From Islamic Republic to Democratic Republic of Pakistan

Its 9 pm right now and the date is 11 May 2013, today in the morning Pakistan had its first elections after uninterrupted completion of a democratic (so called) tenure of previously elected government (as it is erroneously claimed to be). Means it is claimed to be the first transition from one democratic government to another. A very small number of crazy people in Pakistan, who understand the real face of democratic system, have not been able to bring up an alternative this with Allah’s will, as yet. I also have been debating against the democratic system since last two weeks with many people online and on social media. The following article is just a collection of those arguments which I gave to the people. I know it’s not going to change anything, however this documentation would help to understand it later that how wrong they were. Because tomorrow it’s simply not the end of the world.

Pakistan is considered to be an Islamic country, primarily because some of the clauses in the constitution demands conformance to Quran and Sunnah of every law passed in the parliament. However it’s also termed as a democratic because the framework of its political institutions are designed to conform democratic norms. Since the interest of the ruling elite of Pakistan is with those institutions, and not how Islamic the laws actually are, therefore practically Islam is nowhere to be seen. But irrespective of ruling elite wants, the fact of the matter is, even if you don’t even know the meaning of Kalima, still you can reach highest position of powers within those institutions, just by mimicking to be a Muslim. This is mainly because the nature of the institutional framework which was installed by colonial powers in the subcontinent, just doesn’t require practicing Muslims, the ideological position of any person is irrelevant, to perform any duty at any position whatsoever.

In wake of all this, the religious segment of our society is also excited about elections. Ulema are issuing fatwa for the public to vote, so that they may choose lesser evils; the same ulema who rejects democratic system primarily because of its spirit. Along with them religious political parties also have got really excited demanding the public to vote, as they claim that the condition of Pakistan can only get better if they are in power, and to justify their position they also claim that democracy is also compatible to Islamic norms and spirit. And other not so Islamic parties are also claiming to create a Naya Pakistan, and take the country on the path of so called progress and development.

So in a nutshell, there are three arguments, (a) Muslims should participate in this system so that they may prevent it to cause greater harm in the worldly sense, (b) This system is compatible with Islamic spirit therefore it can also be used to bring the society closer to Shariah. (c) and elected members through a free and fair election process has the authority to bring change in the country. 

Before checking the legitimacy of these arguments, it is necessary that we must understand what democracy really is along with its features like voting. Let us first do that…

Brief History of evolution of Democratic Process and Its objectives

A recipe to make a cake will result in a cake, a method of assembling a car will result in a car, a process to manufacture a shoe will result in a shoe, a process to stitch a shirt will result in a shirt, so on and so forth the quality of the ingredients will be evaluated by the quality of the outcome... but the most important thing is that each process has a definitive result.

Similarly Democracy is a process designed to achieve specific types of results for a society, and for this it needs specific type of ingredients. To understand this one has to go through 400 years of history of Europe and America...

In the European society the tyranny of the conflict between Church and Monarchy gave birth to Protestantism, which later led to movement of liberalization and secularization of the society, meaning removal of religion from the political affair. After removal of religion as a determinant of Law, the European society needed an alternative mechanism to determine the basis to formulate constitution, to determine what's legal, what's illegal, what just and what's unjust, evil and good...

Therefore the intellectuals of the time (particularly before French revolution) formulated a mechanism which we now know as democracy. Whose primary ingredient is self-determined liberal (non-religious) individuals, who uses nothing but his reason to find out what is right & wrong, evil & good, good & bad, etc, if his reason tells him that Riba is good then be it, if his reason tells him adultery is OK then be it.. etc.

This is the basic ingredient of democracy, and when such individuals when forms a society, than their majority chooses their representatives which formulate a parliament, who again uses majorities will decide what's legal and illegal in the constitution.

Therefore Democracy is simply a recipe, process, mechanism to produce a secular and liberal government for a secular and liberal society, who just doesn't look toward any religious source for guidance, its key ingredients are secular and liberal individuals, who do not affiliate themselves with any sectarian, ethnic, racial or religious group... Expecting anything else from it is fooling our own self...

Just imagine a recipe of cake uses chicken, and ginger powder... just imagine the results. In Egypt and Iran this is already happening. Recently Egypt pulled a ban from alcohol and bikini to revive tourism, and Iran has been gradually becoming secular and liberal, while the public is gradually becoming obnoxious to the shariah rule of wilayatul faqih… (1^st Reference, 2^nd Reference, 3^rd Reference)

Are Political Institutions Value neutral?

Many including our religious parties assume that Institutional structure is value neutral and have no influence on the dynamics of the people tied with that institutional. However Democratic system has a set of institutional framework designed for the specific secular and liberal objectives, and it cannot efficiently achieve some other kinds of objectives.

