Author: Muhammad Dawood Yusufi Eshaqzahi
Islam and Democracy (Part 18)
Government and the State as an Inevitable Phenomenon
Contrary to the view of some who believe that freedom and liberty are incompatible with authority and government and that these two can never coexist, and who argue that preserving individual freedom requires removing law and government from human life; or those who believe that governments constantly support the powerful and disregard the interests of the masses; or those who think that human beings are inherently benevolent, virtuous, rational, and thoughtful and therefore ask what need there is for establishing a government—contrary to these weak and unfounded ideas, which reflect a kind of anarchism, sophistry, and naivety, the necessity of government in human social life is so evident that it requires no elaborate proof. A government is needed to preserve individual freedoms within the framework of social interests, foster human abilities, acquaint people with their duties, and implement divine or man-made laws. For this reason, great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun, and others have regarded the existence of government as an inevitable phenomenon.
Among them, Marx considered the existence of government necessary as long as class differences existed. However, he believed that after the spread of communism throughout the world, the state would eventually disappear. He assumed that class conflict was the sole cause of disputes and that once class distinctions were eliminated, there would no longer be any source of conflict requiring the existence of government.
However, Marx viewed human society from only one perspective, namely, class conflict, whereas human society has other dimensions as well. Had he examined society from those perspectives, he would not have concluded that governments should be dissolved even after the so-called “spread of communism.” The causes of conflict are not limited to class differences, such that eliminating them would transform the whole world into an earthly paradise. Other human instincts, such as ambition and uncontrolled selfishness, are also sources of conflict and dispute. Therefore, society needs a government that acquaints individuals with their legal duties, punishes offenders, restores rights to their rightful owners, and preserves the order and discipline of society—order that constitutes the foundation of civilization and contributes to human progress in both material and spiritual dimensions.
In principle, no society, even in an age of widespread communism, would be free from the need for housing and healthcare, postal and telecommunication services, electricity and water, economic affairs, agriculture, and similar necessities.
The distribution of responsibilities is not an issue confined to a particular era or period. Inevitably, the institution that distributes these responsibilities and the groups that carry them out must have some name—and that name is government.
Therefore, we conclude that human society will never be independent of the need to establish a government in any age or period, even if it were to reach the summit of Plato’s so-called “ideal state.”
In short, in order to preserve social order and human civilization, acquaint individuals with their rights and duties, and resolve all forms of disagreement and conflict within society, a strong and authoritative institution is necessary—one that undertakes this human responsibility, safeguards the foundation of civilization, namely social order, and ensures the continuity of society through the distribution of responsibilities and duties.
The essence of Islam consists of a set of principles and subsidiary rulings revealed by God, and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was commissioned to call people to them and, whenever circumstances permitted, implement them in practice. However, because the implementation of certain rulings that preserve social order and discipline was impossible without establishing a government, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), guided by reason and by the authority granted to him by God, established a government and implemented the monotheistic system within the framework of an Islamic state.
Government itself is never the ultimate objective in Islam. Rather, because the implementation of its laws and rulings and the fulfillment of its higher objectives cannot be achieved without political institutions and organization, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) personally established a state and government.
In short, the implementation of prescribed punishments for theft and adultery, the resolution of Muslims’ financial and legal disputes, prevention of hoarding and price manipulation, collection of zakat and Islamic taxes, dissemination of Islamic teachings, and fulfillment of dozens of other needs of the Muslim community cannot be achieved without comprehensive, progressive, and decisive leadership and without an accepted system of governance.
Since Muslims are required to implement these Islamic rulings and teachings in detail, and since their proper implementation is impossible without an institution from which all can receive guidance, Muslims must, therefore, establish political institutions and organizations within the framework of Islamic teachings that develop in accordance with the needs of each era.
There must be an emir and leader for the people, whether righteous or wicked, so that the believer may attend to his affairs under his rule and the unbeliever may receive his due benefit. Through the establishment of order and security, God allows each person to reach the end of his appointed lifespan. Through such a ruler, taxes are collected, enemies are confronted, roads are secured from thieves and rebels, and the rights of the weak are taken from the powerful.
