Democratic System of Governance
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
(Note: In this article, only the theoretical conception of democracy is discussed. The practical shortcomings and corruptions often found in democratic systems fall outside the scope of this essay.)
The very mention of democracy brings to people’s lips the famous verse of ʿAllāmah Iqbāl:
“Jamhooriyat ek tarz-i-ḥukūmat hai ke jis meṅ
Bandōn ko ginā karte haiṅ, tolā nahīṅ karte.”
“Democracy is a form of government in which men are counted, not weighed.”
This criticism has been repeated so often that people have accepted it blindly. In reality, there is very little truth in it. Democracy is indeed described as a government of the representatives of the people, but this does not mean that all institutions of public interest operate merely through a system of counting heads, in which individuals are only numbered. Rather, one of the defining characteristics of democracy is precisely that people are weighed—their services are assessed on the basis of both intellectual and practical merit and competence. The appointment of teachers and administrators in educational institutions, lawyers and judges in the judiciary, specialists in medical, economic and commercial fields, and officers and soldiers in the army—all these sectors function on the basis of qualification and capability.
Democracy is not a value
It must be understood that democracy, in and of itself, is not a value (value). Education, justice, equality, peace, security, and economic prosperity—these are values. Democracy is merely a means of attaining them, just as the caliphate or monarchy were, at times, means of attaining such goals. Democracy, like caliphate or monarchy, may be misused and exploited.
Non-concentration of power
The theoretical foundation of democracy was laid to avoid the harms and abuses of monarchical and feudal systems. It is true that the very evils democracy sought to prevent can reappear even within a democratic order. For this reason, from the very beginning, efforts were made to ensure that power does not become concentrated in the hands of any single person or organisational structure. Thus, state power was divided into three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
Who holds real power in a democracy? This remains something of a secret—a hidden mystery. And it is this diffusion of power that is democracy’s greatest merit.
—
Correcting the weaknesses of democracy
As mentioned earlier, power in a democracy is divided among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Members of the lower house (the legislature) are elected by the public, and every citizen’s vote carries equal weight. Undoubtedly, this is a weakness, and precisely the weakness Iqbāl critiques. But it is not as if the experts of democratic theory were unaware of this weakness; rather, they knew it well and devised measures to mitigate its effects.
The representatives elected by the public undertake the process of legislation. Clearly, these representatives are not experts in lawmaking, and there is the fear that they may pass laws harmful to the nation and country. To remedy this, another body was established—the upper house. The elected representatives of the people constitute the lower house.
Members of the upper house represent the fundamental institutions of the state: experts in law, economics, education, and guardians of the nation’s values and traditions.
Before legislation, a bill is introduced in the lower house along with its detailed benefits. Members are given the opportunity to study these details, understand their nuances with the help of experts, then express support or opposition. Following this, the bill is debated; everyone is given the chance to present their arguments, after which voting takes place.
The bill is then sent to the upper house. Since the upper house consists of experts, their opinion carries weight. If they are convinced the bill is beneficial, they approve it. Otherwise, they return it to the lower house. The lower house re-examines the bill in light of these objections: if the objections are found compelling, the bill is dropped; otherwise, with or without amendment, it is presented again to the lower house for approval. If they pass it by majority, the bill is sent again to the upper house. The upper house may return a bill twice, but must pass it the third time. Finally, with the signature of the head of state (king or president), it becomes law.
—
Islam and democracy
There is one aspect of democracy that conflicts with Islam. If that aspect is amended, democracy becomes acceptable within Islam. That aspect is as follows:
In Islam, lawmaking is the exclusive right of God. No individual or institution has the authority to legislate independently. Therefore, the lower house must distinguish between matters on which the ummah has consensus (mujmaʿ ʿalayh) and matters in which there is legitimate difference (mukhtalaf fīh).
In disputed matters, the lower house may play a role by examining which view deserves preference. Likewise, the lower house may legislate in administrative matters relating to the welfare of society (maṣāliḥ ʿāmmah).
If the powers of the lower house are restricted in this manner, the objectionable aspect of democracy disappears. To ensure such limitation, the judiciary must be completely independent and free from interference. Judicial independence guarantees the supremacy of the Qurʾān and Sunnah, which is the very foundation of the Islamic order.
Furthermore, a significant number of scholars, jurists, and ḥadīth experts should be included among the members of the upper house. If the upper house is named Shūrā, it becomes a reminder of the Islamic system.
Additionally, it is possible to impose a requirement of essential religious and worldly education for all public representatives—such educational requirements already exist, in effect, within the West.
—
Summary
The conclusion is that, within democracy, only the lower house is created through public election. All other institutions and sectors of the state lie outside the scope of public voting; appointments therein are based on merit. Democracy is neither inherently Islamic nor inherently un-Islamic. It is a means, not an end. It can be used for noble purposes just as it can be misused for ignoble ones.
—
Disclaimer: This article was translated by AI. Original post: https://t.me/DrAkramNadwi/4779
