6 Reasons why Parliamentarian Democracy is Incoherent with Islam

1. Application of Sharia law subjected to approval of Parliament: This means the very existence of Sharia law contradicts with the nature of democracy, as when there is sharia law then why parliament would have the authority to approve it. If its parliament, who is supposed to decide through majorities opinion then it is not too hard to understand whose judgment is supreme. So what an Islamic Democracy would mean? If it means that no law will be made in contradiction with Quran and Sunnah, then the law makers and their interpreters must have qualified Ulema-e-Kiram, this include all MPAs (for both parliament and provincial assemblies) and all high level judges of high and supreme courts, instead of elected representatives. Instead of majority’s opinion, weight of opinion should be mattered. But the contrary happens. For development matters, there can be separate structure, which allocates funds on need basis and doesn’t necessarily be made of elected members. Technocratic setup can be its alternative. The eye of law enforcement bodies can help keep things transparent rather. But this is not democracy we are talking about; this is different kind of a setup, something close to what we see in China, or at least in a presidential system.

2. Legitimization of Ethnic, racial, sectarian identities: Competition and rivalry for power in between the different ethnic, racial and sectarian, groups is seen as their right. In liberal democratic framework, moral value of an ethnic group is equal to the moral value of a religious group. Both are supposed to be treated as equal. This is termed as deontology in modern discourse of political philosophy. Ethnic, racial and sectarian bias doesn't have its foundation in Islam; rather this bias is primarily on the basis of some worldly criterion. Ethnic groups for examples often fight for their economic rights. How to address these is a separate issue, the problem is ethnic and racial identification is legitimized and institutionalized in the liberal democratic framework, reducing the significance of Islam to same level. Can this be justified from Islamic perspective? How?

3. Equality is arbitrary from Moral standpoint: Equal representation of learned, pious, scholarly and ignorant, illiterate, sinners. This is another gift of deontologist approach. The vote of two category of people, or their voice in public discourse has equal worth. On the other hand the quantity is important. Means the ignorant and sinners if are in large numbers, will eventually dominate the learned, intellectual, scholarly, people, including Ulema-e-Kiram. The most important thing to understand is that the entire institutional framework will eventually become obliged to the majority of ignorant public, whose opinion is rather controlled by sponsors of mass media. Can this be justified from an Islamic perspective even if this is happening at a theoretical level? In reality we will see below, it’s the elite whose opinions are indoctrinated on the majority through mass media.   

4. Degradation of Society through Free Mass Media: The so called free media which is the hallmark of democratic rule, drags everyone to the level of ignorant majority in its pursuit of viewership. The sponsors of media have the power to shape the opinion of innocent emotional public. Look into how Pakistani news channel has changed their ambiance during last five years. It’s a disgrace to watch news, which sounds more like soap opera, where there is no disregard for the seriousness of the incident as every piece of news is tagged with a filthy song from some Bollywood movie. And everyone is made to watch it as they don't have much of a choice… social media however now have given an alternative to the public. This is what we call in Urdu 'Sone pe Suhaga'. The media is sponsored by powerful and wealthy and this so called freedom of media allows the powerful to use it to make everyone believes that whatever is happening is happening according to majorities will. Means if someone disagrees then he is a part of minority. But how this can be verified by any individual, whose reach is limited? Therefore the learned, intellectuals, scholarly, wise people are the odd ones out. They either have to subscribe or bring themselves to the intellectual capacity of the majority or are forced into social exclusion. Therefore in practice, the power hungry elite therefore rules, while deceiving and manipulating everyone through so called free mass media, while establishing the pretext that its majorities opinion. They obviously do so for their own desire to stay in power. Fear is yet another very effective tool to control and subdue the masses; the free media of course use it for the benefit of rich, powerful elite. Can this in any way help everyone to develop as mature and informed, let alone to become better Muslims? In words of Noam Chomsky:

