Democracy, the Social Contract and Muslims
Saturday 6 Rabi al-Thani 1426
By Motiur Rahman
The term “Democracy” was already widely used by the time of Plato. Aristotle used the term Democracy for what we nowadays would call mob-rule. Plato and his student Aristotle were not too keen on the concept of democracy, each having his own set of reasons. Nowadays, this term is used in an idealised sense, meaning rule of the people, by the people, for the people.
Most are of the opinion that Democracy does not fundamentally clash with Islam; going on as far as to say that Islam is essentially democratic. I suspect to some extent this is true depending on what is meant by democracy. In the modern interpretation Democracy is interchangeably used with freedom.
The tradition of Democracy was revived after the political turmoil of the seventeenth century as the King’s divine right to rule came under heavy scrutiny. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), argued in Leviathan that, without government, society would collapse. Hobbes famously claimed that life without government is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. The reason being, Hobbes explains:
“To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.”
To prevent this from happening, society must enter into some form of contract either voluntarily or by force and give up some of the rights and freedoms people naturally enjoy to form a Sovereign, who will in turn offer law, order and security. Hobbes says that this is in the interest of everyone, as then everyone is equal under the eyes of the Sovereign, and the Sovereign will ensure that social contracts are enforced.
“This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.”
The father of the modern Social Contract, Rousseau said, “MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer”, and,
“But the social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, and must therefore be founded on conventions.”
Democracy seems to be the secular answer to a political system that does not resort to religion. It is portrayed as the universal system for political solutions, although there are problems embodied within it.
For example, the foundation of Democracy seems to be built on the principles of freedom and equality.
It would be absurd to say everybody is equally intelligent, equally knowledgeable, and equally interested in every issue. Therefore, it would not be justifiable to include everyone’s views on everything in governing the people. Also, this is not practical and not expected to be inclusive. One does not take opinion polls to decide on the course of treatment for the sick. It is left to the doctors to decide the best treatment.
As for freedom, according to the Hobbes and Rousseau, any form of government involves removing some of our natural rights and vesting power reciprocally. Therefore, it takes away from our freedom in exchange for security and stability.
This goes on to show that the practical implementation of democracy clashes with its underlying principle, equality and freedom. Hobbes and Rousseau did work at trying to justify government democracies in different forms for the various benefits. Yet, there is the argument that governments do not really make a difference to crime, that human race are generally peaceful and some (“primitive”) societies do function without governments where the crime rate is much lower than the “civilised world”. The argument goes on further to say that the greatest crimes against humanity, genocides and war crime atrocities were perpetrated by governments during the course of history.
Islam commands:
Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma’rûf (the good) and forbidding Al-Munkar (evil). And it is they who are the successful. (The Noble Qur’an 3:104)
According to most Muslim jurists it is compulsory to adhere to the law of the land even if it is secular as long it does not contradict the Islamic principles – i.e. enjoining good and forbidding evil.
Most scholars and commentators have advocated recently that as Muslims we must participate in the electoral process to safeguard our interests as citizens.
One reason for this is that there is no clear evidence in the Shari’ah to suggest it is unlawful to participate in the democratic process. Indeed, public opinion is quite to the contrary, almost all Muslim countries participate in some form of democracy. The reason being is that there are many common principles between the two, equality under the law, accountability to the people etc. the notable point may be that Islam is a form of democracy but not vice versa.
Recently, the question arose: Is it lawful to participate in a non-Muslim democracy? Almost all scholars answered in the affirmative – justifying the reason that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made social contracts with other communities who were not Muslims, when the first Islamic state in Medina was formed. But one crucial factor has been missed when comparing this analogy of Medina. That is, the parties making the contract were on equal terms and when a party violated the terms and conditions of the contract it became void and no longer binding.
Now, in a democracy, it is arguable that we forfeit our freedom when we install a government and become subjects to the laws this government forms for us. It may be representative of us but this is not important. What is important is that we are no longer equal partners in a social contract; we have sold ourselves and have become subjects of our elected government. We can no longer opt out and absolve ourselves from the consequences of our government.
The argument, ‘to vote for the lesser evil’, too has its problems. By doing so one is endorsing the lesser evil. It might be better to ponder on an example of the great prophet Abraham (peace be upon him), as the Qur’an says:
There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: “We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone”: (60:4).
http://www.themuslimweekly.com/newspaper/viewfullstory.aspx?NewsID=TW00002697
And that’s why I think this man-made ideology of democracy is all a load of rubbish. Democracy doesn’t promise equality but only makes promises for the majority.
Take for example, if the German people wanted to elect Hitler to kill all Jews, how was this going to give equality to the innocent Jews?
It’s the same thing with Hindustan, whenever they want, the majority (Hindus) can elect BJP or Shiv Sena to kill it’s minorities at will.