|
| By Nadia Yassine, On June 18th, 2005 |
|
|
|
| The 9/11 events have launched a global process at the political level just as at the cultural level. At the political level, this date is considered as Day One of the current international relations. At the level of controversy and ideological views, it was behind the re-emergence of essentialist views that we thought to have been surpassed, but that actually remain very present in the very contemporary schemas of thinking. |
|
| An extremist view calls another; intolerance begets another. Now we find ourselves carried away in an endless spiral where the Renanist pure tradition legitimizes Wahhabit aberrations. |
|
| Paradoxically, the two antagonistic views have nevertheless the same features:1. superficiality2. binarism3. subjectivity. |
|
| In the center of this fighting controversy, the concept of Democracy is found hostage. Its alleged friends maltreat it even worse than its supposed enemies. |
|
| - If on one hand democracy is judged as the miraculous and instantaneous remedy that is alone susceptible to heal Islam of its " natural " barbarity and that must therefore be legitimately imposed, on the other hand democracy is allegedly a heresy and a political model of unbelievers that does not befit the Islamic societies and that must absolutely be combated. |
|
| - If on one hand Islam is the enemy of women, freedoms, History and Democracy, on the other hand democracy is the enemy of God and the human race. |
|
| The gravity of the ideological confrontation is all the more serious since it is only the verbal expression of two subversive realities. |
|
| - On one hand, we have a will to power that has never disappeared with decolonialism and that comes back in force in the name of democracy and antiterrorism. On the other hand, we have the identity withdrawal (a universal effect of globalization) that is done among the Muslim peoples in the name of a static dogma viewed as the sole haven in a world that is effervescent and pernicious. |
|
| In this ideological confrontation, the debate on democracy is more exploited than ever and turns into a row that leads nowhere because no progress can be achieved in an atmosphere that is electric and before an international policy that is iniquitous. |
|
| The debate is biased at several levels and from the beginning already : |
|
| - Those who defend Islam's incompatibility with democracy base their argument on the principle that "there is everything in the Qur'an". They remain prisoners of a particularly literalist reading with which the Muslim world is severely affected because it ensues from a legal and political legacy that is corrosive, but well established in consciences, perhaps even in subconsciences. |
|
| The American policy of " Nescafé-like democracy " (Octavio Paz's expression) only exacerbates the idea that democracy is a devilish system that serves to anesthetize the fighting spirit of the peoples. The attitude of the Americans triggers off what Jocelyne Cesari calls "the syndrome of the protected citadel" - democracy is perceived as an enemy concept for the interested peoples. |
|
| - Those who defend the non-solubility of Islam in democracy do it not with a critical mind but with a mentality that reduces Islam to its extremes and condemns it to the stake without trial. |
|
| In these essentialist approaches, generally, Democracy is beyond any historical dimension and beyond criticism, while Islam is an obscurantist bloc that has nothing to suggest since it remains blocked in its archaic views. |
|
| In this presentation, I intend to examine the extent to which Islam is compatible or not with Democracy. Knowing that the interest of the participants is centered today more on the possibilities of Islam than on the gaps of Democracy, I will bear in mind only the positive outcome of the historical process of the latter. |
|
| Can Islam coexist with democracy - an experience that has matured after many setbacks and trials, a method of running complex societies in a constitutional state ? |
|
| I will not dwell at the contemporary examples of countries that seem to prove that Islam and democracy are not antinomic. Rather, I will rely on the idea that autocracy is a norm in the Arab and Muslim world. |
|
| I prefer to go further back to the theoretical sources, for resorting to the system of reference and to its history is an effective way to better understand the origin of such analogy. |
|
| Does Islam legitimize autocracy ? |
|
| a) In theoryWhen we examine the theories of political power circulated by the Muslim jurisprudence, we are forced to state that autocracy finds indeed its legitimacy : from Ibn Hanbal to al Mawardi to Ibn Taymya, the nature of the autocratic power is never put into question.b) In practiceThe majority of the Muslim peoples live under the yoke of autocracy, whether it is disguised in Republic or in Monarchy of divine right. The democratic transplants and the demagogical face-lifts will not conceal the deep nature of the autocratic regimes that prevail in the Muslim world.Ghassan Salamé, political scientist of great renown, says so rightly : " what an internal weakness of the Muslim societies that compels them to be on the alert in such a way, that forces them to mistake the comprehensible need of authority for dishonest compromise, for collaboration with all sorts of autoritarism ?" |
|
