Author: Muhammad Dawood Yousufi Eshaqzahi
Islam and Democracy (Part 2)
The Evolution of Democracy from Ancient Greece to the Modern Era
The concept of democracy, or “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” can be traced back to the writings of Greek philosophers and historians as early as Herodotus, the renowned historian of ancient Greece. In ancient Greece, the political system was based on democracy, and under the Athenian constitution, every citizen who reached the age of twenty had the right to participate in the city assembly.
Alongside Greece, democratic ideas were also known in the ancient civilizations of the East, particularly in India and China. Some historians even regard these two civilizations as the earliest origins of democratic thought.
Plato and Aristotle, two of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece, also discussed democracy in their works. Since Plato considered knowledge to be the criterion for classifying forms of government, he regarded democracy as the rule of the ignorant. Aristotle, on the other hand, viewed democracy as the government of the poor and the destitute. Thus, both philosophers criticized democracy, albeit from different perspectives.
The democratic system of ancient Greece was short-lived and did not endure for long. After many centuries, the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation gradually laid the intellectual foundations of modern democracy in the West. From Machiavelli to Hobbes and Locke, and later Rousseau and Montesquieu, each thinker made a profound contribution to the development of democratic theory. Consequently, democracy in the twentieth century reached a stage that represented the culmination of an intellectual process that had begun centuries before Christ.
Conceptually, Rousseau’s understanding of democracy differed from that of ancient Greece. He believed that direct rule by the people was practically unattainable. Instead, he proposed the principle of majority rule. However, this approach also proved problematic in practice. During the French Revolution, the shortcomings of majority rule became apparent when those who assumed power claimed to govern in the name of the majority. Their excesses demonstrated that just as an individual or a minority could become tyrannical, so too could the majority, and tyranny exercised in the name of the majority could be even more dangerous.
Although Rousseau’s theory represented a more refined understanding of democracy, it encountered practical difficulties. Consequently, many Western political thinkers concluded that direct participation of all—or even most—citizens in government was impractical. They therefore developed a new conception of democracy based on indirect popular sovereignty through representative government. As a result, representative democracy and majority voting gained widespread acceptance. Today, democracy is generally understood as government by representatives elected by the majority, as opposed to rule by a single individual or a minority.
In essence, what changed in the transition from ancient to modern democracy was not the principle of popular sovereignty itself, but rather the methods through which it was exercised. Democracy, in its modern sense, has therefore evolved gradually over a long historical process. Among the major milestones in this development were the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the American and French Revolutions of the eighteenth century, and the expansion of suffrage throughout Northern Europe during the nineteenth century. It was ultimately in the twentieth century that democracy became widely accepted as the normal form of government, with countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa claiming adherence to democratic principles.
Islam is the final divine religion revealed by Allah to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Through its detailed rulings and comprehensive principles, it regulates every aspect of human life from birth until death. Nothing occurs in human life without an Islamic ruling concerning it, either through an explicit textual command or through juristic reasoning derived from the general principles and objectives of Islamic law.
Democracy, on the other hand, is a political method devised by human beings to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power and to prevent tyranny. Some have also expanded it to include various personal freedoms, granting individuals the right to choose and dismiss their rulers and to exercise different forms of civil liberty.
In other words, Islam is a complete way of life in which governance constitutes only one component, whereas democracy is merely a political mechanism designed to address one aspect of human society and governance. Therefore, comparing democracy with Islam as though they were equivalent or opposing comprehensive systems is fundamentally inaccurate. Islam is far broader and more comprehensive than a political system alone. Nevertheless, the fundamental premise of democracy is that sovereignty belongs to the people and that they are the ultimate source of political authority. This principle differs from the Islamic belief that ultimate sovereignty belongs to Allah alone—a subject that will be discussed in greater detail later.
This chapter will now examine the principal characteristics and various forms of democratic government.
Before discussing the different types of democracy, it is helpful to clarify several fundamental concepts that will enable readers to understand the subsequent discussion more easily.
The Three Branches of Government
Governmental authority is generally divided into three branches:
-
The Legislative Branch: Responsible for enacting laws, making legislative decisions, approving budgets, and performing other legislative functions. These responsibilities are typically exercised through a parliament or legislature.
-
The Executive Branch: Responsible for implementing laws, administering domestic affairs, conducting foreign relations, and managing the executive functions of government. In parliamentary systems, these responsibilities are carried out by the cabinet, the prime minister, and ministers; in presidential systems, they are exercised by the president and the cabinet.
-
The Judicial Branch: Responsible for adjudicating legal disputes and administering justice through the courts.
Historically, these three powers were often concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or institution. To safeguard liberty and prevent despotism, political theorists advocated the separation of powers, assigning each function to an independent branch of government.
Different constitutional systems have emerged based on the manner in which these powers are separated.
-
Assembly Government (Collective Government)
This form of government is relatively rare. In such systems, the legislative and executive branches are effectively merged. The legislature itself appoints the executive, and ultimate political authority remains concentrated in the legislative body.
-
Presidential System
In a presidential system, the president heads the executive branch while parliament constitutes the legislative branch. Each is elected independently. There is no prime minister, and the president serves as the chief executive. The United States is a well-known example of this system. In this model, the separation of powers is relatively strong, as the president and the legislature operate independently of one another.
-
Parliamentary System
In a parliamentary system, citizens elect members of parliament. The political party holding the largest number of parliamentary seats forms the government, consisting of the prime minister and the cabinet. The president—or monarch, in constitutional monarchies—generally performs a ceremonial role, while executive authority is exercised primarily by the prime minister.
This classification is primarily theoretical, and many countries have modified their constitutional systems over time. France, for example, originally operated under a parliamentary system but adopted a semi-presidential (or mixed) system after the constitutional reforms of 1958.
Understanding these concepts is essential, as they will frequently be referenced throughout this study.
Types of Democracy
-
Direct Democracy
Direct democracy originated in ancient Greece. It exists when citizens themselves directly exercise political authority or personally participate in the principal functions of government. During the eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau revived the concept through his theory of the “general will,” making a significant contribution to democratic thought. In the modern world, however, direct democracy is generally impractical because of large populations, territorial expansion, and the complexity of modern societies.
-
Representative (Indirect) Democracy
In representative democracies, citizens do not exercise political authority directly but do so through elected representatives. Representative democracy is more compatible with large and populous societies. Under this system, citizens govern public affairs by electing representatives—particularly members of parliament—to exercise governmental authority on their behalf. The underlying principle is that sovereignty belongs to the nation, while parliament and other state institutions function as representatives of the people.
-
Semi-Direct Democracy
Semi-direct democracy combines elements of both direct and representative democracy. Political authority is exercised through both the direct participation of citizens and the decisions of elected representatives. Although legislative bodies remain the primary decision-making institutions, citizens are granted certain constitutional mechanisms through which they may directly participate in the exercise of political authority. Consequently, semi-direct democracy may be regarded as a variant of representative democracy.
To be continued…
