Democracy and Islam, are they at odds?

Introduction

The ideal way to run a state is a question that has been debated by many Muslims, including Australian Muslims, since the start of the Arab Spring. Some Australian Muslims have expressed that Democracy is a system that is at odds with Islam. They argue that many democratic systems around the world are unjust capitalists systems where wealth and decision making is restricted to the elite. They also argue that in these systems the right of people to self determination is nothing but a fictitious concept to keep the masses content. But going one step further, they argue that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible because of the difference in the concept of sovereignty. In Islam, sovereignty belongs to God alone. According to them, democracy breaches this concept as it gives sovereignty to people over God. However, many Australian Muslims don’t subscribe to this discourse.I argue that Islam and Democracy are not at odds and that the apparent conflict is really about the definition of democracy and the use of the term. If we use the term “Democracy” in its pure and literal sense, then I don’t see any conflict with Islamic principles. It is possible to build an Islamic system of government which is based on the structure of democracy and is much better than some of the current Western democracies.

Democracy

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives[1]. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law[1]. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. Democracy is not one. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others. Some are closer to the intent of Shariahh than others. Some of these are: Constitutional democracy, Representative democracy, Parliamentary democracy, Presidential democracy, Liberal democracy, Direct democracy, Inclusive democracy and Consensus democracy. There are some common features of all the different types. One of the features common to all types of democracies is the concept of “Separation of powers”. If any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy. They all offer a structure of governance with fairly well defined roles of responsibilities for each authority in the system.

Islam

On the other hand, our Shariahh (Law) prescribes a set of values and principles for its followers when running a state to reach an ideal Islamic system. Many of these requirements are obligatory but the details of application are left to Humans. Most of these values are actually general values for living rather than limited to governance. Some of these are:

- Shura (consultation)
- Justice. Pursuing justice through social cooperation and mutual assistance
- Establishing mercy and compassion and protection of the weak
- Human rights including equality and Freedoms
- Prohibition of monopolies
- Rulers are servants of their people

Shariah has prescribed Shura, however, it did not specify how it should be applied. Therefore, Islam has left it up to humans to choose how to apply this concept in the manner that best suits our needs at a specific time, place and context. This is indeed a feature that makes the Quran applicable to all times. Most Jurists suggest that consensus is required in the process of Shura and that the consensus opinion is prescriptive on the executive authority. There is no prescription as to whether consensus should be obtained through majority vote or through other methods. We also see that in Islamic history, different rulers have applied the concept of Shura in different ways. What is definite is that the concept most certainly did not refer merely to a ruler’s solicitation of opinions from notables in society; it signified, more broadly, resistance to autocracy or oppression.Islamic jurists have articulated rules on the application of these principles and what are their priorities. The concept of priorities in Islamic jurisprudence is indeed an amazing science. For example, that one’s freedom stops where someone else’s start. That community needs are a higher priority than individual needs, if they conflict, and individuals are fairly compensated.Offcourse, Shariah also has more specific legislative requirements associated with finance management, economic management, family law, criminal law etc. But these are not many in a relative sense. Often, details of application for most of the above are left to people.

Are they at odds?

It is fair to say that many Islamic values need to be detailed in state constitutions and legislations to a level of detail that can be applied with equality in modern societies. When doing so, the general rule is that no specific legislation can contradict a clearly understood and confirmed Islamic text. However, the details of how the Shura (consultation) process occurs? who has the final say? Who is consulted? What issue require consultation and to what level? Etc etc are all details that need to be articulated. This articulation process into law by no means diminishes the concept of sovereignty of Allah swt.Islam did not prescribe separation of executive authority, Judicial and legislative authorities in the way it is done in Western Democracies today. But doing so is one way of serving the intent of Shariahh in terms of justice and prohibition of monopolies. Separation of powers certainly does not contradict Islamic principles. Infact, separation of legislation and executive authority is inherent to Islam in that legislations come from a source other than the executive authority – the Quran and the tradition of the prophet. In Islamic Jurisprudence, there are areas where there are differences of opinion. This is a great feature of our religion that makes things easier to individuals. When it comes to a state, the legislation authority may sometimes have to ‘select’ one of these opinions and add governance details to it in the form of legislation to ensure equity in issues that affect the running of the state without interfering into the private lives of individuals. It is indeed possible to maintain the requirement of sovereignty to Allah swt in a democratic system through legislation. The constitution can reaffirm this concept and outline that the Quran and Sunnah are the main source of legislation. In doing so, legislation that directly contradicts clear Islamic text becomes non-constitutional.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is possible to create an “Islamic democracy”. The key differentiators of an “Islamic Democracy” is that its legislative authority is guided and restricted by Shariah (through the constitution) while its executive authority is guided by the moral code of Islam. Indeed a constitutional democracy can be a good starting point for an Islamic democracy. Therefore, it is quite plausible for a state to apply the democratic mechanisms of government and claim it to be an Islamic system. Islam is not at odds with the ideals of democracy. Such a system, in my view, would be a much superior democracy to what we see today.

