'soft' and 'hard' Western power echoes the contemporary debate that has been spearheaded by the West that the Muslim world is in urgent need of both political and social reform. In conjunction with its 'War on Terror', the West has lead the call for democracy to be forcibly introduced into the Muslim world. The West together with their small number of secular inspired followers in the Muslim world argue that only democracy can solve the problems that exist in the Muslim world today; the Muslim world can only be saved from itself if it emulates Western political thought and it's values. Nobody in the Muslim world today would disagree that change is urgently required. The problems of the Muslim world are immense; poverty, lack of healthcare, lack of scientific and industrial development, huge unemployment, political oppression, lack of security and order, corrupt despotic rulers and occupation of Muslim lands are just some of the vital issues confronting the Ummah. The Muslim world collectively is the laughing stock of the world today. However the question arises, what should the nature of this change be? Should it be a Western inspired and supported democracy or the return of Islam through the Khilafah?
Despite the fact that as an idea democracy traces it's origins to the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle over 2400 years ago, democracy is claimed by the West as the best form of ruling that man can achieve. With leaders and lawmakers elected by the people it is hailed by the West as 'rule of the people by the people for the people'. Together with the concept of secularism that emerged in the latter half of the second millennium that separated the Christian clergy from the affairs of ruling, the West and it's supporters across the world view democracy as the best way of delivering good governance and a representative government. They argue that freed from the baggage of religion, sovereignty in a democracy lies with the people, with man free to legislate at will.
Given that the West is aggressively and violently forcing it's ideas upon the Muslim world, it's claims' to achieving good governance need to be critically examined in two fundamental ways; is democracy the only way of achieving good governance and is democracy really delivering good governance in the first place?
Rule, but not of the people
History shows that the rights now claimed by the West to be universal for all people were actually grudgingly given. Europe was ruled by tyrannical Kings and feudal landowners for hundreds of years; their people had few rights of any kind, universal suffrage simply did not exist. In Britain, cited as the 'mother of parliaments', the first elected parliament only came about in 1265 following the declaration of the Magna Carta in 1215. Remarkably parliament could only be called when the King desired and up until 1780 only 3% of the population could actually vote; these were a small rich elitist male minority who were either feudal aristocrats' or rich businessman. To this day Britain is still without a written constitution, much of its second parliamentary chamber the House of Lords is unelected and a monarch is the head of state. Despite espousing secularism, the Church of England's Bishops', the 'Lords Spiritual', still sit in the House of Lords voting on new legislation.
It was only after the French revolution in 1789 did immense pressure build in the western world for political reform as Europe was once more plunged into political turmoil and fighting. Incredibly it was only as late as the 19th or early 20th century that legislation was passed to allow most men and all women to vote for the first time ever. In Britain women gained the right to vote and inherit property after much struggle by groups such as the militant Women's Social and Political Union.
If this has been the treatment of the ordinary in the West the treatment of minorities has been even worse. Jews historically have been persecuted in Europe. Even though America proclaims democracy since it's independence from British rule in 1776 it's mistreatment of millions of black people is well known. Forcibly taken as slaves from Africa, blacks were denied political rights and faced severe discrimination for well over 150 years. Only in 1886, well over a hundred years after the US constitution was written, did America abolish slavery. Only after years of struggle did the American establishment finally relent in the 1960s and reluctantly make it easier for blacks to vote after the Civil Rights movement. Racism remains a serious problem in America and the West as a whole, fomenting deep social division. Witnessing the furore over the British Archbishop's comments over the Shari'ah, it is deeply questionable whether the democratic West has come to terms with minorities living in their midst.
This is in stark contrast with the Shari'ah; Islam accorded all men and women many rights over 1400 years ago including the right to choose their leader, the Khaleefah. The Shari'ah guarantees the protection of all minorities and their way of life within the personal sphere in the Khilafah. Islam has taught Muslims that the both the White and Black man or indeed any man, are equal. There was no process of gradual reform, political movement or violent revolution within Islam before these rights were delivered. It is ironic that the western politicians and commentators who today so readily malign Islam do not fully appreciate their own backward history and contradictory contemporary thinking.
