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

Lecturers asked to spy on Muslim Students

The Guardian has reported on October 16th that the British Department of Education has produced an 18 page proposal asking Lecturers and University Staff across Britain to spy on “Asian Looking” and Muslim students. The document, reportedly, talks about students of "Asian appearance" being suspected extremists. The document, reportedly, urges monitoring of the activities of Islamic societies on campuses including monitoring guest speakers. It claims that Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years and discusses monitoring their leaflets and events.

Offcourse, the Australian media has picked up on this within less than 48 hours and the debate is now open in Australia on this same topic.

ABC News Online reported on an interview with Professor Gerard Sutton, who is the president of the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee (AVCC). The article quotes Professor Gerard saying "I think if the Government asked us to monitor particular groups of students then there would be outrage from academics about that,". He was also quoted saying: "We are about centres of learning, not about monitoring private activities of individual students." The same ABC article also suggests that Lecturers’ groups in the UK are worried about being lured into an "anti-Islamic McCarthyism".

While the stance of Professor Sutton is admirable and worthy of respect and support, I am not sure how long it will stand in the face of pressure from John Howard's and Pro-Zionist lobby groups' efforts of inciting hatred against Muslims.

There is history behind this. This issue has been brewing for a while within Pro-Zionists lobby groups (UK and Australia). There is evidence to indicate that Pro-Zionists lobby groups in the UK and Australia have a hand in this saga, possibly, in response to Muslim students being vocal in their criticism of Israel over the war on Lebanon and occupation of Palestine. Also in response to Muslim students collaborating with left wing groups over the same issue.

The Guardian describe the document saying “…Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years”. I always thought that making Muslim students politically active is one good way of ensuring the integration of Muslims students, a good way of fighting terrorism (as students find a legitimate way of self expression) and an integral part of democracy and human rights. But then….I may be naïve. Does political activism for Muslims now constitute extremism??

For John Howard, this claim of “extremism on campuses” will came as favourable material to defend the “war on terror” and the War on Iraq.

Such a proposal to ask Academic staff to spy on Muslim students will come as a severe attack in the civil liberties of all citizens and the freedom of Muslim students who are already threatened enough as it is. Such a proposal will further alienate Muslim youth rather than help to build bridges.

My view is that there is no evidence of extremism in Australian University campuses and people who advocate for university staff to spy on people with “Asian appearance” and Muslims MUST first provide evidence of extremism.