By Cyril Anderson  

Part 1 of 2

Some vocal members of both Muslim and non-Muslim populations have the conception that democracy and Islam are concepts that are fundamentally contradictory.  This is, however, in my opinion, an incorrect conclusion.        

 What is meant by the term “democracy”

The issue depends to some extent on what is meant by the word "democracy."  If by democracy is meant some system in which issues of vital importance to the society are decided by the whims of passing mass opinion, as was the case in the worst moments of the democracy of ancient Greece, then Muslims do have a problem with such a conception.  Muslims believe that the creator of the universe has given humans universal principles with which to govern human society.  Muslims also hold strongly that there is such a thing as truth, and that something which is false is not made any less so simply because it is widely believed.  Therefore, Muslims believe that important matters should not be decided by the whims of a fleeting majority, but should be governed by the careful deliberation of qualified, knowledgeable people. 

 If, however, what is meant by democracy is simply a system where the people have some voice in their own destiny, where the ultimate political power rests in the hands of the people, and works for the people, and where the people are governed by representatives from among them, then, no, there is no fundamental problem with this from an Islamic perspective.  A case in point of a democracy that, at least in its initial conception, if not in actual practice today, is largely consistent with Islamic principles is that of the United States, as initially conceived in their Constitution of 1789.  In the explanatory Federalist Papers, it is made clear by Alexander Hamilton and others that the founding fathers of the United States shared similar concerns to Muslims about the risk of vital issues being left to the rule of the mob.  This is why they took pains to create a system that would give the people a voice and representation in their own government, yet still having numerous checks and balances to promote sober second thought to shield the nation and stabilize it from the turbulence of mere passing public opinion.  Whether or not these checks and balances are functioning today is another matter, but the intention behind the structure of the nation remains.

 Compatibility of this concept with the main schools of Islamic thought

On the surface, Sunni Islam seems to have more basis for democracy, given its claim that Muhammad left the world without any explicit advice or instruction regarding the succession to political leadership following his passing.  Shia’ Islam on superficial examination, with its teaching of Divinely appointed leaders or imams as the only truly legitimate leaders for mankind seems to be more at odds with democracy and more attuned to theocracy.

 Now while it is true that in a time when the imam is clearly present and identified, it is the duty of believers to follow him, this does not mean there is no basis for democratic styles of government in Shia’ Islam in periods such as the present.  Given a time when the imam is not outwardly manifesting his mission, the clear need for political leadership means that some less than perfect solution is at this time legitimate from the standpoint of the pragmatic need for political leadership.  Some Shia’ scholars have suggested that this implies that qualified Islamic scholars should step in and hold direct political power in the absence of an imam, taking the general guardianship over the faith given to the religious leadership by the 12^th imam at the beginning of the  ghaybat al-kubra in a political sense.  Other scholars just as qualified, however, see the direct participation of religious leaders in politics as a danger to the integrity and image of the institution of the religious leadership.  These scholars have voiced support for democratic republican forms of government with political leaders of and for the people, and religious leaders making use of their position of respect and honor in the community to exert indirect influence on the people through moral instruction in the community. 

 In addition, the insistence in Shia’ theology that a key requirement of any legitimate ruler is justice, in light of the essential belief in the Justice of God, brings Shia’ Islam closer to the democratic perspective than Sunni Islam, whose traditional holding to the doctrine of Predestination has encouraged the belief that anyone who comes to a position of leadership over the Muslims is placed there by God, and thus legitimate, regardless of whether or not his leadership is just.  The traditional Sunni perspective then is that one should not challenge or question unjust leaders, but simply put up with them patiently.  The Shia’ position on the other hand is that it is a duty to work to change unjust and oppressive leaders through whatever political means are available, with non-violent means being the first choice.

                                               Part 1     Part 2