The New Nation - Internet Edition

Dr Javed Jamil

As will be seen in the verses, the Qur'an sets basic but distinct and categorical guidelines for the development of political system; for Islam encompasses the life of individual as well as society; and society is not conceivable- at least in the modern world, without an elaborate administrative and political setup. Therefore, it could not be possible that God would not have given explicit instructions in this regard. Islam means peace, and is defined as submission to God, because the real peace cannot be achieved without wholly submitting to the injunctions of God. The grand objective of Islamic political system therefore, is to ensure peace at all levels. And peace cannot be achieved without taking three basic steps: first, enjoin the righteousness and forbid evil; second, ensure justice; and third, foster unity and brotherhood. It is this trio that forms the foundation of the Islamic political setup.

Before understanding Islamic political system, however, let us have a brief look into the development of modern political ideology.

The political revolution in the West was masterminded by the economic fundamentalists. The political experts of the West, under the impact of the ongoing industrialisation, felt the need to initiate a movement for the establishment of democracy which they described as a system of "the government of the people, for the people and by the people". The slogan of people's rule was indeed fascinating. It cannot be said with certainty whether the onset of the movement of democracy had direct involvement, or not, of the economic fundamentalists. But sooner or later, they were able to fathom the extraordinary potential in the on-rushing political developments for the growth of their ideology. A system other than the people's government was now incomprehensible; for a government that would be periodically changed would be easily manoeuvrable. The political hierarchy would not only be far more accessible than the monarchs; it would also be in no position to ignore the interests of the business-world; for the politicians required free flow of money for electioneering and other political functions. The manufacturers and traders would not mind parting with a small loaf in hope of greater returns. The movement for democracy could not have been successful, if the dons of the world of business had not been kind to it.

The history soon witnessed the birth of different forms of democratic systems. Little wonder that the democracies prospered primarily in those lands where the industrialisation was in full swing. Multiple-party democracy was the obvious choice; for, in party-less democracy, the individual leaders might have ignored the interests of the market as soon as they seized the reins of power. On the other hand, the parties had long-term interests, and it was more improbable for the parties to forget the pre-election promises.

Though the avowed goal of democracy has been to fulfil the long cherished aspirations of the people, and to work for their all-round betterment, it has miserably failed in guarding itself against the damaging intrigues of the vested interests, particularly the industrialists. The power can be seized only at the Hastings; the big business either fields its own candidates, or more often, it supports a political party that is expected to best serve its interests. Any meaningful electioneering requires not only huge funds, but also other extreme methods including the use of muscle-power, facilitating the entry of criminals. Thus a permanent nexus has developed between politics, organised crime and industry. This is true of almost all the big democracies of the present world. The bracket has extended itself to include the bureaucracy, administration and media. Elections are regularly held and the people can exercise their right to franchise.

But the issues on which the elections are contested are usually such as suit the game-plan of the economic fundamentalists. The media creates and un-creates issues, and the masses are beguilingly reconditioned into thinking the way the media thinks. Politics has become highly expensive and hazardous. The word "moral" has ceased to exist in the political lexicon. Anyone with semblance of conscience does not dare to venture into the political arena that has become a playground for the rich and the criminals. The upright and educated have, in fact, developed repugnance for it. Not only the politicians have harmonious relations with the criminals, the criminals have themselves developed fascination for politics; in the absence of any strict legal criteria for candidates, the undesirable elements gain a sort of legitimacy once they enter the election fray after joining one of the parties that are expected to fare well at hustings. It is much more tedious for an intellectual or social activist to convince the party stalwarts of his claim for party ticket; the criminals' wish to become people's representatives is expressly granted. Once they enter the Parliament or the assemblies, they acquire a distinct halo of respectability and esteem; big functions are organised to shower encomia on them for their "services" to the nation. After a few years of politicking, they become veterans, and ministerial chairs are, often, occupied by them. The ongoing politicisation of criminals breeds criminalisation of politics, and the criminalisation of politics enhances the prospects of the economic fundamentalists.

