Islamic1

2.2

Shura or Majlis al Shura

Is a consultation procedure for any government or governance within the political Islamic order. Shura is the parallel of parliamentary principles in western concept of politics and it is based on this fundamental issues:

Every person in Muslim societies is equal in civil and human rights Public issues should be resolved according to the majority point of view Justice, equality and dignity represents the core of Islamic morality2

Based on the practise of the first rulers of the Islamic state, as well as the first executive Islamic government under the authority of Prophet Muhammad, Shura as the consulting institution, took many decision-making attributes regarding social community administration. In the book Shura in Prophetic tradition and Muslim scholars Dr. Mohamed Es Saleh gives this definition:
"Majority rule and the

right of opposition are the two main pillars of alleged

contemporary democracy. This also coincides with that mentioned above, the conclusions and the results of the Shura are binding on the governments and the principle of majority is recognized and accepted in Islam. In the same way is assured the right of minority to oppose. 3

In this point of view, Shura is one of the obligatory institutions of the Islamic political system, which takes its power from The Sovereign (God) in the message delivered to His vicegerent in horizontal plane application. Shura also has the right to choose the head of the executive (The
5

Caliph) based on the majority approval. In the first Islamic state life, under the authority of the Prophet, we find the Uhud and Medina Gap battles, where decisions were made based on consultation respecting the majority opinion. During the history of the first Islamic state in 632 a.c the first head of state after the Prophets death, was elected based on Shura principle and he was Ebu Beker. Election took place in Saqife, and Ebu Beker became Caliph even a minority was contrary. In the same way according to Shura principles were made the decision for the election of successor Caliphs, Ummer Ibn Khatab, Othman, and Ali. Thus the Shura application in its fundamentals is based on fighting despotism, autocracy and dictatorship, against the absolute power of an individual in front of the society. Furthermore the actually democratic ideals of free speech and diversity of thinking, immerged since the Prophet Mohammed statement: Diversity of opinions within my community is a sign of God's Mercy"4

Another apologetic concept of the equality in Islamic political institutions, is Ijma, which put in Mohamed Iqbal words is perceived as Republican spirit of the community, a sort of consensus to build social norms. Shura itself needs Ijma in political decisions. Mohamed Iqbal in his efforts to raise the forgotten Islamic institutions, points out the following: The growth of republican spirit and the gradual formation of legislative assemblies in Muslim lands, is a major step forward. Transfer of Ijtihads power by representatives of schools to a Muslim Legislative Assembly, which in terms of increasing the opposing sects, was the only form of Ijma that could be taken in modern times, would provide assistance in legal discussions...Only in this way we can move the dormant spirit of life in our legal system".5

2.3

The Caliph

Its not just a post as head of government, but also a very important political institution and key cog in the development of , let we call, Islamic democracy, (using the current terminology). It should be understood that the Caliph and the Caliphate as a political institution, passed the size of a simply local government by turning in the ruling world order at least for 13 centuries. Also is an interesting fact that this institution relationship with Sovereign (God) is typical in the Islamic point of view, which considers each individual as a caliph (Gods vicegerent on earth). From this premisse potentially every individual enjoys equal rights and no one is deprived of such a title. This revealed and applied concept, 14 centuries ago, is a strong foundation for a democratic life (meaning popular), at a time when in
6

other countries the monarch took divine and often irreplaceable attributes . Mawdudi in his "Islamic way of life," says: "The authority of the caliphate belongs to all groups of people and to the community as a whole .... This is where democracy begins in Islam. Each person in Muslim society has the right and power of the caliph (vicegerent of God on earth) and in this context, all individuals are equal."6 Ismail Faruqi also in his "Islamization of Knowledge" says:" The right Muslims understand the concept of the caliphate as a political ... Islam requires every person to take political attributes (be aware, organized and mobilized). " Caliph is elected on the basis of the Shura's decision and its subsidiary are the administration of military government, finance, and governance structures. Under the authority of Caliph are also Governors of the various regions.

