Author: Muhammad Dawood Yousufi Eshaqzahi
Islam and Democracy (part 5)
Critical Commentary by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani on the Perceived Shortcomings of Democracy
According to Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, among the primary objectives of democracy one does not find the promotion of virtue, the prevention of evil, the encouragement of righteousness, or the discouragement of immorality. In his view, this is because democracy does not recognize any permanent standard for determining what is good or evil. Rather, its underlying philosophy is that good and evil are essentially relative. What is considered good at one time may be regarded as evil at another; what is deemed right in one country may be viewed differently elsewhere; and moral judgments are shaped by prevailing social customs and circumstances rather than by absolute truths.
He argues that after secular political systems emerged in the West, widespread moral decline and sexual permissiveness followed. According to his perspective, during the eras of monarchy or Christian theocracy in Europe, such moral disorders were far less prevalent than they became under democratic secularism. He contends that contemporary democratic societies increasingly legitimize various forms of immorality under the banner of individual freedom. Democracy, in his assessment, is neither bound by fixed moral values nor guided by divine revelation; instead, it is fundamentally based on popular desires and preferences. Consequently, whether an action is morally right or wrong is treated as an individual right rather than an objective moral issue.
As an illustration, he cites legislative developments in the United Kingdom and other Western countries, arguing that democratic institutions have legalized forms of sexual conduct that were previously prohibited, including the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in some jurisdictions.
He further refers to what he describes as the “Swap Union,” which he characterizes as an organization advocating the exchange of spouses. According to his account, such organizations seek to remove restrictions even on married individuals, allowing them to engage voluntarily in extramarital sexual relationships.
Usmani maintains that these developments have contributed to a growing number of children born outside marriage in Europe and the United States. Referring to reports published in Time magazine, he claims that public concern has focused primarily on the economic consequences of this phenomenon rather than on its moral implications.
He also discusses movements advocating the legalization of abortion, noting that in some jurisdictions abortion has already been legalized, while in others efforts continue to expand legal access to it.
Likewise, he argues that practices once regarded as socially unacceptable—such as public nudity—have gradually become normalized, while explicit media content has spread globally. In his view, the absence of fixed moral foundations within contemporary political systems makes it difficult to prohibit such developments, because when sovereignty ultimately belongs to public opinion, no objective basis remains for declaring certain acts morally forbidden if the majority accepts them.
In summary, Usmani contends that virtually every form of immoral behavior can eventually acquire legal legitimacy within secular democratic systems. He believes that this process has weakened the institution of the family by eroding traditional relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, and other familial bonds.
He further interprets the emergence of AIDS as a form of divine punishment. He attributes the spread of the disease primarily to homosexual conduct and to multiple sexual partnerships. He argues that rather than encouraging moral reform and chastity in response to the epidemic, Western societies emphasized preventive measures—such as sex education and the distribution of condoms—instead of discouraging illicit sexual relations.
As an example, he claims that universities and educational institutions have installed vending machines dispensing condoms in student facilities to reduce the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. In his view, such measures address the consequences rather than the underlying moral causes.
He concludes that despite the widespread availability of consensual sexual relationships in many Western societies, incidents of sexual assault remain high. He contrasts the prohibition of polygamy with the legal tolerance of multiple non-marital sexual relationships, presenting this as evidence of inconsistency within secular democratic legal systems.
Finally, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that these social and moral problems stem from what he describes as the unrestricted sovereignty of the people under secular democracy. He also contends that the concept of “popular sovereignty” is largely illusory, asserting that although citizens are told they are the rulers, in practice their participation in government is limited and many remain unaware of how governments actually operate. [1]
The Sovereignty of the People and the Obstacles to Its Realization
In previous sections, the views of several Western scholars criticizing democracy were presented. In this discussion, it is argued that, under democracy, the people do not truly hold governmental authority; rather, it is the wealthy minority that exercises effective control over the state and directs its affairs.
A genuine and healthy system of government, it is argued, should begin with the electoral process, continue throughout the tenure of elected representatives, and remain accountable until the next election. However, even some proponents of democracy acknowledge—and, according to this argument, reality confirms—that the people possess only a temporary and routine form of sovereignty during elections. Once the electoral process is over, they lose this nominal authority, and their supposed sovereignty proves to be merely symbolic.