Considering these institutions as value neutral is like saying a very pious and honest fellow will be able to drive a tractor faster than a corrupt fellow. The tractor is a structure with its limitations, it cannot be used as an ambulance and it would be foolish to assume that it would perform better in case the driver is a nice person.

Political institutions are similar, they are structure of rules, and they have a hierarchy of collaborative and competitive contractual relations, with criterion for accountability and scope of responsibility for each position, and a set of qualification also. These structures are more like ghosts, which in fact drives the people attached to it... I was shocked to read the criticism of parliamentarian system by Adolf Hitler (disclaimer: we are no fan of the mess he created), i felt like as if he is talking about Pakistani parliamentarian system. Check this out and see how a set of rules in parliament influences the process of governance, type of people it attracts and their performance… click here to read and get surprised…  In Pakistan you see the same results of the same process.

So assuming that if all pious religious people somehow reaches to the parliament, then they will eventually be able to create different results... this assumption completely ignores that role of peripheral institutions Army, Judiciary, Bureaucracy, Free market enterprises (private corporations), Business, Financial System, Private Media, civil society (the most important one) etc. which have their own interests with democratic system, and influences the so called representative politicians, and in most cases they have the capacity to overpower the public opinion and political decisions made in the parliament.  

Procedures are not value neutral, means every procedure leads to different results. The parliamentary representative democratic system of government is a set of procedures, evolved for a very different kind of a society to achieve very different kinds of results (secular and liberal)... Can we expect a process from a Private Hospital be used to manage a Public school, or that of an Private Insurance company be used for Public Hospital… just by changing a few people?

Can Shariah Law be brought through Democracy?

In a discussion which compares Democracy and Islam, first we need to outline the fundamental axioms of the two systems, the ideals, the process of the historical evolution, the ideals they are designed to achieve, the mechanism they have been using to achieve those ideals, in the past, and during present times. etc.

This needs to be done by those who try to fit Islam into democracy, or vice versa. The fundamental question which needs to answered is what is the source or criterion to establish the constitution, law, and what mechanism will be used to establish it… in dozens of forms of democracy which the world has seen in practice or theory, one thing is common, that the source of law would be majority’s opinion, and that majority must also not be using any religious source whatsoever, rather use their own rational minds (if they have one) to determine their values, priorities, morals etc. The moment you say that some religious source has to be used as a basis of constitution, you are out of the domain of democracy, as it is defined in the modern western world.

Another thing, if you want to invent something new by bringing religion as the source of law, then you will have to name it something else, so as to avoid any confusion. This is because each term has a unique historical significance and genealogical legacy, and that legacy will define the meaning of that term. For example, the meaning colonialism has a very specific historical background and cannot be used in some other context.

If a Muslim agree that Quran and Sunnah are the ultimate source of law and constitution, then what mechanism are needed for its enforcement on to the society. For example, if someone comes up with an idea of using a democratic type of a setup, then first this idea needs to be tested in a pilot project, before applying it to the entire nation.

There are two different set of questions: One, what religious segment in Pakistan can really do to prevent the existing secular system to go against Islam…. two, how to transform Pakistan into and the model of Khilataf -e-Rashida (or something close to it).

Unfortunately the answer to the first one has been assumed to be valid for the 2nd question, and it is being assumed that one fine day when all members of the parliament will be practicing sincere Muslims then eventually they would reorganize themselves and the system to transform into a Khilafat kind of a model. Unfortunately this just an innocent and naive thought primarily because it assumes that entire set of public and private, formal and informal institutional structure of Pakistan or anywhere else in a democratic system is subservient to the parliament.

What people don’t realize is that the real drivers of the change in a mature democratic country (and we are not yet there) are not public representative elected through voting, but various stakeholders like Local and Multinational Corporations, Globally Connected Financial and Monetary System, Civil Society (which by definition is secular and liberal), Military Industry, Intelligence Agencies, Free (Sponsored) Media, NGOs (local and Foreign), Bureaucracy etc… All of them influence and derives the system indirectly, while the politicians remain in the front and indirectly serve the agenda of these stakeholders. This is the complete view of the system… changing of politicians through elections, is more like changing of salesmen as per the wishes of the customers, but the salesman would sell the same products manufactured by respective stakeholders, not exactly to serve the customer’s need but for their own benefit… If this is correct, then election is just a change of faces, nothing else!