Even during the post renaissance democratic age the West has continued to endure political and economic instability. The current global credit crisis within the western banking system, which may lead to recession in America, Britain and other western economies, is part of the 'boom and bust' cycle inherent in the Capitalist system. During the 1920s and 30s western countries endured profound political upheaval which followed in the wake of the Great Depression. Countries such as Spain and Italy veered from the democratic system to fascist dictatorships. Germany gave rise to Adolph Hitler in 1933 who came to power by manipulating the parliamentary democratic system. Through a series of legislative acts such as the Enabling act, passed with the help of Germany's Catholic church through its parliamentary representatives, Hitler vested legislative powers with his own government and set himself on the road to absolute power. Within 10 years much of Europe and America were again at war with each other.
Democracy and authoritarianism
The past and the present today demonstrate that the democratic political system is actually a fragile state of affairs. In the current climate of the 'War on Terror' we have seen countries such as the Britain and America pass new laws in the name of fighting terrorism, contradicting their own values such as habeas corpus in the process by undermining liberties on the pretext of protecting security. This illustrates the problem with democracy: man made law. By whipping up a state of hysteria political leaders are able to pass legislation which otherwise would prove difficult if not impossible. This is the distinction in the Khilafah under the Shari'ah; the people may elect their ruler but the ability to create and abrogate laws is not allowed. Sovereignty rests with Allah (SWT) and man must abide by his laws, the Shari'ah. Thus a legislative state organ does not exist in the Khilafah; a Khaleefah may still well prove to be an oppressive ruler but to do so he would break the Shari'ah and be rightfully recognised as sinful by Muslims everywhere. If such a ruler was ruling using a democratic system he would most likely pass new legislation and hence legitimise his actions. The most recent example of this is Pakistan where Musharraf has passed constitutional amendments to extend and legitimise his rule with the help of civilian politicians'.
This conundrum of manipulation of the law is an issue that goes to the heart of the flaw in a democratic system. It is well known in practice that big business dominates and influences western politics. The current US Presidential campaign has seen hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by a few select candidates, most of which have been donated by American corporations. Once in power there is no doubt that these politicians' will repay the privilege with favourable policies and new laws'. The recent Labour and Conservative party funding scandals' in Britain are a case in point. As corporate donations and interests continue to hold sway over western politics we see increasing numbers of people who have lost all faith with their political systems by choosing not to participate at all. Voter participation continues to decline. Democracy is failing because the rich and powerful have the ability to dominate the political process and help shape and craft laws, which are to their favour.
Another problem linked with the ability to legislate at will inherent in Democracies is that decisive leadership cannot be delivered. To safeguard against the abuse of absolute power, power is divided or dependent upon more than just the leader in a democracy, the so-called 'checks and balances'. In Britain the Prime Minister is dependent upon his parliamentary majority to carry through new policies and laws. In America the President must work with the Houses of Congress to pass new legislation. This inevitably leaves a leader politically vulnerable and unable to provide sustained decisive leadership. This is made worse still in hung parliaments' and coalition governments, something apparent in recent years in Italy and Japan. Moreover re-election in a democracy is a major activity that not only preoccupies a leader both in terms of time but the western political system is open to abuse by politicians' in crafting policies for the short term desperate to get re-elected but may not necessarily be in the interests of the State or the people in the long term.
In Islam there is no such possibility of such 'celebrity' campaigning or electioneering. Since a new Khaleefah must be chosen with 3 days and 2 nights of the death or dismissal from office of the previous Khaleefah it is practically impossible for such elaborate campaigns. This is because in the aftermath of the death of Muhammad (SAW) the Sahabah (RA) chose a new leader within in this timeframe, even before burying the Prophet (SAW). Once elected the new Khaleefah remains in power until his death, removing the possibility of manipulative re-election politicking. Removal of the Khaleefah is forbidden as long as he governs by Islam. Moreover since there is no new legislation, the Khaleefah provides decisive leadership yet constrained within the parameters of the Shari'ah. Any violation would be noticed by Muslims who hold the Shari'ah sacred and therefore exercise their duty to account the Khaleefah. Any open transgression or Kufr would run the risk of a charge being filed in the Court of Accountability against the Khaleefah which has the power to dismiss him from office.
