Democracy or Demokratia is "rule by the demos". Demos is Greek refers to common people - people with little or no education. In the Republic, Plato made a case against democracy. He said that decision-making should be based on expertise and that mob rule would result from allowing all people to rule in democracy. In effect, just as only trained surgeons should operate on the human body or only skilled pilots should fly planes, Plato believed that only trained statesman should guide the ship of state. Ultimately, Plato thought that democracy would not be government of the people but government of the uneducated pitted against the educated. Like Plato, Aristotle believed that democracy would be the most dangerous form of government because it is characterized by class rule, in which the uneducated citizens govern the country themselves rather than the commonweal. It was feared that democracy would lead to warfare, where the powerful would expropriate the weak. (See Clark, William Roberts, Matt Golder, and Sona Nadenichek Golder. Principles of comparative politics. pg 149-150. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2009. Print) Democracy is nothing more than thought control. We THINK we are free because we have the power to vote. Even then, our choice to vote is limited and manipulated. (see: Chomsky, Noman. Thought Control in a Democratic Society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL3GJpge-BI)
In Islam, leadership is awarded according to merit. The Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) said,
يؤمّ القوم اقروهم لكتاب الله فان كانوا تي القراءة سواء فاعلمهم بالسنة فان كانوا في السنة سواء فاقدمهم هجرة فان كانوا في الهجرة سواء جاقدمهم سلما ولا يومن الرجل الرجل في سلطانه ولا يقعد في بيته علي تكرمته الا باذنه صحصيح مسلم
"The Imaam [to lead the Salah] of the people should be one who has the best knowledge of the Qur'an from amongst them. If everyone recites the Qur'an equally well, then the Imaam should be one who is most knowledgeable of Sunnah [best understands the lessons and rulings behind ahadith). If everyone is equally an expert in Sunnah then the one who first immigrated to Medina should be Imaam. If everyone. If everyone immigrated around the same time then the first one from amongst them, to convert to Islam should be Imaam. It is not permissible for anyone to lead the congregation of another imaam without his assent. It is also permissible for any person to sit on someone's seat in their house without their assent" - [Muslim]
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَىٰ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقِيرًا فَاللَّهُ أَوْلَىٰ بِهِمَا فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الْهَوَىٰ أَن تَعْدِلُوا وَإِن تَلْوُوا أَوْ تُعْرِضُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا
"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not personal inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted" - [4:135]
Initially this verse instructs the believers to give an honest witness, to testify truthfully. Apart from this primary command, there two secondary critical lessons in this verse:
(1) The order to establish justice is from Allah hence the understanding of what constitutes as justice and the means of acquiring it is also from Allah. Allah is the Law-Giver and we are delegated to govern the Earth as the representatives and ambassadors of His law.
(2) Whether it is concerning our personal selves or families, the rich or the poor, "Allah is more worthy," signifies that Allah is more Acquainted of our best interests, therefore we must adhere to what He has commanded.
So who is more knowledgeable of Allah's commands and Allah's conception of justice than the one who is most learned in Qur'an and a scholar of Hadith science? He diligently applies on himself all the laws of Allah, he is the first to submit himself to Allah's commands and he sincerely wishes to benefit people and do justice. Then such a person is most deserving of political leadership. When this perosn become the President or the Prime Minister, it won't be as Plato and Aristotle feared, "mob rule" of hte uneducated or warfare of the powerful exploiting the weak, but a justice and equitable government.
Interestingly enough, the US wants to destroy this very form of government. See: "US Democracy Promotion Policy in the Middle East: The Islamist Dilemma" (CRS Report for Congress, June 15, 2006). The US wants to replace the Islamist indoctrination with democracy. According to this report, Islamist refers to individuals and movements that want the prevailing of Islamic law order in their countries and societies. Why do you think US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? What is really causing so-called revolutions and uprising in the Middle East? The US wants to accelerate social change in the Middle via democracy. What difference does that make? Democracy is meant to replace Islam! As explained earlier, democracy is the rule of the uneducated and the violent while Islam is the rule of Allah, the Most Wise and the Most Just. Are the two compatible? Are good and evil compatible? Light and darkness compatible? Friend and enemy compatible? No.
Compelling as it may be, political scientists such as Bodin, Hegel, Hobbes, Kant, Locke, Montesquieu and Vico, all argued for the benefits of monarchy [one leader] over democracy [mob leaders] because a monarch was chosen to lead for his virtues while political leaders in democracies were drawn from a hat! Up till the 18th century, there were no elections in democracies, only lots. In effect, democracy was seen as obsolete.
Elections
What about free press, independent judiciary, capital economy and all other great institutions of democracy? Do we really have a free press? Really think about it for a second, meditate over it for a while. Anything from the news, sitcoms, 4 o'clock soaps and 9 o'clock thrillers - what do you see? What are you made to believe? What are you sold? Sex, drugs, violence? Hopelessly spurious and ineffectual things which are not true and which you do not need? Plastic food that does not satiate or or give good health, clothes which do not cover, cars you cannot afford, vacations you cannot take? Radical Muslims who won't stop attacking your freedom to do all the above? Independent judiciary - what is independent about detaining innocent and torturing them to death? Are you really free if your democratic government records all your phone calls and keeps a record of your facebook conversations? They monitor your spending and watch you travel! And capital economy - it suppose to make property ownership private so that everyone can pursue profit-based interests and happiness. What doe capitalism look like in Canada? 20% or 5.6 million of the Canadian population poor. From this 5.6 million, 3.4 million Canadians are below the poverty line. That is, 3.4 million people in Canada lack work that will help them afford little food, minimal clothing and shelter. They do not have access to health care or education. They live segregated in slum neighbourhoods. While a select wealthy people possess enormous wealth, inhabit elite homes in Forest Hill Toronto and Westmount Montreal. They enjoy Toronto Symphony and the National Ballet, their kids go to Cambridge and Harvard. (See Booth, G. V., and John J. Macionis. Study guide, Sociology, fourth Canadian edition. pg 252-255 John J. Macionis, Linda M. Gerber . Toronto: Prentice hall, 2002. Print.)
