IMPOSING DEMOCRACY BY FORCE

IMPOSING DEMOCRACY BY FORCE

Abbas Mahmoud Al-Akkad

The public diplomacy of the West is planning to introduce Western Style de­mocracy in the Middle Eastern countries predominantly the Muslims. Very sound idea indeed. But the promoters of this idea should know that Islam's political philosophy is inherently democratic. All the relevant teachings of the Holy Qur'an and the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) advise Mus­lims to engage in the widest possible consultation in choosing their rulers. In fact Islam is the first religion that laid down a "Democratic" framework govern­ance.

 

The present article by (late) Abbas Mahmoud Al-Akkad, an Egyptian scholar tends to confirm that West itself has ben­efited from the sublime lessons con­tained in the Holy Qur'an.

 

The Holy Qur'an outlawed despotism and condemned the tyrants and their ways. It directed the Prophet and his suc­cessors to depend upon consultation. The Qur'an says: And consult them in (important) matters", (3: 159), and "And whose affairs are decided by council among themselves". (42:38)

 

The Qur'an ruled that equality must be the guiding factor while administering justice among the people regardless of class distinctions.

By reading the Qur'an, a Muslim feels an urge to seek counsel through inspira­tion derived from the Holy Book rather than by clear order. A Muslim should re­frain from oppression and despotism while in power. From the point of view of a Muslim, the first step taken by the Creator in the process of the creation of humanity was, according to present day terminology, a constitutional action which was based on conviction rather than co­ercion. The Qur'an says: "And when thy Lord said to the angels, I am going to place a ruler in the earth, they said: Wilt Thou place in it such as make mischief in it and shed blood? And we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness. He said: Surely I know what you know not. And He taught Adam all the names, then pre­sented them to the angels: He said: Tell Me the names of those if you are right. They said: Glory be to Thee; we have no knowledge but that which Thou has taught us. Surely Thou are the Knowing, the wise. He said: O Adam, inform them of their names. So when he informed them of their names, He said: Did I not say to you that I know what is unseen in the heavens and the earth? And I know what you manifest and what you hide". (21:30-32)

 

Regency on the earth was instituted through conviction and not coercion, the promised viceroy would not have been worthy of this confidence of the Creator unless the viceroy gained superiority over others by acquiring learning un­known to them.

 

It is the inspiration gained through the Holy Book and the knowledge of reality which give Believer the feeling of seeking counsel and avoiding despotic ways. It is the inspiration and the urge to search for more knowledge which is more forceful convincing than clear and open orders.

 

It should be clear that constitutional rule was known by the ancient Arabs and is deep-rooted in the Islamic statecraft. It is the principle which preceded the de­velopment of peoples into groups by many centuries, but it was not adopted by human societies until after one thou­sand years or more of the revelation of the Muhammadan mission. The ideal of consultation could be achieved only when their is someone who has a right and has to demand it or to be reminded of it, by someone else. It could also be achieved when there is someone who ig­nores the right and has to be directed to respect it. The owner of the right here is "the people" who get a realisation of it and later feel a need for it. The people later acquire means to translate the prin­ciple into practical life. The completion of such a procedure was not so easy and required a number of generations to ma­terialise. When the rights are restored to a certain group of people, consultation and counsel become the rule by which the rulers and the ruled abide. Among nations this rule takes a normal course and is decided by need rather than selec­tion and appreciation.

 

When these stages in the develop­ment of the idea were completed the government with advisory body, or the constitutional government became Known as European system which was later to be copied by the East. It was not foreign to the Easterners and needed no special pleasing or preaching.

 

It is also true that Europe knew the parliamentary system in its primitive form many centuries before Christ. In Rome there was the Senate; in Athens, Sparta and some of the Greek provinces there was similar assemblies. Later, other types of assemblies resembling modern representative councils were estab­lished. They were nearer to the demo­cratic system in which the classes take part.