Thus the Khilafah provides a dynamic, robust and accountable political framework. Moreover since nationalism is prohibited in Islam it unifies its citizens irrespective of their ethnicity. Democracy actually fuels the curse of ethnic and tribal divisions since it legitimises difference as separate political groupings. In fact it rallies it's citizens on the basis of nationalism, setting up each nation state against the other, breeding a mentality of colonialism. The aftermath of the recent Kenyan elections has illustrated how in the developing world such politics can be so dangerously destructive.
Many in the world today admire the West's economic, scientific and industrial achievements' in the last few hundred years. However an integral aspect of the West's economic success has been because of colonialism. Compared to the rest of the world western nations enjoy great wealth while many in the rest of the world struggle to feed themselves three meals a day. Scientific development is a function of wealth; left undisturbed as the West conquered other lands through the sword, the rest of the world has lagged behind. From the advent of slavery from the west coast of Africa in the 16th century to the occupation of oil rich Iraq today, western governments have built their success at the expense and exploitation of other people. Samuel Huntington, the American political scientist, admits "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."
Despite having great wealth as nation-states, wealth inequality has always been problem within the Capitalist West. This is the inherent contradiction in Capitalism. For Capitalism to succeed, it inevitably results in wealth concentrating in the hands of a minority. Despite being at the height of it's Imperial power in the 19th century with wealth pouring in from the empire, Victorian Britain saw great inequality and poverty for the ordinary person. Today America claims the throne as the world's superpower. Yet despite this and the fact it is hailed as the country with the best free market and democratic system, wealth inequality is actually growing in favour of the rich. Today, 1% of the population holds one third of American wealth.
Moreover, nearly 47 million people in America are denied access to free medical care. In Britain new proposals are being made whereby the poor would lose the right to free housing should they fail to work, effectively providing a new pool of cheap labour. With corporations influencing Western governments in search of lucrative contracts, democracy has become a vehicle for the rich to further enrich themselves. It highlights the dangers of relative morality in democracies that has no firm fixed reference point for life.
Democratic societies are now faced with increasing social and economic problems; drug abuse, gang warfare, youth crime, dysfunctional families, rape and sexual abuse of women, child paedophilia, knife and gun crime. The family unit has broken down, fewer children are being born and as a result a deeper population and economic crisis is in the making. Many urban areas within western cities have become no go areas due to crime. A fundamental reason for this is that there is no incentive to respect and obey the law. This applies equally to the petty drug dealer in the street to the highest ruler in office. There is no concept of taqwa or fear of God. In the Khilafah this concept plays a deterrent role in addition to legislation. Muslims believe in the Shari'ah and know they will be accountable for all their actions before their Creator. If the West cannot solve it's own problems, how can it be a model for the rest of the World?
If the only success the West can boast about today is material progress then by that account even the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China may also claim relative success. They too have made industrial and scientific progress and socially have similar traits. The fact that a small elite rule in both countries is no different to that in the West, particularly with Russia; arguably only the styles and means of control are different in China.
With Capitalism being implemented in nearly all countries around the world just 1% of the world's population controls 40% of the world's wealth, whilst 50% of the world's population has a meagre 1%. As one looks at the world in which over 3 billion people live on less than two dollars a day one concludes that the West's leadership of the world has failed to address mankind's problems. The West cannot excuse itself; it has had ample time to apply its ideas and values over the last few centuries.
The terrible state the Muslim world is in today is not because of Islam. In fact the complete opposite is true. Western governments today, true to their history, are predatory colonialists. Aided and abetted by Muslim rulers, the two parties work with hand in hand with each other. In return for access to cheap resources in the Muslim world, the Muslim rulers are supported by the West to stay in power. Western claims of supporting freedom for the Muslim world are untrue; expediency and strategic interests trump any such concern for representative governments' and the welfare of the Muslims.
It is because of the absence of Islam as a ruling system, the Khilafah, that these problems plague the Muslim world. Examining Islam's past history shows that the Muslims prospered under the Khilafah whilst it was Europe that suffered ruin and oppression under Christian clergy domination. The Khilafah presents a real alternative to the current global political order. The West realises it will put an end to their free hand and suffering unleashed by their policies in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The Khilafah stands out as the only hope for the future.
http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/islamic-thoughts/islamic-thoughts/the-flaws-of-democracy.html