A closer examination of the issue, the author contends, reveals that the people do not possess genuine sovereignty even during elections. Their claim to political supremacy is therefore regarded as illusory rather than real.
The discussion begins with the views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the principal theorists of democracy. As noted earlier, Rousseau regarded direct democracy as the only genuine form of democracy. Consequently, when referring to the representative democracy of eighteenth-century Britain, he remarked that the English people are free only during elections; once the elections are over, they become subjects once again—indeed, they become “nothing.” [2]
Similarly, Paul Claval, the French political geographer, argues that citizens participate actively in political life only during election periods. [3]
Bertrand Russell goes even further, observing that if you are only one individual among twenty million voters, you are far more likely to feel that you are being governed than that the machinery of government is actually under your control. [4]
We may now turn to some of the principal obstacles to genuine popular sovereignty.
-
Self-Interest
Most people are primarily concerned with pursuing their own personal interests and aspirations. They are generally occupied with the affairs of their own lives and pay relatively little attention to influencing the political direction of their country. Few are willing to endure inconvenience or personal sacrifice for political engagement, and only a small minority are prepared to make significant sacrifices, even during major national movements or revolutions that arise from widespread public sentiment.
Modern Western societies, in particular, display a stronger tendency toward political apathy. One manifestation of this tendency is the widespread lack of interest in politics. In the United States, for example, many people pay little attention to political affairs, focusing instead on domestic news and entertainment. Sports, leisure, and other forms of popular media attract considerably more public interest than political developments. If people happen to watch a political program on television, it is often because they happened to have the television on rather than because they intentionally sought political information. [5]
As Padover observes: “Ordinary people, for whose benefit democratic theories and institutions have been established, rarely concern themselves with the issues about which they ought to be informed.”
Referring to the 1962 newspaper strike in New York, he notes that opinion surveys revealed that ordinary citizens cared little whether they had access to the news. Instead, they were more interested in television programming, cinema advertisements, stock market listings, and sports news. In this way, the theory of the “general will” becomes increasingly restricted, applying only to relatively small and active groups rather than to the population as a whole. [6]
-
Established Realities (Political Facts on the Ground)
Citizens often find themselves confronted with political realities that have already been established. Once such conditions are imposed, their ability to change them becomes extremely limited. Meaningful change requires sustained struggle and personal sacrifice. Moreover, the ordinary citizen has gradually become politically passive, adapting to the existing order rather than challenging it.
In reality, a limited number of political parties dominate the political arena, leaving individual citizens with little meaningful influence over them. Since substantial financial resources are among the essential conditions for a party’s survival, small political parties have only a minimal chance of enduring or expanding.
Furthermore, citizens observe an established parliamentary system and executive branch that remain largely unchanged even when they disapprove of them. Replacing members of parliament or executive officials may alter certain individuals, but it does not fundamentally transform the political system itself. Officeholders may be removed, yet the institutional structure remains intact.
At the same time, major economic powers have become vital sources of material influence. Compared with the influence these powerful interests exert over government, the ordinary citizen’s ability to influence them is insignificant. In addition, citizens are surrounded by powerful news media and communication networks, with which they must, willingly or unwillingly, coexist.
In the following pages, all of these forces will be examined in greater detail. For the present, it is sufficient to make a few observations. When an individual confronts a political reality so vast and entrenched that it appears beyond his or her capacity to change, how can it be claimed that people truly govern themselves?
This question concerns those who reflect critically on political life. Most people, however, are immersed in these tangible realities. Consequently, they are not genuinely in control of the political process; more significantly, many are not even aware of this condition.
To be continued…
References:
[1]. Salam Political Conditions, pp. 194–199 (Afghanistan Foundation).
[2]. Rousseau, The Social Contract, p. 155.
[3]. Al-Muthaqqafūn wa al-Dīmuqrāṭiyyah (The Intellectuals and Democracy), p. 6.
[4]. Russell, Authority and the Individual, p. 120.
[5]. Qanawāt, Authority, p. 86.
[6]. The Myth of Democracy, p. 84.