"Because elections are carefully contrived so that they are like selling toothpaste. In fact, they’re run by the same people who sell toothpaste. I mean when you turn on an ad on television, you don’t expect to get any information. You expect deception. That’s the point. Only economists talk about markets. Business can’t tolerate markets. They don’t want markets in which informed consumers make rational choices. What they want is deluded consumers who will make irrational choices. That’s what hundreds of billions of dollars in advertising are spent on. You don’t get any information about the product. But what happens when the same industry sells candidates? Exactly the same thing. I mean, about 10 percent of the crop of voters knew what the stand of the candidates was on issues. What they knew is the delusionary imagery that was created. So Bush is created to be an ordinary guy with his sleeves rolled up and you could have a drink with him in a bar. My guess is he’s taught to make those mispronunciations and grammatical errors; I doubt that he talked like that at Yale. He’s probably taught that way so that ‘them liberal intellectuals’ would make fun of him and then they can say, oh yeah, he’s an ordinary guy just like you, going off to his ranch. That makes him about as realistic as the next ad you could see on television for a lifestyle report."

5. Diffusion of Sense of Responsibility among Leaders: This happens as institutions are held responsible instead of real people. In fact the subjects which hold the power to change and influence becomes disappear. Let it be the ruling authority, money, a business organization, everything becomes a ghost or fake legal persons. Means if an institution makes a mistakes, then the institution is punished (systematic adjustments), not the individuals who were there. Now if an institution commits a theft, or a murder, then how sharia law would be applied on it and what will be consequences on key policy decisions taken by the concerned?

6. Self-Boosting and Greed for Power is Legitimized: Those with big mouths and greater ability to fool the public have better chance to win majorities opinion. In other words, only the demagogue rich with little conscience can come into power, or with the backing of such people. As they have the resources needed to fool the ignorant public on mass scale. In fact the majority’s opinion is in fact the will of greedy power hungry minority indoctrinated through so called free media (watch Adam Curtis documentary ‘The Century of Self’). The only fear for failed decision or non-performance is inability to fool the masses or win popular support in the next elections. However clever ones always maneuver their way back into power by putting dust in eyes of the public. The institutional cover also helps them to save their back and put the blame on relevant institution rather, or past governments. Their vision remains short term, motivated by their will to come back in power, after five years. The legal system is also gradually evolved around the need to protect the powerful and catch the poor fellow. How many war criminals are punished in US, or how many bankers are caught and punished after the sub-prime mortgage crisis is a proof. In Pakistan how much difficult is to catch the powerful and punish them for their crimes is known to all. The slogan for justice for all is a shameless lie, and reality is something far from it. It’s a rule of Lawyers, not Law, as put by Niall Ferguson. More holistically more money you have, the more chance you have to get away from punishment. Freedom of expression is also to an extent it doesn't expose the interest of the powerful.

Besides aspiring and struggling to become a leader is discouraged in ahadith of Prophet s.a.w, see below:

On the authority of Abdurrahman ibn Samurah: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to me: O Abdurrahman! Do not ask for leadership for if you are given it due to your request, you will be left to yourself. But, if you are given it without having requested it, you will be aided in it (by Allah)…” [Bukhari and Muslim] 

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: You [Muslims] will covet leadership and it will be a regret on the Day of Judgment, so what a great nurser [of pleasures] and what a terrible weaner [from them]. [Bukhari] 

On the authority of Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: I entered upon The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) with two other men from my tribe. One of the men said, “Give us leadership o Messenger of Allah,” and the other said the same. So The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “We do not appoint this matter to whosoever asks for it or whosoever is covetous of it.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

Now in such a system, how Islam can found a safe place, let alone have chances of growth? How this system can be replaced is another but a redundant debate; as systems are replaced not by strategy but by mass social awareness and subsequent mobilizations, not by legitimizing the unjust and corrupt by labeling it as Islamic or acceptable to Islam.

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