 

This system was something peculiar in these countries. It was not supposed to be rational nor did seek to serve the human rights. The Latin people and the Greeks did not follow this system be­cause they admitted man's rights of free­dom or because they tried to apply ra­tionalism to the affairs of all cities and people. They adopted it because it suited the policy they followed in dealing with the chiefs and others who vied against each other to seize power. When popular governments developed in Athens in the days of Chilistine the Democrate the right of the representation was allowed to eve­rybody who reached thirty years of age. The right was exercisable in various con­stituencies. But this development did not represent a human belief worthy of adoption by everybody. It was simply a local arrangement aiming at combating the ty­rants who contested with the democratic leaders on the basis of the influence of their tribes or partisanships. This proved useful when any one of the leaders de­cided to seek the cooperation of the masses by making them share adminis­tration. In the same way, a leader could have sought the help of the Persians just to seize power from the tribes and other partisans.

 

As far as faith and morals are con­cerned, Arab civilisation preceded the West in adopting a system of govern­ment based on consultation. But in the field of practical administrative systems evolved by constitutional governments, the West has gone ahead of Arab civilisation.

 

Constitutional government could not have been established in the Near and Middle East so easily had it not been based on the people's and the ruler's be­lief in its merits. The Western nations wasted their early efforts in forcing their despots to surrender their claim for Di­vine Right and the right of heavenly sov­ereignty. The Europeans were obliged to cover only half of the distance which was the longest and the hardest part of it in the course of deciding about the princi­ple, while the Arabs, the rulers and the ruled, knew it already one thousand years before the establishment of mod­ern parliamentary life. This principle pro­vides for seeking counsel, unfettered loy­alty to the ruler, the dedication of government energies to the services of the citi­zens and the agreement of the leaders on different issues.

 

The despot, either in the East or in the West, did not like anybody to share rule with him, neither did he accept ad­vice voluntarily. But the difference was great between a ruler who could com­pletely ignore the basis of the parliamen­tary government and another who could not do so or dare to announce publically his dislike of the system without being accused of violating the religion and disobeying Allah. It could be said also that the difference was great between one ruler who disregarded parliamentary government while believing in Divine Right and the Heavenly Authority exer­cised by him and another who was afraid of such a disregard lest he would, by an­nouncing his disregard, by violating Di­vine Right and the Heavenly Authority.

 

The Sultans and Eastern princes op­posed constitutional government on ephemeral excuses and not on sound grounds. Most of these excuses related to the European policies and foreign rela­tions which worked to hinder the estab­lishment of the parliamentary system in the East and which helped the Sultans and princes to express their opposition to the idea. The Ottoman Sultans believed in seeking counsel — the title "Mushir" or "adviser" was supposed to be the highest in the country. This was because the Sul­tan did not have the courage to be the highest in the country. This was because the Sultan did not have the courage to tell his nation frankly that he wanted to rule in a despotic way. But he stood in the way of establishing the parliamentary system in his country because some sec­tions of his people belonged to different races and had different religion and lan­guages and collaborated with the Euro­pean countries against him. The Sultan's view was that such people would never be loyal to the state if they were given the chance to hold responsible posts which would enable them to know the secrets of the state's internal and external policies.

 

When the British colonisers occupied Egypt at the end of 19th century they found there a representative government with a past experience spread over the era of Muhammad Ali the Great. It was natural for them to dismiss the parlia­mentary government, because they could not control the Egyptian adminis­tration totally while there was another force pulling against them which was represented by the parliament. When the Egyptians asked for a constitution they demanded independence too. The repre­sentative government was synonymous to the national government, included in the programme of all Egyptian parties. It was clear that foreign colonialism was re­sponsible for the absence of the repre­sentative government demanded by the Egyptian liberals.

 

According to this way of thought, par­liamentary life as outlined by modern conditions was a European product transferred to the East by modern Euro­pean civilisation. Yet this system was well known to the Easterners, there was no need to borrow it from the Westerners or to accept it unwillingly in the manner of student being forced to learn a difficult lesson by his teacher. As was stated be­fore, the West's ambitions were greatly responsible for frustrating the East's ad­vance in this direction and this was clear in the East's attempts to adopt a constitu­tional system. The East accepted the Eu­ropean product because it already be­lieved in freedom and consultative bod­ies. The credit for these qualities goes to the Arab culture which flourished after the advent of Islam. Even in the pre-Islamic period these qualities were not considered strange.