Okay, so democracy isn't so perfect. Because the government is hedonist, they promote sensual pleasures on TV. They are a little paranoid so they have to keep an eye on us. The people still have power, we can hold elections and vote bad governments out of power - something which the Islamist cannot do? They can still vote the government out of the parliament?
It is an illusion to think that people are powerful because we can vote. Since World War II democracies have produced fake majority governments and weakened public representation in the parliament. The votes that we cast during elections translate into seats which parties get to form a government. It is thus assumed that the parties with the most votes, will get the most parliament seats and so they will form the majority government, right? WRONG! The relationship between seats and votes under the plurality system is not a smooth line on a graph; it is far more random and volatile than that. This type of chancy outcome in the formation of governments keep the corrupt in power and their voters disillusioned. For the record,
1979 - in the Canadian federal elections, the Conservatives formed a minority government with 36% of the nations vote. The 36% of the votes were translated into 136 seats. During the same elections, Liberals won 40% but got only 114 seats.
1980 - federal elections, Liberals formed a majority a majority government with 44% of the votes and 52% of the seats.
1987 - federal elections, Conservatives again formed a majority government with 53% votes but garnered 75% of the seat. Do the math. If a party gets 52% of the seats for 44% how can it possible get 75% of seats for 53% votes. This is absurd! It doesn't add up.
1986 - provincial elections, NDP won majority 42.6% of votes but was given only 31.9% of seats.
1991 - provincial elections, NDP won 41% of votes but it took 68% of seats and formed a majority government.
1997 - five parties contested federal elections and the Liberal party won with 38.5% of the majority vote. This means, 61.5% of the Canadian population was effectively disfranchised from 1997 - 2001.
2000 - federal elections, 1,051,209 voters in Ontario supported Canadian Alliance Party but the party only got 2 seats. 797,518 people supported the same party from BC and the party got 27 votes.
2001 - provisional elections, Liberal party won 97% of seats with only 58% of votes. That left 21% of NDP supporters with only 2 seats and 21% of other party supporters with no seats.
2006 - provisional elections, Bloc Quebecois won 68% of seats in Quebec with the support of only 42% of Quebec voters.
2006 - federal elections, Conservatives on by 48.8% of votes, which left 51.2% of the voters unrepresented.
2007 - provisional elections, Newfoundland and Labrador's premier was reelected with almost 70% of the vote, but he took 92% of the seats.
These distortions and "wrong winner" phenomena is not an anomaly; it occurs repeatedly in US, UK, Israel and Indian elections. Not only are the votes disproportionately translated into seats but also the votes are randomly allocated more or less values. (See Barker, Paul, and Mark Charlton. Crosscurrents: contemporary political issues. 6th ed. pg 241-242. Scarborough, Ont.: Nelson Canada, 2009. Print.)
There is even a software that rigs the elections in the US.
It really surprises me then, that the people want democracy. Ignorance is bliss I think? What you don't know cannot hurt you until you have it - then it is a different story. What will Muslims gain with democracy when we already have something far better than it - Islam! Islam will not lie to you or cheat you. It will not sell you things which make you hungry and sick or leave you poor and perverted. Islam is peace. Islam is knowledge. Islam is doing good deeds and making the world a better place.
So why the protests and the arsons for democracy? Why the chants and tears for elections? Democratic elections and other institutions are a sham in North America - how will they be any different in Egypt or Libya, Iraq or Palestine? Save from being held foolishly sway to popular whims. Go back to Qur'an and read it. You'll find the best political actions and governance in the Book which Allah revealed.
Islam'model government = Ottoman Empire existed from 15th century to when it was dismembered after the First World War. It ruled over most of Asia, Middle East and Southeastern Europe (as far as Cicily Cyprus and Portugal). Throughout this immense territory, for over 5 centuries, Christians churches (Maronite, Coptic, Chaldean, Greek Orthodox, American Orthodox etc) lived alongside the adherents of Muslim sects (Sunni, Shi'it, Druze). There were also important Jewish populations in most parts of the empire. Ethno-religious communities were allowed autonomy, including not only religious freedom but also their own systems of private law, regulating matters such as marriage, family and inheritance within their separate communities.
ReplyDeleteRuling over a colourful, polyglot poplulation is an achievement. It was more admirable than the liberal democracies today. The empire existed without the facade of elections and still there was order, availability of public services and institutions for public welfare, rule of law and peace. Remind me to write an expose on Presidential/Prime Ministerial Dictatorships of North America. The Khalifah and Shari'ah are sufficient for us as government and constitution. But they are trying to sell us their dirt for our diamonds.