On Islam, a caliphate, and democracy
Posted by cabalamat on 2007-Aug-30
Indigo Jo points to a discussion between representatives of MPACUK (Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK) and Hizb-ut-Tahreer, on a caliphate and democracy in the Muslim world:
This is a Google Video of a recent discussion on BBC News 24 between Zulfi Bukhari of MPACUK and Nazreen Nawaz of Hizb-ut-Tahreer, regarding the recent HT-organised conference in Indonesia. The discussion is about whether Islam is or isn’t compatible with democracy; Dr Nawaz responds by raising the issue of whether democracy is really the only way of attaining accountable governance.
In part, this depends on what you mean by “democracy” and “accountable”. For me, “accountable” suggests that the government have got to fear the people to some extent — to fear that if they do things the people don’t like, they will be kicked out and replaced with one more to the people’s liking. Kicking out the government can be done either peacefully, through elections, or by violent revolution. The former method is better, because it can be done without loss of life and destruction of property. What if some of the people want to keep the government, but other want to remove it? Then the will of the majority should prevail — that’s what I mean by democracy.
Of course by this standard, many western countries aren’t democratic, because governments often do things the majority doesn’t want, and governments/leaders are often elected on a minority. For example in the USA in 2000, the candidate with the most votes didn’t become president. And that’s not even considering issues such as some people not being allowed to vote, or electoral fraud.
While no country is perfectly democratic, some are clearly closer to the ideal than others. For example, the UK is clearly more democratic than North Korea. And while perfect democracy might be the best way to make government accountable, an imperfect democracy (such as Britain) still has some degree of accountability, because Gordon Brown cannot simply do whatever he likes without considering public opinion.
The alternative to a government being accountable to (i.e. able to be sacked by) the people, is for the government to be accountable to some minority, e.g. the rich or religious leaders, or a particular ethnic group within that country. This is accountability of a form, but it’s (in my opinion) clearly inferior to being accountable to the people. So to answer Dr Nawaz’s question, democracy isn’t the only way to get accountable government, but its the only good way.
And if sovereign people vote for something that is at odds with the government’s interpretation of sharia law? Well, in a democracy, what the people want, the people get (true by definition). And I suspect that’s wha’s at the heart of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s dislike of democracy.
Indigo Jo goes on to add:
I should add that bringing democracy to the Muslim world faces a significant problem that nobody seems to address, preferring to accuse anyone who doesn’t support doing so at gunpoint of thinking Arabs, or other Muslims, are undeserving or incapable of democracy, and are thus racist.
Clearly Muslims are not incapable of democracy (at least imperfect democracy — perfect democracy is probably impossible everywhere). We know this because there are plenty of Muslim states with democratic characteristics (imperfect ones, of course): Turkey, Indonesia and Bangladesh all have democratic institutions and are either at, or on the journey to being, democratic in the western sense of the word.
Western democracy routinely empowers minorities, meaning political minorities – either by transforming the largest minority of votes – and sometimes not even that – into a majority of seats in the legislature, or by empowering minor parties to form coalitions with major ones in order to dominate the legislature. We have learned to live with this in the West; it can’t be assumed that other peoples, Muslim or otherwise, would want to.
I don’t think this is a valid argument.
All political life revolves around coalitions — formal one or informal ones. This is true in democracies and all other forms of government, except in the case where one person has absolute power (a dictatorship). Since most Muslims want to live in countries with governments (life in an anarchy is nasty, brutal, and short), and don’t want dictatorships, they are going to have to live with coalition politics. Just like everyone else.