Therefore keeping this in view these barriers, some other strategy has to be formulated, and for that we need to take lessons from our own history regarding what has worked and what hasn’t worked to transform the state structure such that it help Islam to spread and enable to enforcement of Shariah in the contemporary society. Check out what alternative Dr. Javed Ansari has…

The Pragmatic Approach of Religious Parties

Pragmatism can never be at the cost of principles or sacred values, allow me to explain how democratic philosophy contradicts with the very fundamental of Islam’s once again... in democracy you will have to obey the majority, sovereignty belongs to the people, otherwise it’s not democracy it's something else, In Islam sovereignty belongs to Allah s.w.t (his words are final)... And no matter how pragmatic the approach may be it would not be acceptable if it violates this very principle. This is a no brainer,

Now if we look at sunnah of previous Prophets, Prophet Muhammad s.a.w, our Aslaf, like Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal etc. It can be seen how they stood for the fundamentals whether someone agreed or not. Many Prophets a.s. were killed by the people for whom they were sent but they never compromised with their basics, irrespective of whether they achieved something or not. Democracy is a compromise on the fundamental principles as explained by Dr. Israr, and Mufti Taqi Usmani sb is also on the same lines, read his 'Islam aur Siyasi Nazariyat'…

Scholars including Mufti Taqi Usmani explicitly rejects democracy because it contradicts with Islamic principles. Democracy is institutionalization of Majority's will as sovereign, this directly contradicts with the principle of tauheed, risalat and belief in Quran & hadith being the primary source of law (See the video below). This also means that Pakistan's constitution is filled with such contradictions, whose practical manifestation we see now and then... and there are lots of more details which can be added here. Listen to what late Dr. Israr Ahmed says in this context...

From an Islamic perspective the reason why corrupt leaders are imposed on the public is the evil habits when awam. When awam become fearful of Allah s.w.t and seek repentance, Allah s.w.t will Himself change the leaders or their hearts. See the following hadith-e-qudsi…

This makes the idea of elections totally irrelevant. Without changing of hearts and minds, election will not change a thing. And if the hearts and minds of the Muslims have cleansed, then leaders will become good themselves. And all those who are promising a bright future are either ignorant of this fact, or are deceiving the public for some sinister agenda.

Can voting be called a Gawahi?

The fatwa of Mufti Shafi Umain and Mufti Taqi Usmani damat barkatuhum, is only creating confusion in the minds of those who knows that Ulema-e-Deoband categorically rejects democracy as un-Islamic primarily because of the reasons explained by Dr. Israr Ahmed (referring to the video I posted in my above comment), however on the other hand they have given a fatwa in favor of voting...

It’s like saying rotating a steering wheel of a car is allowed, but driving a car is not allowed... this compartmentalized approach of shariah implementation just doesn't make any sense. This contradiction must have been explained in the respective decree.

Besides when voting in the first place you are giving a gawahi, shahadah, testimonial that you will accept majorities will over Allah's will, as this is exactly why the democratic system was invented, and this is exactly how laws are passed in the parliament, and with your action you agree that in case if majority decides against you, then you will accept it as well, this was also categorically said by a JI member on a talk show that if MQM is brought to power in a free and fair election then they will also accept MQM, for example.

Voting, Election and Shura

This is confusion in the minds of the public, that the concept of Shura in Islam is the same as democratic way of allowing the public to express their opinions. In real the philosophy and methodology of consultation and voting are two polls a part. Majlis-e-Shura and Parliament operates on unique and contradictory set of principles and philosophical basis.

In Majlis-e-Shura the Ameer is supposed to take advice from all his fellow members, and make his decision on that, he may or may not go with the majority's opinion, particularly when the issue already is clearly explained in Quran or Hadith, or there is consensus in Fiqh on it...

Also selection of Ameer, the majority's opinion has no relevance, his criterions are defined, and anyone who qualifies will be given the position. Also an Ameer cannot elect himself, unless there is an emergency situation, according to some ahadith. for details please check Mufti Taqi Usmani's 'Islam aur Siyasi Nazriyat'

If two people qualify for the position of Ameer and both have near about equal qualification, then the elders may decide a mechanism to make a choice, this could be voting, but only by those who are wise and mature enough to make a sound choice... every tom dick and harry will not be invited. This is not a strange or out of this world phenomenon...

See how decisions are made and people are selected for specific positions within military, judicary, any business organization, etc... Meritocracy which matters, voice of seniors and experienced are always given precedence over the juniors in all matters of strategic importance...

For more details click here

Summary of Discussion

So is voting a testimonial in favor of the right person, it is no doubt, but before that it is a testimonial for the idea that majority’s will is above will of Allah s.w.t, and this is here where it contradicts with the beliefs of a Muslim. Voting is far from different from shura, due to various differences explained above. In Shura majority has no weight, expert opinion is weighed over majority, and Ameer has the final authority.

So can voting bring any Islamic change? No! Why? Because the deeds of the public are really the same and according to a hadith character of the ruler is a function of the deeds of the public.

And finally through democratic process we can only take the society away from where Islam wants to take us. The following quote says it all:

“The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.” - Gustave Flaubert

EpilogueIn the following article Mr. Muhammad Saleem Qureshi summarized the entire discussion beautifully. He also explains that religious parties have lost their power after participating in democratic process, as before that they were much stronger. See below.