| The most seasoned analysts have not established the necessary epistemological break to understand this deep alienation that finds its origin at the crucial moment where the Umayyad usurped power. They don't seem to detect this major break and generally present autoritarism as the natural outcome of Islamic teaching.What was then the nature of power in the time of the Prophet and the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs ? Was it closer to the democratic system or the autocratic system ? |
|
| Power in the time of the Prophet |
|
| Ours sources viewed from an angle different from the official views, which serve to legitimize the official powers, enable us to draw basic principles :a) The philosophy of power- The profession of the Islamic faith is liberating per se and was perceived by the tyrants as a most subversive slogan; there is no god but God indicates the end of all forms of despotism.- The oneness of the community is the symbol of God's oneness.- The Qur'an is a source of Law, but it was not considered as a constitution. The community of Medina deemed it necessary to adopt a constitution based on the effort of reflection already used in such beginnings of Islam.b) The practice of power |
|
| The Constitution of Medina (sahîfat al Madîna) was the first political constitution in History. In a very simplified manner, we may draw from it the following principles:- consensus- mutual consultation (shûra)- separation of powers (developed in the time of Omar, second caliph)- decentralisation- citizenship of the Jews and the guarantee of their freedom of worship and organization.- Representativeness (the system of wufûd [delegations]) |
|
| The practice of the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs will reveal the perfecting of these political options from which we may draw two key points:- the choice of the governors was the result of a mutual binding contract (the bey'â or pact of mutual allegiance)- the governors were dismissible and accountable to the governed.It is true that the first Islamic society was not yet complex; yet it is obvious that all the ingredients were there so that a real democratic system might see the light of day and develop.It is also clear that the principle of ijtihad enables us to take all the modern techniques of management for our current complex societies.If we scrutinize the practice of the community of Medina, we will not find the germs of autocracy, perhaps even of theocracy, since the Qur'an guarantees popular sovereignty and the choice of the community. |
|
| Then what happened?The Umayyad coup d'EtatThe initiates know the great splits that Islam underwent when Mo'âwya, one of the latter companions of the Prophet, usurped Power using paradoxically the argument of the constitutional state, still in its infancy, and manipulating Medina's public opinion. He took advantage of the great emotion produced by the assassination of his predecessor to swing the choice into his favor, and disfavor of Ali. Power obtained by ruse will be kept by force. From a " democratic " power and " res publica ", the republic, we will pass to the most abject hereditary autocracy.The Umayyad will spoil the nature of power and will leave us marked forever by that period. They totally reversed the dynamic of liberation established by the Prophet and the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Their success was obviously due to the fact that the Arab society was not yet cured of its tribal penchants. They used three principal means to reach their ends. |
|
| 1°) The ideological lockingWith the complicity, aware or unaware, of a particular jurisprudence the manipulation of the texts caused a transfer of sacredness. From the sacred popular sovereignty we passed to the sacredness of individuals and their offspring…This transfer will be done by the manipulation of the Qur'anic verses and of certain teachings of the Prophet that gave way to interpretations …This locking will take the aspect of assiduous campaigns and continuous brainwashing namely against Ali, the symbol of the Power of consultation. The appropriation of the very symbolic space of the mosque and the Friday sermon will enable the corrosion of consciences and the establishment of autocracy as the norm in consciences.2°) The setting up of influential networksLaunched already in the time of Othman, illustrious predecessor of Ali, the setting up of these networks will be continued and will be based on the ties of blood but also on the financing of political agents, active and motivated.3°) TerrorLeading figures of torture and Machiavelism served the Umayyad's usurping of power; the dark pages of that systematic terror can only darken the image of Islam since it was perpetrated in the name of Islam. |
|
| It is absolutely necessary for us to lift the veil and teach consciences in order to unpadlock our way of thinking out power. For the Umayyad system was so successful that it is today a taboo to raise this controversy in the Sunni world whereas in the Shiite world, the reaction is instinctive as they take refuge in another form of autocracy - the spiritual and virtual one of the Imams who will come back…Conclusion: Islam and Democracy on two conditions :1) that the meeting between the two does not take place within the framework of a policy of invasion ;2) that our peoples liberate themselves from the ideological shackles by going back to the historical sources with a critical mind, and by ridding themselves of regimes they have not chosen. |
|
|
