Defining Democracy in Islamic Polity Posted on January 17, 2010 by admin Defining Democracy in Islamic Polity Muhammad Khalid Masud (Draft paper for discussion in the International Conference on “The Future of Islam, Democracy, and Authoritarianism in the Era of Globalization”, 5-6 December 2004, organized by the International Centre for Islam and Pluralism, Jakarta .) Whether democracy is compatible with Islam or not has been under discussion for more than a century. The issue has again come into focus in the wake of the war on terrorism. The assumption is that terrorism is a consequence of undemocratic and authoritarian polities. Broadly speaking, three views have emerged in this regard. One view, often favored by the Western media, holds that Muslim societies are unable to develop a liberal culture and hence Muslim countries have not been able to achieve democracy. Another, although a majority view among Muslim intellectuals, and not generally supported by the political practice, claims that democracy is not only compatible with Islamic teachings but also that Islamic polities in history have been more democratic than any other system in the world. The third view maintains that democracy is a foreign Western concept and does not go along with Islamic teachings. Islamic democracy, i.e. a democracy defined from the perspective, differs from “Western” democracy in form as well as in objectives. Whatever the perspective, studies on Islam and democracy never fail to stress the point that building democracy in Muslim countries is a formidable task. United States Institute of Peace Report on this subject opens with the following statement: “Democracy building remains an uphill struggle in most Muslim countries” (Special Report 93, 2002). The present essay analyzes the following four texts that illustrate these three views. 1. Martin Kramer, “Islam vs. Democracy” (1996), 2. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, The Prophet and his Message (1987) 3. Amin Ahsan Islahi, Islami Riyasat (1977), and 4. Qari Tayyib, Fitri Hukumat (1963). The analysis explores the question: why building democracy is such a formidable task. Martin Kramer Martin Kramer is a senior associate (and past director) of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University . He is also the Wexler-Fromer Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy . Graduate from Princeton and Columbia , Dr. Kramer has been a visiting professor at Brandeis University , the University of Chicago , Cornell University , and Georgetown University . His authored and edited books include Islam Assembled ; Shi‘ism, Resistance and Revolution; Middle Eastern Lives ; Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival ; The Islamism Debate ; The Jewish Discovery of Islam ; and Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America . Islam is not campatible with democracy Martin Kramer (1996) argues that Islam is the reason that so many Muslim countries are not democratic. Contrary to the various writings of the Western scholars on Islam, Kramer insists that Muslim communities have been authoritarian and have resisted any idea opposite to authoritarianism. Islamic countries have produced no democratic movement. The various Islamic movements that have emerged during the last century are entirely opposed to democracy. They have rejected democracy as part of Westernism. He also disagrees with the scholars of Middle East who view that since 1979 a number of Islamic movements transformed themselves into populist movements against state. Kramer explains that it was so because these movements mainly arose in opposition to the ruling parties. The discontent with the states which were unable to provide solutions made them popular among the masses. The movements remained fundamentalist and violent. They participated in the political system and won elections in Egypt in 1987, in Tunisia in 1989, in Jordon in 1989 and in Algeria in 1990. Because these political parties faired well in electoral politics, Western scholars treated them as democratic movements and predicted that they will pave the way for fuller democracy. These scholars were not happy at the victory of fundamentalism but they interpreted this victory in the light of what they called ‘theory of initial advantage’. They argued that for the reason that the Muslim communities are not used to democracy and electoral politics, the fundamentalist groups naturally take advantage of the situation. The scholars, however, believed that eventually the fundamentalists will lose and real democracy of the masses and majority will prevail. Some political scientists also described FIS victory in Algeria as a protest vote, and hence not really significant. According to Kramer these predictions and theories are a blind spot and a self deception. In fact fundamentalism is neither a fad nor a temporary phenomenon. This is something very basic to Islamic thinking and culture. Consequently free elections will always strengthen fundamentalism and give them victory. In Kramer’s view, the Islamic fundamentalism is full of paradoxes and contradictions. Firstly Islamic fundamentalism is not reconciling with democratic values. Secondly the fundamentalists believe in the authority of Shari’a, which is a divine and immutable. Furthermore, Shari’a law supports inequality of women and non-Muslims and contravenes human rights. In this sense, rule of law, as preached by Muslim fundamentalist is not a democratic value but an authoritarian principle. Thirdly, the Islamists also speak of the principle of Shura, consultation, which they claim defines Islamic democracy. However, this Shura is subjected to the authority of Shari’a, and not binding. Kramer also rejects the idea of the western scholars that fundamentalism is not real threat to the west. He argues that in the Islamist thinking west stands as an enemy of Islam, an enmity which can never be reconciled. In fine, according to Kramer Islam is not only undemocratic but also a real and constant threat to the west and democratic institutions. Kramer seems to have taken a very difficult position. It simply holds that Muslims cannot be democratic unless they give up Islam. For him, majority opinion, elections, participation of the masses do not count as ingredients of democracy. Khalifa Abdul Hakim (d. 1959) Khalifa Abdul Hakim received his doctorate in Philosophy from Heidelberg University , Germany . Having retired as Professor and Chairman, Department of Philosophy, Usmania University , Hyderabad , India , he was appointed Director, Institute of Islamic Culture , Lahore in 1950 and held that position till his death. In addition to Urdu translations of Histories of Philosophy by Weber and Hoffdings, and William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience , his principal works include The Metaphysics of Rumi , Islamic Ideology , Islam and Communism , and Prophet Muhammad and his Mission . Democracy is Compatible with Islam Khalifa Abdul Hakim (1987) argues that the question about the compatibility of democracy to Islam continues to be problematic not because Islam is not favorable, but because Democracy is not definable. Early Greek philosophers, like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, regarded democracy irrational, unnatural and disgraceful. Aristotle regards the concept of equality of all human beings as unnatural. Nature has not created humankind equal; some of them are born slaves. Plato explained that social systems which are the foundation for a political system are hierarchical. Majority of human kind are born to serve others. Only the elite can rule. Hence only a philosopher King is an ideal ruler. Looking at European history also we find democracy problematic. Magna Carta, which is often claimed to be the starting point for democracy, was in fact the product of negotiations between the king and the landed aristocracy; it was a declaration that limited the authority of a king and protected the rights of the elite. It was not governed by the principle of liberty and equality. In the nineteenth and twentieth century also, it was aristocracy who ruled in the name of the people. Macaulay envisioned no power for the common man. “Our democracy was from an early period the most aristocratic and our aristocracy the most democratic”, said Macaulay. Consequently, during the twentieth century democracy in Europe produced Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy . In both systems, majority suppressed minorities. Same was the phenomenon of communism in Europe . Communism decried capitalism as it did not allow power to peasants and workers. However, ethnic majorities in Soviet Union suppressed minorities. It is thus difficult to define democracy in the European historical context. It was the elite who ruled in the name of the people. Democracy is problematic to define in the Muslim world as well. There is no word for democracy in Islamic languages. The various terms used to translate the idea have semantic fields that do not correspond with the idea of democracy. The term Jamhuriyyat, for instance, was coined in probably twentieth century to translate democracy. The word Jamhur has an altogether different connotation in Islamic tradition, often meaning an undefined majority. The Muslim societies have not been able to develop an ideology or institution of democracy because democracy remains undefined. Traditional terms like Khalifa, Amir, Sultan and other terms do not convey a sense of democracy. In Islamic thought sovereignty always belonged to God. There was no idea of the sovereignty of the people. The political