2.4

The Qadi

Meaning Court institution which exercises control in respect to the applicability or not of laws derives from the Sovereign and the Shura. In its judgements, the institution of Qadi, or the so called Qadis Power, is based on Ijma- (consensus) concerning the validity of its decisions. Not only that, but referring Atamans book "Ottoman Qadis registers as a source of social history," he gives a clear overview of the criteria that a Qadi must meet in his rights and duties: "A Qadi should be adult. Must be a free man, a Muslim and sane. Its legislative performance should be in accordance with the law without introducing his own interpretations. Before him (Qadi) must be presented proves in order to convince him so his decisions should be taken in public places where public participation may be possible. A Qadi should not receive gifts and should be careful in engaging himself in trade.7 So the islamic judiciary has enshrined in details the role and performance in achieving its difficult mission in control system functioning. In addition, although qadis decisions in juridical system of islamic governance order, had full authority, again there was the so called Mazlim Court where parties sent discontent appeals related to qadis judgements.8 So this court was playing the role of a Court of Appeal in front of Qadis Court. Also another state apparatus charged with serious crimes or criminal justice was Shurtah. Although a Qadi could exercise his powers on criminal jurisdiction, in practice it often was removed from him and passed to Shurtah trial which develop their own procedures and penalties for serious crimes.9

3. Islamic political system and debates about it

The debate between different scholars and philosophers in the West, as to how Islam is consistent with democracy, (despite what quoted above that this debate is built on non proportional parameters putting two different entities in a comparison), is characterized by an almost superstitious opinion. The groups of thinkers who have argued more and wrote about this topic, are splited into scholars thinking that Islam is essentially pro-democratic, represented by Eickelman and James Piscatori, John Esposito and J. Voll , Kramer, Salam, Beinin and Stork, and the rest of the contrary opinion thinkers that believe Islam doesnt match with democracy, represented mainly by Fukuyama, Huntington, Lipset, ecc. Opponents of common issues between Islamic and democratic political systems, declare that uniformity of Islam does not allow it to produce democracy. Fukuyama writes: "It is true that Islam consists in a systematic and coherent ideology, expressed in its own code of ethics and its political doctrine and social justice, but Islam has suffocate liberal democracy in the Islamic world by becoming a threat to liberal practice".10 While, Lipset writes in the same wave length arguing that Islam as well as Marxism, has an unknown concept to political freedoms and makes impossible the approach of democracy in Islamic countries. The typically opponent of Islams compatibility with democratic values, is represented by Samuel Huntington with his famous "clash of civilizations" theory where the main ingredient (variable) of comparative components, in his opinion, is the culture (faith). He says that Islam and other cultures of non western tradion, constitute a serious obstacle to the development of Western democratic ideals. He also stresses that the lack of civil society and Islamist organizations are the main obstacle to democratization of Islam.11

Common of the above-mentioned approaches is the situation photograph of Muslim countries under the governing deformation as a result of post-colonial period and the existence in all these countries of terrible despots and dictators. But none of them (opposed thinkers) referred to the source of Islam derived from the practices and institutions of the Muslims first state and the messages comming from legislative divine source. The supporters of the theory that Islam is essentially a source to democracy (John Esposito & Voll) declare: "The messages of Islam, Sunnah and Hadith, may serve as a source for building democracy. Islamic concept of Shura, the Ijma, and Ijtihad (in terms of independent estimation) seem compatible with democratic concepts and ideals."12 They also point out that Islam calls for racial equality and religious
8

tolerance. The concept of Ijtihad for Esposito, is the civil society base from which muslims independently judges social phenomena. In the same way Ijma helps to build public consensus on governance issues. Both these represents strong elements of democracy in Islam.

