Should the Muslim World embrace Constitutional Democracy?
The rise of the West has popularized democracy as a political system. The democratic process calls for citizens to elect representatives to deliberate on legislature. A constitutional democracy is a type of democracy wherein the authority of representatives is limited under a constitution in order to protect certain human rights. There are many reasons for why Muslim-majority countries have been slow in adapting this model. Some of these include a colonialist legacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict that resulted in a resentment of the West and Western ideas, oil wealth that negates the pressure of representation that is coupled to taxation, the presence of dictatorial rulers, and Islamic fundamentalism which leads to fear of adopting new ideas (Afsaruddin 2011). That being said, two-thirds of the world’s Muslims do live in a democratically elected nation and slow adoption does not necessarily preclude democracy as a valid system of governance in an Islamic nation (Nazli 2015). Neither the Quran nor the Prophet Muhammad specified a particular form of government (Fadl 2004). According to the scholar ‘Adud al-Din al-Iji, it is not a religious mandate but rather inherent social utility which gave rise to the caliphate and which resulted in its necessity. Therefore, God has left the governance of Muslims as an open question.
In order to evaluate the validity of the constitutional democracy within an Islamic context, an examination of the opposition is first necessary. The Islamic scholar Abdul A’la Mawdudi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami posits that Islam is an essential part of politics and that secularism is thus un-Islamic. He coined the term al-hakimiyya to refer to God’s ultimate sovereignty over everything, which he drew from chapter 3, verse 154 of the Quran, which states “They ask: ‘Have we also got some authority?’ Say, ‘All authority belongs to God alone’”. He therefore asserts that western notions of democracy are incompatible under an Islamic framework, since the “philosophical foundation of Western democracy is the sovereignty of the people,” and not of God. In other words, by regulating matters of national and civic affairs, Islam is seen as incompatible with the democratic process, which dictates these matters as per the choice of the majority (Nazli 2015).
In response, scholars have acknowledged that sovereignty is indeed to God alone, and that therefore, any proponent of the constitutional democracy within Islam must demonstrate that democratic legislation and deliberation respects that sovereignty (Fadl 2004). Scholars explain that the Quran requires a human intermediary for interpretation and therefore, by interpreting the Quran and finding ways to uphold God’s justice, humanity is honouring, not denying, God’s sovereignty (Fadl 2004). They emphasize that even though sovereignty is to God alone, one must be careful to not use God’s ultimate sovereignty to justify a negligence of human responsibility. God left the question of governance open so as to provide humanity flexibility with respect to their mode of governance, as there are potentially multiple ways by which the divine laws of God may be upheld (Fadl 2004).
Although the Quran did not specify a form of governance, the divine law encoded within the Quran holds certain human values as sacred, one of the most important of which is justice (Fadl 2004). For instance, in chapter four, verse 58, God says, “… when you judge between men, you judge with justice” and in chapter 2, verse 188, justice is further emphasized, “and eat up not one another’s property unjustly, nor give bribery to the judges that you may knowingly eat up a part of the property of others sinfully.” Furthermore, the Quran promoted consultative methods of governance. It is known that the Prophet Muhammad, who is presented as an example for humanity, would consult with his companions on major issues. Chapter three, verse 159 of the Quran instructs the prophet to consult his companions on an issue: “… and consult them in the matter.” Moreover, the Islamic scholar al-Ghazali argued that the purpose of the Islamic divine law was to preserve public interest, which he specified as religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property (Opwis 2005).
In support of the constitutional democracy model, there are examples of the Prophet supporting both acts of deliberation, such as Hilf al-Fudul, and constitutions, such as the Constitution of Medina. Hilf al-Fudul was an agreement made by the leaders of the Quraysh to uphold justice and protect the rights of the not-so-powerful. Regarding Hilf al-Fudul, the Prophet is authentically reported to have said “I witnessed a pact of justice… that was more beloved to me than a herd of expensive red camels. If I were called to it now in the time of Islam, I would respond” (al-Sunan al-Kubra 12114), demonstrating his solidarity. The Constitution of Medina, on the other hand, was an agreement that the Prophet drafted between the Emigrants and the native clans of Medina, for mutual protection and a set of common rights. In it, Jews and Christians were free to keep practicing their religion, demonstrating that freedom of choice was of paramount concern to the Prophet, even when that choice was with respect to something as important as salvation. Muhammad Asad explains that the Quranic command to “fight them until the faith is for God” (2:193) affirms the importance of choice, since faith can only be truly for God when chosen freely (Afsaruddin 2011). The fundamental premise of both of these institutions is to protect the freedom and choice of people (Fadl 2004). Therefore, a constitutional democracy which combines these values with the five tenets of public interest articulated by al-Ghazali, and fundamentally serves the same purpose, is argued to be valid from an Islamic point of view. The existence of a constitution is necessary as it serves as an acknowledgement of the fallibility of humanity and thus limits the extent of legislation that may be enacted through the democratic process, as well as the power of the elected representatives (Fadl 2004).
Nevertheless, some basic declarations of the Islamic divine law are difficult to uphold under Western notions of constitutional democracy. For instance, the 15th section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.” In contrast, women are sometimes allocated different rights than men under Islamic law, such as their testimony being worth half that of a man in court, and the fact that they cannot marry a non-Muslim.
In response to this, different variants of how a democracy compatible with Islam have been proposed over time to try to reconcile the seeming incompatibility of Islam with Western notions of democracy. For instance, Mawdudi puts forth his theo-democracatic model, which he distinguishes from a theocracy in that “unlike a real theocracy, the Islamic State gives Muslims the right to choose their leader and depose him if need be” (Afsaruddin 2011). He claims that a state ruling by divine law does not limit, and in fact protects, freedom by preventing people from going astray and thus facing punishment in the hereafter.
Anas Malik further puts forth his minarchy as an Islamically compatible democracy, in which a small, limited government is elected by the people. This government would only be responsible for absolutely necessary functions such as policing and would serve little to no function in private life. This way, choice is preserved. However, Malik points out that this sort of government may face threats internally and externally. If the government is too limited, one group may overthrow the government and take over forcefully. Alternatively, external threats may attack and take the state, believing the government too weak to stop them.
In conclusion, the constitutional democracy as a framework under which Islam can operate has been controversial in recent years. With the rise of Western democratic nations, Islamic thinkers in modern history have devoted significant effort to the assessment of the compatibility of this political system with Islam. Muslim majority countries have been slow in adopting it due to a variety of reasons, such as colonialism and authoritarian rule. Mawdudi states that the fundamental problem with democracy is that it grants sovereignty to people, whereas al-hakimiyya is due to God alone. Scholars have acknowledged that God’s sovereignty must take precedence but claim that honouring God’s sovereignty is possible while giving the responsibility of deliberation to representatives of the people. It is widely acknowledged that a Western notion of democracy, however, cannot due justice to all of the tents of Islamic law. Therefore, in order to reconcile these two alternate world views, various models of an Islamically-compatible constitutional democracy have been proposed.
References
