The Confusion in the name: Islamic Democratic Pakistan?

Islamic democratic Pakistan!!!...??? Check every Pakistani currency note, you will find this printed somewhere on it... this clearly asserts that Islam and democracy are indeed compatible; but are they in real? In this post I would try to explain to what extent the normative premise (please check the dictionary before inferring anything) of the two are compatible with each other...

The problem with democracy is that it doesn't have a standard definition (check ‘Democracy: A very short introduction’ by Bernard Crick), which makes it easy for different groups, even the dictatorial ones, also may call themselves democratic. For e.g. Adolf Hitler and Mussolini were elected through an electoral process; socialist nations also used to call themselves as socialist democracy... etc., but the mainstream usage clearly states democracy to be liberal in nature.

Since the beginning of this century Capitalism and Communism were in conflict with each other, the ideals of free-market, liberalism or neo-liberalism etc., were hallmarks of capitalist societies. After the political defeat of communist system and down fall of Russian federation, Capitalism and its derivatives, including liberal democracy, subsequently triumphed over other political orders across the globe. Therefore when someone refers to democracy today, it is pressumed to be liberal in nature as this is how it is in this context it is referred in the mainstream discourse. 

What is liberal democracy? Liberal democracy claims to provide complete personal freedom to the people, and they are free to do & be whatever they want to, as long as they are not hurting the freedom of someone else. They are free to choose their religion, beliefs, values, dress code, food etc. anything which doesn't contradicts with the ideals of freedom. A father who expects his children to follow the same religion he follows, is going against the respective ideals, if he is a Muslim, and his children wants to be atheists, for e.g., then so be it, he cannot insist against his children’s will. If a man and a women what’s to live with each other, sleep in one bed, out of wed lock, then it’s their personal matter, and any one putting restrictions on them is going against the ideals of liberalism.

For example, if state interferes or facilitates a Muslim woman to get married to a Hindu male then the state is going against the ideals of freedom. If a teenager wants to spend more time with his pet dog then with his mother then his/her mother don't have the right to complain etc. etc... If we see history from a liberal perspective, then we will see Alexander the great (so called) and Hazrat Omar r.a to be of equal historical value... likewise Quran, Bible, Geeta and L. Ron. Hubbard Book on Scientology will get of equal importance and respect.

There is only one thing for which citizens can exchange their freedom for, i.e. money!!! if a person restricts himself or become subservient to a dictatorial rule within a business corporation then it is not just considered legitimate, but also appreciated as more money is expected to bring him more freedom, for e.g. he can travel all around the globe, buy anything he wants including a porn-star to sleep with etc. etc. Freedom is to maximize ones potential says George Riesman whereas capital is a means toward it (see his book Capitalism).

Now liberal democratic political order, institutionalizes these ideals as totalitarian, i.e. anyone who rejects them is expelled out of the system and/or is prosecuted. The law or the constitution is supposed to be derived not from any religious scriptures, or wishes of a particular person, but from the will of the free majority. Different variants across the globe, most notably the parliament and the presidential system are there to do this, however the end objective is considered to be the same i.e. ‘government of the people, for the people, by the people’... What’s legal, what’s illegal is supposed to be decided by the public debate, if the public demand allowing of gay marriages, or an usurious financial system then it will be legalized & institutionalized into the system... however if the same public demands women to stay at home and restricts them to go out to work in corporations, and men or government to take care of their financial needs, then it will not be allowed as this is against the ideals of liberalism; will be termed as majoritarian dictatorship, and will be discouraged & condemned by other countries with liberal political order. The right of self-determination of even minorities cannot be suspended by the majority, this is what liberal democratic socioeconomic & political order is all about... where the sovereignty belongs to the man (of course women as well), at least at theoretical level...