The core opponence for the legal political freedom in Islam, is the concept of the sovereign that exists in Islam. They, (opponents) emphasize the idea that the concept of peoples sovereignty over institutions (in Liberal Democracies) conflicts with the sovereignty of God over them in islamic system. But in fact, they do not mention whether if people's sovereignty conflicts with the sovereignty of the monarch in Monarchic Democracies. We shouldnt forget that even these day we have the concept of right divine monarchy in western countries that claim to have democracy. Voll in his point of view says that God's sovereignty over the institutions actually fills the spiritual vacuum found in liberal democracies frequently characterized by the lack of government moral sense which leads to abuse of power. The sovereignty of God over institutions is actually the people's own sovereignty over them, but with a divine design, because the sovereignty of God over the creatures is exercised for the good and sake of creatures. Being of the individual as possessor of the title " vicegerent of the Sovereign on earth" (caliph), makes possible the established institutions under the Sovereign to be characterized by an equivalence and nondiscrimination. So there is an inter-institutional democracy that takes shape under the will of the Sovereign. What distinguishes the people's sovereignty over institutions (in liberal democracy), is that the individuals chosen by the absolute sovereignity of people, in some good condition and lobby financial circumstances, can strengthen their positions within institutions in order to manipulate the sovereignty of the people for personal power purposes. Thus, people from being sovereign, becomes vassal to the sovereignty of the individual over the system, by producing deformation. The opposite happens with the sovereignty of God over institutions, whose sovereignty is not bought or corrupted, and makes the individual in charge of the institution, as a result of fear-confidence, to perform within the institutional framework, giving so the right governance to people.

4. Conclusion
Distorted situation in the Arab-Muslim countries, which is first product of colonial conquest and then by their effects under the despotic dictatorial oppression, have made these areas to stay away from institutional and democratic life. This, in essence does not mean that people of these regions and even more the religion they carry, are not essentially democratic. What is observed in these regions, is the use by the dictatorial rhetoric, of sovereignty of God in function of their own sovereigny, increasing personal abuse and authority over institutions.

When facing two governance systems, we do this by taking the principle way of their functioning, and do not undertake bringing in this matching many systemic distortions that have occurred throughout the history of governments on both sides. If we get into this path, we would need then to analyze all disfunctional democracies in the world today. So, this comparison is not focused on anomaly governance phenomena, but is inclined toward the source and principle upon which the governing concepts are built for both types.

We would answer to the surprising question of few decades ago (as I believe now it is clear to anyone) if political system of Islam is compatible with democracy, by quoting a saying of Rasheed Ghanoushi, the Tunisian opposition leader and winer of last electionon which says: "If liberal democracy means governance model that prevails in the West, a system under which people freely choose their representatives and leaders, in which guarantee the alternation of power, freedom and human rights for the public, then Muslims will not find anything in their religion that would oppose democracy."13 Also in this context, John Esposito said: "It is clear that Islam can not be considered inherently incompatible with democracy. "Political Islam" is sometimes a program for religious democracies and its not an agenda for holy war or terrorism.14

10

References:
1

Esposito, John L.:Islam & Democracy Oxford University Press 2001 vol.22 pg.6 Suleiman, Sadic Jawad: Islamic principles of Shura pg. 17 Es Saleh, Muhammad: Shura in the prophetic tradition and Muslim scholars pg.51 Takeyh, R: Can Islam bring democracy to the Middle East? Foreign Policy, November-December 2001, pg. 69. Esposito, John L: Islam & Democracy in Muslim World 1996 pg.29 Meududi, Ebu Al-Ala :The Islamic Way of Life Ataman, Bekir Kemal, "Ottoman Qadi Registers as a Source of Social History." University of London, University College London, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies. 1987.

Tillier,Mathieu:Qadis and the political use of the Mazlim jurisdiction under the Abbasids fq.42 Tyan, Emile.Histoire de l'organization judiciaire en pays d'Islam 2-end edition, Leiden, 1960 pg. 465 Fukuyama, Frensis:The end of history and the last man. New York 1992 Avon pg.45 Huntington, Samuel:The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York, Simon &Schuster 1996, pg.31

10

11

12

Esposito, John & Voll, J: Islam and democracy, Oxford, UK: 1996 Oxford University Press Ganoushi, Rashid: London Observer Interview 1992 Esposito, John L: Islam & Democracy in Muslim World 1996 pg.37

13

14

11