Author: Muhammad Dawood Yusufi Eshaqzahi
Islam and Democracy (Part 12)
What Remains of the Rule of the People?
According to the author, if the hidden layers of democracy are examined and its outward appearance and superficial form are set aside, realities will emerge that, in his view, have remained concealed behind propaganda and deception.
The author argues that the examples mentioned above represent manifestations of minority rule within democratic systems. From his perspective, although the most important claim of democracy is majority rule, the question remains whether this is actually the case in practice. He leaves the judgment on this matter to the readers.
The author then quotes an individual named Raini, who maintains that some people regard democratic systems as a form of dictatorship based on the votes of the people. The author likewise concludes that it would be more appropriate to regard democracy as “government by minorities” (oligarchy), administered through general elections. In his view, even if genuine government by the people were to exist at some point, it would not remain stable and would soon give way to the rule of a minority or a limited group.
The author then refers to what he calls Darwin’s law of the survival of the fittest, arguing that in politics, too, the powerful generally survive. For this reason, one of the criticisms directed against popular rule is that it may lead to the domination and oppression of the majority. Consequently, in Western political thought, individual liberties have been presented as a safeguard for protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority.
The author, however, believes that the fundamental problem is not the tyranny of the majority but the domination of minorities. Therefore, from his perspective, liberty should serve as a means of protecting the people against the domination of minorities, rather than merely functioning as an instrument for protecting minorities against the majority.
In conclusion, the author argues that the fundamental problem lies in the way certain realities are interpreted and presented. If these realities are properly explained, he believes, perceptions and conclusions will likewise be directed toward the correct path.
Democracy and the Rule of Minorities from the Perspective of Western Thinkers
Western thinkers have also observed the manner in which minorities exercise power, expressed their objections to it, and criticized democracy.
Here, we quote Rousseau, who states:
“If we consider the precise meaning of democracy, we will realize that true democracy has never existed and never will exist, because it is incompatible with the natural order in which the majority of people possess and exercise sovereignty while only a small number are subject to rule.”
The American thinker MacIver states:
“The truth is that not all people govern; rather, a minority always possesses sovereignty and exercises power.”
Critics of democracy have long been familiar with this point. Gaetano Mosca, the Italian thinker (1858–1941), stated:
“It is absurd to classify governments into specific forms such as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, because there is only one type of government, and that is the government of a minority.” [1]
Vilfredo Pareto, another Italian thinker (1848–1923), divided society into two classes: the elite class and the non-elite class. The elite class itself is divided into two groups: the governing elite and the non-governing elite. The governing elite is further divided into two groups: an inner group, which exercises power and consists today of party leaders, and an outer group, which possesses authority and political power.
On the other hand, Robert Michels (1876–1936) formulated what is known as the “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” It states that without organization, there is little hope for any political party or movement to succeed, and organization itself is another name for oligarchy, or minority rule.
Both Mosca and Michels reject the proposition that “the greater the population, the greater the number of rulers.” Mosca argues that the larger the population of a society becomes, the smaller the proportion of the ruling class becomes. Michels likewise states:
“The larger a political party becomes, the more its affairs and activities are entrusted to an increasingly restricted circle of leaders and officials.”
Here, the author again refers to the statement of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who says:
“If we consider the true concept of democracy, we will find that genuine democracy has never existed and never will exist, because it is incompatible with the natural order in which the majority of people govern while the minority is governed.”
The American thinker Robert MacIver also states:
“The truth is that not all people govern; rather, a minority always holds the reins of government.”
Critics of democracy have also paid attention to this point. Gaetano Mosca, the Italian thinker (1858–1941), believed:
“This classification of governments into monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy is not a correct classification, because in reality there is only one type of government, and that is government by minorities.”
Another Italian thinker, Vilfredo Pareto, divided society into two classes:
-
The elite class;
-
The non-elite class.
According to him, the elite class itself is divided into two groups:
-
The elites who govern;
-
The elites who do not govern.
According to the author, the ruling elites are also divided into two groups:
-
The inner group, which exercises executive power and today constitutes the leadership of political parties;
-
The outer group, which possesses power and sovereignty.
On the other hand, Robert Michels (1876–1936) developed his famous theory known as the “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” According to this theory, no political party or movement can succeed without leadership, and such leadership, in practice, constitutes a form of minority rule or oligarchy.
Mosca and Michels both reject the assumption that the greater the population, the greater the number of rulers will be. Mosca believes that as the population of a society increases, the proportion of members belonging to the ruling class decreases. Michels likewise states:
“The larger a political party becomes, the more its affairs are entrusted to a limited circle of leaders and officials.”
Two British writers and thinkers, Herbert George Wells (H. G. Wells) and George Bernard Shaw, also believed that people cannot govern themselves directly and that, in practice, they choose a government consisting of a powerful minority.
Alongside these critics, many advocates of democracy in the West have also recognized the role of powerful minorities. MacIver states:
“The fundamental issue of democracy is to place powerful groups in appropriate positions and have them work toward preserving and safeguarding democratic principles.”
According to the author, the concentration and monopolization of power can be observed at every level. He points out that Alexis de Tocqueville, approximately a century ago, predicted that both old and modern systems would move toward an ever-greater concentration of power.
The author then extends this discussion to the international arena and argues that the highest level of power concentration exists at the global level. From his perspective, the world was initially bipolar, but following the collapse of the communist bloc, it became a unipolar system centered on the United States of America.
According to the author, a form of power concentration and minority rule also exists within the United Nations. The Security Council, which consists of fifteen members, possesses considerably greater powers than the other organs of the United Nations. Of these fifteen members, five are permanent members and possess veto power. The author believes that among these five countries, the United States has greater influence and that its demands are accepted in many cases or imposed on others through various means.
At the level of political unions and federal governments, the author also observes examples of the concentration of power. As an example, he refers to federal systems in which several states have their own parliaments and local governments, while at the same time the central government possesses extensive authority and concentrated power.
To be continued…
[1] Edward Burns, Afkār fī Ṣirāʿ, p. 67.