Had democracy been properly put into practice, it might have been a sacred blessing for the common people. It might have guaranteed them a lion's share in power; and their rightful needs and aspirations might have been truly realised. It still holds true that they can, successfully, overthrow any government out of power. It is therefore mandatory for a party in power to keep the masses in good humour. But, in reality, the remote controls of almost all governments remain in the hands of the big business. Through media that blossom under its auspices it succeeds in enchaining the imagination of the people. The disinformation campaign in the media is too effective to permit them independent thinking and judgement. Consequently, the real issues hardly surface into prominence, and the minor, insignificant and frivolous matters are made to appear as big issues that do not haunt but hunt the mind of the common-man. The political bigwigs, when they ascend a public rostrum to deliver speeches that usually have plenty of rhetoric; cry their hearts out for the poor and the downtrodden. But in the comforts of their ministerial offices, they minister only to their industrialist benefactors, and their beneficences are gifted back multifold through convenient adjustments in policies and rules and regulations, grants of licences and ministerial orders for their products or services. All through their terms, the problems of the masses never bother them; but as the expiry of their term and the new elections approach, they again revert back to their favourite theme: concern for the poor. A few schemes favouring them, though marginally, and often only on the paper, are announced with great media hype. If they return to power, they are back in paradise; if not, still, they have great many privileges to enjoy themselves throughout their lives. And, of course, as opposition, they have now more opportunities to stand on the rostrum, and harangue about the necessity to raise the standards of life of the poor; for that to happen, the best course for the public is to bring them back in the next election.

As has been emphasised in previous chapters, Islam does not pinpoint its injunctions; it rather, sets boundaries, and within the area inside these boundaries, which is quite big, man is free to choose his way. Islam does not provide an elaborate arrangement of various institutions needed for political setup; it only defines premises that can be developed in an elaborate system, flexible enough to adjust to the requirement of a particular time.

The fundamental principles of Islam's political ideology may be summed up as follows:

First, in an Islamic system, the ultimate sovereignty belongs to none but God Almighty, and therefore, no laws and regulations can be framed which violate God's injunctions. The Qur'an, being the word of God, is to be consulted and kept supreme in all policy matters.

Second, the best interpreter of God's injunctions can be none other than the Prophet himself; therefore, to understand God's commands better, the sayings and doings of the Prophet have to be taken into account.

Third, there shall be a leader of Islamic Government, who has to be followed in all matters unless he violates the commands of God. The leader should be chosen from among the best followers of Islam; and he should command the approval of Islamic nation.

Fourth, the leader, while administering the affairs of the state, shall consult the people (or their representatives); and their wish should be given due importance in decision making.

Fifth, an Islamic Government shall continuously endeavour to propagate the message of God.

Sixth, an Islamic Government shall continuously endeavour for global peace, and for attaining this purpose, it can, whenever required, develop friendship with the unbelievers (i.e. non-Muslim groups, organisations or countries) who have not been taking active participation in anti-Islamic activities.

Seventh, it is the duty of Islamic state to make best efforts possible to redress grievances of the oppressed people, irrespective of the religion or race of the oppressor or the oppressed.

Eighth, Islamic State will ensure peace at all levels.

Ninth, Islamic State will make every possible effort to improve the lives of the people within the bounds of God.

It follows from the above that the political setup, as advocated by the Islam, is closer to Democracy than any other form of Government, namely Monarchy, Oligarchy or Dictatorship. But it has certain basic differences with the western democracy. First, while in Western Democracy, the people are the real sovereign and they can make any law, whatever its implications, if the numerical majority supports it, the people in an Islamic Democracy are free to legislate only within the bounds set by God.

For example, the British Parliament, amidst the mounting of pressure by the public and the politicians, legalised homosexuality. Such legislations are impossible in an Islamic system. Second, while in a Westernised democracy, the personal character of the candidates for the leadership of the nation has very little to do with the eligibility for the post, in an Islamic system, the ruler and his associates are expected to possess exemplary characters.

The natural corollary of this, if applied to the modern society, is that, in an Islamic political system, while all people are free to vote (except those involved in serious crimes), only those are free to contest the elections, who have not been found involved in any of the prohibited activities, have sufficiently good knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and carry out the obligatory duties as enjoined by God. The biat system prevalent since the early days of Islam is very close to the voting system of the present time.