Now, Islam is not Christianity, or Hinduism, or like any other religion. It has a distinct history, a very comprehensive belief and value system, and has guiding principles to shape and establish a unique type of socioeconomic, cultural and political order. A Muslim doesn't consider his religion Islam as a part of a culture, or a set of rituals... rather Islam provides him a complete frame to organize & prioritize his private and social life. Islam give a list of dos & don'ts, legal & illegal, prohibited & allowed, liked & disliked etc. which a Muslim (as the definition of the term ‘Muslim’ implies) is supposed to implement in his life and society (with a majority Muslim population). The legal system of Islam isn't immature; it has evolved over centuries and provides guidance over all spheres of life. For example, interest is prohibited in Islam, women are allowed to work however it is preferred that they stay back home and take care of their family; while men provide them all kind of protection; free intermingling of men and women isn't allowed…

Islam’s political order requires a the head of the state to be practicing & pious Muslim (with maturity, experience, character, vision and all the required skills), who holds the veto power over any decision… his board of advisors, who are Muslims of similar quality, are not elected, however they are brought into their positions just like it is done in judiciary, military etc., i.e. on the basis of merit (character, qualification, experience, etc)... who do not suggests the head-of-the-state on matter over which there is explicit guidance available in Shariah, as there is no need to discuss or debate over alternatives, if no explicit guidance is available in Shariah, or if the matter is beyond the scope of Shariah then relevant experts are supposed to be consulted...

The minorities have some freedom, they are provided protection by the state, they are free to practice their religion and rituals privately, or do business, however they are not allowed to hold high offices in government, let alone the position of head-of-the-state or the Supreme judge (Qazi) etc.; or preach their religion openly etc., they are also supposed to give a distinct type of a tax known as Jizziya, which in view of Mufti Taqi Usmani (see his Islam aur seyasi nazariyat) is less then what Muslims are supposed to pay as tax, and it is in exchange of the protection provided by the state to them*. However level of individual freedom for Muslims and non-Muslims a like is of course somewhat restricted in a socioeconomic & political order organized as per the ideals of Islam, primarily because the sovereignty doesn't belong to the man (or women) there, rather sovereignty belongs to Allah Al-Mighty s.w.t, and man (or women) is only his servant (see Quran, Surah Zariat, verse 75)...

From the details mentioned above, how one can expect the two system, i.e. the Islamic one and the Democratic one, to be compatible!!!...??? Rather what is witnessed is that the two are a total contrast of each other. Now if someone tries to invent a new type of democracy, which is not liberal by nature, and considers a theological source to be the source of law etc. then it will be tagged as a majoritarian dictatorship and will be vehemently opposed by the other liberal states in the world, just like a socialist-democratic order was opposed by the free-market capitalist economies and actively fought against on an economic, political, ideological, psychological plains... (See first section of the RAND's report 'Building Moderate Muslim's Network', free soft copy available on their website)... 

Now keeping in this view, how one can imagine a state which is labeled as 'Islamic Democratic'? Obviously it cannot be both, and if a society is erected with such contradiction, then it will only bring trouble and instability at some point in time. There will always be groups in the society who would not be able to digest the institutionalized incoherence and will oppose it in different ways, as it is already happening.

So what’s the way out, shall we scrap Islamic out of the title, or shall we scrap Democratic from it and bring the original title of ‘Islamic Republic’ back, and install a presidential kind of a setup which is said to be more closer to the Islamic standards then parliamentarian setup... however if the order of Islamic Republic Pakistan, governed through a presidential setup, is illiberal in nature, then the state must also get prepared to face the opposition of the international liberal order... will it have the guts to do so? How all this will be done, is hinted in my previous blog post titled 'The undemocratic path word democracy'. Whatever the case may be, incoherent ideals are not better than the ideals which are unpopular globally... and we might not have any other choice either... besides we have examples of China, and various middle eastern countries, which are not democratic and are being relatively efficiently managed then Islamic Democratic Pakistan is… perhaps we may look at them for guidance and support to change the political landscape of the country, coherent with the dominant ideology of the country…
_____________

* It is also a known fact and acknowledged by non-Muslims, that Islamic civilization is the only civilization which has provided shelter to Jews (for example) when they were persecuted by Christians in different parts of the world across centuries. Check blog.critic...gods-house-muslims-saved-jews-from

Author is an academic researcher, author, blogger, social entrepreneur, facilator, mentor and tweets @javaidomar