If a small minority is able to wield power far in excess of its numbers, then to the extent that it can do so, the system isn’t very democratic. So not wanting minority rule isn’t an argument against democracy, it’s an argument for it.
maliha11 said
an explanation is needed here, most Muslim countries are not that well off and due to that they are always in problems and have no way to be self sufficient which always creates problems for the people, because every one will be trying to make an issue with every thing and the US would try and dig up something or the other to harass that country anyways, i would just say why don’t you take the gulf countries in example, they are all almost very well off countries where there people have complete FAITH and TRUST in there (prince or king) because they love there country since childhood and these people have so much loyalty for there rulers that its fascinating, its exactly like the UK am going to talk about Kuwait this time, the former Prince Jaber Al-Sabah may he rest in peace was a wonderful man who always putt his people FIRST and always put them in consideration and thats the differences he really cared about his people they were his country his land his home and his brothers and sister, daughters and sons whom will get effected by any wrong doing, so he always kept them happy and always smiling all the time, there are standards that they keep they are brought up and raised from childhood that your going to be a prince and taught to be responsible and mature before any thing and always put your self aside when it comes to KUWAIT, and all the ROYAL families have a nobility in them and enough manners to restrain them selves for there country. i will not talk about Saudi Arabia because thats another story all together :)
attendingtheworld said
Great post though I tend to disagree with some points.
Muslims countries referred to here are not truly Muslim countries. In a Muslim country – as the case was during the Islamic Empire era, one would find “democracy” as the way of life. There will be justice, tolerance, acceptance and prosperity. This was prevalent during the early times of the Islamic Empire and through the Andalusian times. This is how this “empire” (there were no borders back then) elevated itself in providing the present day world with such science that we still follow today. Whether the number ZERO, Algebra, Medicine, Chemistry, Architecture, Astronomy, Literature and so on, all of these were the result of this nation’s prosperity and “clear thinking.” This is how people progress. This is why America isn’t. Japan, a country that was bombed to oblivion with nuclear weapons, surpasses American ingenuity. Even Korea and Korean cars are now better built than American cars. This is just a sample.
Regardless, I like Winston Churchill’s comment on democracy. He said: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
He also said:
“A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
Peace.
ATW
cabalamat said
Maliha11 said: [Kuwaiti princes] are brought up and raised from childhood that your going to be a prince and taught to be responsible and mature before any thing and always put your self aside
This is certainly an argument in favour of monarchy. But in any monarchy, you are bound to get a dud for a ruler from time to time — history is littered with examples.
One way round that would to not automatically choose the eldest son as the next monarch, but to allow selection from any member of the ruling family. That too has its problems, for example in the Ottoman Empire, competing claimants to the throne might be imprisoned or killed.
Finally you could have a state where there are no clear rules of succession — the Roman Empire was an example of such, and suffered enormously from turmoil when the old emperor died and people were vying to replace him.
I don’t think an absolute monarchy is a particularly good way to run a country, unless by chance you happen to get a ruler who is exceptionally wise and just. But there can be merits in a constitutional monarchy, which mostly stays above the detail of day-to-day politics, for example in Spain or Thailand in recent times.
cabalamat said
Attendingtheworld said: In a Muslim country – as the case was during the Islamic Empire era, one would find “democracy” as the way of life. There will be justice, tolerance, acceptance and prosperity. This was prevalent during the early times of the Islamic Empire and through the Andalusian times.
I think you are using a different definition of democracy from the one I am using.
Whether the number ZERO, Algebra, Medicine, Chemistry, Architecture, Astronomy, Literature and so on, all of these were the result of this nation’s prosperity and “clear thinking.”
It’s interesting that the Islamic world in the past was one of the most (perhaps the most) advanced portions of humanity, and now it isn’t. I’m not sure what caused this — probably, as with many big historical changes over centuries, there were many causes.
This is how people progress. This is why America isn’t. Japan, a country that was bombed to oblivion with nuclear weapons, surpasses American ingenuity. Even Korea and Korean cars are now better built than American cars.
Certainly far eastern countries are very good at mass producing sophisticated consumer technology — I recently bought a camera made by a Japanese company, and the lens was made in Vietnam and the body in the Philippines; probably most of the electronics were made in Taiwan or other east Asian countries.
But I wouldn’t write of America yet. Most Internet innovation takes place there and it’s somewhere where there are fewer barriers to success than other societies. Consider Google founder Sergey Brin. If he’d stayed in Russia it’s unlikely he’d have been able to set up a major search engine firm or become so successful. (And if he had become rich, it would have been by becoming a kleptocrat, rather than by making something people find useful).
attendingtheworld said
“It’s interesting that the Islamic world in the past was one of the most (perhaps the most) advanced portions of humanity, and now it isn’t. I’m not sure what caused this — probably, as with many big historical changes over centuries, there were many causes.”
