|
MUSLIM AND DEMOCRAT -
the myth of a civilisational gap By
Mona Sheikh The
day following the Turkish earthquake elections in November 2002, where
political parties with an Islamic reference ran off with a sweeping
victory, AKP-leader Abdullah Gül stated what the party would do with the
parliamentarian influence gained: 'We will prove that a country with a
Muslim identity can be democratic, open and related to the modern world',
he said. Already
before the results from the elections were known many newspapers in
Denmark questioned whether we were to witness another 'fundamentalist
terrormovement' taking over in Turkey. Turkey, which until then was known
as the secular role model for Islamic states. Such a sceptic attitude is
only symptomatic for the Danish press whenever a Muslim declares his
affection for democracy. It is indeed unfortunate and tragic that the
notion of a clash of civilisations between Islam and the west in terms of
political systems is so widespread and has
consequences for the political atmosphere both on the world scene and
within our narrow national boundaries. In
the debate about Islam and democracy there are two different groups
arguing that the values of Islam are incompatible with the values of
democracy. At one side we have opinion-makers related geographically to
the west who are trying to present Islam as an anti-democratic and
authoritarian ethos - as the main barrier for the democratisation of the
Muslim world. This misrepresentation of the Muslim world, which - as
opposed to the west - missed the light of the enlightenment - is often
recited by anti-immigration movements, cultural chauvinists and
influential political commentators as the argument for Islamic values
being inferior to the western values. On
the other side of the fence we find activists that use the name of Islam,
and refer to simplistic notions of sovereignty and rejects democracy with
the standard argument: Islam stands for the sovereignty of God, democracy
stands for the sovereignty of the people - what could be more incompatible
than that? Let
me address this fundamental misunderstanding first. It
is really a fallacy to think that believing in the absolute sovereignty of
God is incompatible with the idea of democracy, because democracy makes
the human being sovereign. The statement that democracy means the
sovereignty of the people is a fundamental misunderstanding of what we
should mean by democracy today. Today the idea of democracy - understood
as more than just a procedure - implies limited governments, the
separation of powers and the balance of power, which in principle prevent,
that any human being becomes sovereign, when it comes to the affairs of
society. It is no secret that
many states with a Muslim majority are ruled by dictators, who have
created a hierarchy between human beings in spite of the divine imperative
that no human being is over another in rank or better than another except
in his deeds. These countries are both in need of the limits and the
possibilities of democratic rule. There
is however no doubt that it is a central pillar of faith in Islam, that
God has the ultimate sovereignty. But that does not mean that God
revelated a manual for the administration of state affairs once for all. Since
nothing in the Quran explicit says, who should manage the will of God on
earth one must strongly object when some Muslim activists indulge in
simplistic statements like 'the Quran is our constitution' while
confirming the myth of the incompatibility of Islam and democracy. To
apply what one can call the law of God or the will of God requires human
effort. The act of fiqh, the
interpretation and application of divine law to particular cases, has to
be done by humans. If we had
continuing revelations it may be different. But we don't. The process of
shaping government is the responsibility of human beings. It is important
for Muslims to recognise that rather than looking at Islamic law as a
monolithic theocratic system, it must be recognised as divine principles
that were given to us. As principles which can work in every society.
Because basically they are about establishing the most just society in any
given situation. Muslims
rejecting democracy as an instrument to handle worldly affairs are
allowing the west a false monopoly on universal values as freedom,
equality, and human rights. They are rejecting democracy with the same
movement of hand as they reject the west, the capitalist economic system
and colonialism. But reality - the reality where a billion Muslims all
over the world - practice the rituals of democracy by giving votes,
organising themselves in interest organisations, sitting as members in
municipal councils, on parliament seats witness that Islam and democracy
is being upheld in an artificial relation of conflict. Actually
the debate about the Islamic roots of democracy and democratic pluralism
is flourishing among Muslim intellectuals, who draw on historical,
theological and rational arguments. Historical
arguments, that are used in defence of democratic principles refer to the
narrative that when the Prophet Muhammad was lying on his deathbed, people
asked him to appoint a new leader of the nation. But the Prophet denied
appointing one leader for the nation and thus signalled that it was up to
them to elect who should lead them, and how they would organise themselves.
The source to political authority and sovereignty was thus handed over to
the people. Another
important historical argument refers to the influence of the constitution
of Medina (in fact the first written constitution of world history) and
those ideas it upheld in year 600. The document had a constitutional
function in the city-state of Medina under the leadership of Prophet
Muhammad and was ratified by all the citizens of the state.
The constitution upheld principles, that in modern times are upheld
by the constitutional state such as religious freedom, equality, pluralism,
protection of minority rights, equality before the law and underlined the
necessity of consensus, coming into agreements and collaboration. A
third argument is related to the quranic concept of shûrâ
(consultation), which relates to the political decision making process.
For many Muslim intellectuals it is a religious duty to consult when it
comes to the affairs of the world in order to prevent, that dictatorship
and despotism can find their way to the roots of Islam. The
Islamic-juridical concept of the common good (istislâh)
reinforce the arguments behind why it is important that people engage in
the political decision making process. In this light being a democrat or
using democratic rights becomes a part of sharia
- a way to act up to ones belief. This short introduction to arguments
among Muslim intellectuals should reflect that Muslims on behalf of their
interpretation of sharia can substantiate, enforce and actively work in
favour for democracy. Before
this important debate around Islam, democracy and coexistence can move
further we need to encounter simplified perspectives on Islam and Muslims.
We need to demystify what religion and being religious means for the
involvement in politics. Secondly it is important to understand what
democracy means in its essence. It is a fundamental misunderstanding that
democracy should mean the sovereignty of the people. Far from it, a well
functioning democracy, where different groups of people can live in
peaceful coexistence, demands belief in the opposite: that it is not
the human beings who determine fundamental rights and liberties.
This is the only safety against allowing a majority to harm a
minority, if it is only the will of the majority. Both among Muslims and
non-Muslims we need a clear concept of democracy to avoid simplistic
conclusions about the clash of civilisations being unavoidable. © Mona Sheikh, november 2004 The above lecture was given at the Egyptian/Danish Youth Conference at Christiansborg, Copenhagen, August 18, 2004.
|