1-Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006

The newly made international hero

Prior to the recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, few people in the world knew who Hassan Nasrallah was. Hassan Nasrallah belongs to the Shiat sect of Islam which represent only 10% of all muslims worldwide. Of those who knew him, including middle easterns, many thought of him as a leader of a terrorist organization and some did not like his struggle for dominance in Lebanon with an Iranian backing.

Today, Hassan Nasrallah is a hero in the middle east. BBC News have described him as "... Lebanon's most powerful citizen today". Rallies all over the world and particularly in the Arab and Muslim worlds hail him as a hero and "their only hope against Israel". This is also the case in Sunni dominated countries like Egypt and Jordan etc. Public opinion amongst Arabs, Muslims, anti-imperliasm movements, Peace activists and many free-thinkers has been galvanized behind him. For the Muslims and Arabs (Muslims and non-Muslims), he represents the long lost honour. His name is mentioned all over the middle east always preceded by the word "Seyed" which means "Sir", a level of respect not given to the rulers of middle eastern countries.

It is becoming more apparent that the ruling regimes in the Arab world are becoming less and less relevant while movements like Hezbollah and Hamas are becoming more main stream. This is despite these organizations being labelled as terrorist organizations in the Western World including Australia. Indeed, the Saudi regime, after having initially blamed Hezbollah, are now slowly and tacticfully changing their position under the enormous pressure from the street. The ruling regimes in the middle east are now under a series threat of being irrelevant due to being unrepresentative of the majority view in the middle east.

It will become even more interesting if Hezbollah "wins" the war. Really, all Hezbollah needs to do is not to "loose" the war. This can simply be achieved by demonstrating loses to the Israeli army as well as getting Israel to accept an exchange of prisoners. If this happens, this will make most middle eastern regimes completly irrelevant and they will be under a series threat of being over turned. To me, this is probably the main reason why some middle eastern regimes have, shamefully, given the "green light" for Israel to finish Hezbollah and, in doing so, ending the lives of many innocent civilians.

Unknowingly, Israel has made an International hero out of an unknown person.

Hezbollah's Adventure

There is no question in my mind that the Israeli response to the capture of the Israeli soldiers was not only disproportionate but viscous and is typical of the Zionist entity. However, has Hezbollah's action been irresponsible?

Hezbollah's leader claimed on an Aljazeera interview that he has indicated earlier this year to some members of the Lebanese government that he would have to capture Israeli soldiers in order to be able to get back the captured Lebanese and that these members did not argue with him. However, Hezbollah has essentially acted without the approval of the Lebanese government and has engaged the whole country in a war without their choice. Would Hezbollah have had any other options though to get it's captured members back? I suspect not. However, it remains responsible for engaging Lebanon in this war and for this it must be answerable to the people of Lebanon after the war is over. For now, the Lebanese people are trying to act in unity in response to the Israeli aggression and to the human crisis at hand.

Dr Rice has been negotiating for a NATO peace keeping force to be deployed in south Lebanon for a period of two to three months. After which, the Lebanese forces be trained by the NATO forces to take control of south Lebanon. To me, this spells civil war in Lebanon. May be this is something that the Israeli and USA governments want anyway.

I believe that the Occupation of Palestine and issues with Palestinians can't be disengaged from the Lebanese issues. The US and Israeli governments are trying to split the issues in order to present Hezbollah's action as unprovoked, whereas in actual fact, it is seen by many as a response to the events in Gaza. Contrary to their argument, the root of the problem is not Hezbollah or Hamas. The root problem is the occupation that the Israeli government is exercising on Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian Land. A problem which started in 1948.

The occupation has been the trigger for the formation of many resistance movements in the middle east. This single issue has acted as the glue that strengthened these organizations on a single goal and that is to stop oppression and occupation. Hezbollah has made a gamble. If Israel wins the war and destroys or disarms Hezbollah, and that is unlikely, then that could be fatal for Hezbollah. On the other hand, if Israel fails to accomplish its mission, then there may be a significant power shift in the middle east where Hezbollah, Iran and Syria become key players in the region.