This was due to corruption that came from power and total luxury that was abused. The religion was shoved aside and “man” then felt invincible… and the road to the bottom is quite fast!
I’m not writing America off. Yet, we (the USA) have become a little too relaxed in some areas that other countries have capitalized on. You’re right about Google and the like and I work in a similar environment that was started by two immigrants. Now why is it that it’s always immigrants? Nothing against that, but we’ve lost touch with ourselves and abilities and therefore seem to just seek high paying jobs instead of becoming more entrepreneurial. Now there’s a big word!
:-)
Enjoyed your posts.
ATW
cabalamat said
Yet, we (the USA) have become a little too relaxed in some areas that other countries have capitalized on. You’re right about Google and the like and I work in a similar environment that was started by two immigrants. Now why is it that it’s always immigrants?
Maybe immigrants are more driven. Or maybe it’s just a bias that people notive more when immigrants are entrepreneurial.
George Carty said
I’d argue that the Caliphate system concentrated too much power in one man. Even if he were a good ruler, he’d be too obvious a target for enemies (either internal coup plotters or agents of hostile foreign powers). Note that three out of four Rashidun (elected) Caliphs were assassinated, even though assassination was presumably more difficult back in the 7th century (as guns hadn’t been invented).
(Incidentally, why weren’t there more crossbow assassinations in the pre-gunpowder era? Crossbows, like guns, are an easy-to-use ranged weapon, and their slow rate of fire – which would be problematic on a battlefield – isn’t really an issue for an assassination weapon.)
True, I’d agree that emigration selects for optimism.
attendingtheworld said
I’d argue that the Caliphate system concentrated too much power in one man.
Incorrect. During the early Islamic era when a Caliph was elected, the “system” in place then dictated that an elected Caliph would address his people (the public) and state that if he did the right thing that his followers (the public) should support him and if he did the opposite, that the public would advise him. The public then would respond that they would remove the Caliph “by the sword” if he were to mislead or do something wrong. By wrong, they meant anything against the teachings of the religion. This included corruption and everything that follows.
However, as the Islamic Empire expanded and was quite prosperous, people became lazier and duller – ok, maybe just couch potatoes. That “allowed” the later Caliphs to abuse powers, build palaces and seek protection by “special forces.” Then what happened at the Palace, stayed at the Palace. This led to a wide range of corruption that destroyed the Empire from within: sort of History repeating itself!
As for my comment about immigrants, please don’t misunderstand. I am all for immigrants and their hard work, dedication and loyalty. I was being sarcastic about the fact that most Americans simply want high paying jobs instead of being more entrepreneurial – like immigrants.
ATW
George Carty said
I wasn’t referring to corruption with my point about “too much concentration of power in one man” – I was pointing out that the more power is concentrated in one man, the more damage can be done by his assassination.
The first two assassinated Rashidun Caliphs were killed by non-Muslims (very possibly “agents of hostile foreign powers” as I alluded to in my previous message). Caliph (or Imam if you’re Shi’a) Ali was killed by the Khawarij (the al-Qaeda of the 7th century).
George Carty said
Further on that – we may note that Rome’s rise to dominated the Mediterranean was because its Republican government was superior to monarchical despotism (because there was no single all-powerful ruler whose death would shatter the regime), as well as to Greek-style direct democracy (which only worked at the level of a small city-state, and thus could not command equivalent manpower to an Italy united under Rome).
cabalamat said
Greek-style direct democracy (which only worked at the level of a small city-state, and thus could not command equivalent manpower to an Italy united under Rome)
An aspect of this was that when Greek states founded colonies, the colonies were generally independent polities.
George Carty said
Weren’t the Greek colonies primarily a way to relieve overpopulation in Greece proper?
cabalamat said
Weren’t the Greek colonies primarily a way to relieve overpopulation in Greece proper?
I think so; I’m not really an expert on ancient Greece.
George Carty said
Threatening assassination is not a good way to prevent tyranny, because tyrants are usually too well-defended to be dealt with that way. How many times did the German anti-Nazis try to kill Hitler, or the CIA try to kill Castro?