From this perspective, and through social analysis and reflection, the necessity of establishing government appears to reason as an essential and inevitable social phenomenon from which there is no escape.
Sovereignty in Islam and Western Political Thought
The nature and meaning of sovereignty in Islam prevent the formation of the well-known dual sovereignty of the Middle Ages—that of the Roman Emperor and the Pope—which was incompatible with the modern model of absolute and unaccountable single sovereignty proposed by Jean Bodin (1530–1596); Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), regarded in Western thought as a founder of international law; Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679); and John Austin (1613–1669). Their concept of sovereignty was shaped by the particular circumstances that had engulfed Europe in the sixteenth century. Later, the French Revolution overthrew traditional authority and, following Enlightenment thought, established reason as the ultimate authority.
George Soros explains these circumstances as follows: [1]
“Reason proved unsuitable for this task, and the enthusiasm of 1789 led to the Terror of 1793; however, the fundamental beliefs of the Enlightenment were not rejected. On the contrary, Napoleon’s army carried the ideas of modernity to other parts of Europe. The achievements of modernity are unparalleled. Despite these remarkable achievements, reason failed to fully meet the expectations placed upon it, particularly in the social and political spheres. The gap between objectives and results remained unbridged. Indeed, the more radical the objectives, the more disappointing the results. In my view, this applies to both communism and market fundamentalism, both of which claim to be scientific. I would like to emphasize one particular unintended consequence that is especially relevant to the present situation: when the principal political ideas of the Enlightenment were put into practice, they helped strengthen the idea of the nation-state. In their effort to establish the rule of reason against rulers, people revolted and acquired the power of a ruler. Thus, the nation-state, in which sovereignty belongs to the people, was born. Whatever its advantages may be, it is very different from the universalist source of its inspiration.”
As a result of religious revival and the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, followed by the decline of the Roman Empire and the emergence of national monarchies in the seventeenth century, Europe underwent a process of secularization in Western political thought. The circumstances surrounding conflicts among absolute rulers compelled political thinkers to seek a new theoretical foundation for this emerging political phenomenon.
Jean Bodin was the first to define the modern Western concept of sovereignty in the seventeenth century. According to his conception, sovereignty is a permanent power that is neither delegated conditionally nor transferred subject to external commands; it is not subject to ordinary legal limitation, because the sovereign is the source of law.
His theory constitutes a rational defense of absolutism, although he acknowledged the limitations imposed by divine and natural laws upon the supreme power of the sovereign.
Thomas Hobbes stated: [2]
“Sovereignty must be unified and absolute. Human beings must choose whether to live under authority or to be free; they cannot have both. Anarchy is the result of freedom, while security is the result of civil obedience.”
This conception led to the idea of the great Leviathan, the possessor of ultimate power whom Hobbes called a “mortal god.” The power of the Leviathan is irreversible, absolute, indivisible, and unlimited.
Hobbes was another defender of absolutism who, in response to anti-monarchical theories of absolutism, drew upon the Greek concept of the Stoics to defend popular sovereignty. Locke employed this concept in defense of the English constitutional movement. Rousseau combined Hobbes’s absolute sovereignty and Locke’s general consent into a philosophical conception of sovereignty known as the general will. In this sense, Rousseau’s Social Contract may be understood as a response to Hobbes and Locke. Nevertheless, it was John Austin who established the legal theory of sovereignty that remained widely accepted for a long period.
According to Austin (1790–1859), if the majority of a particular society habitually obey a specific superior who does not himself obey another superior of the same kind, that particular superior is the sovereign of that society, and the society, together with its sovereign, constitutes an independent political society.
In this context, it can be concluded that sovereignty has various definitions, but all of them point to human governmental and legal authority. The nature of sovereignty reflects the nature of the sovereign’s will and the nature of the law that results from that will. The nature of this legal authority demonstrates that the sovereign’s will is not permanent and that the law resulting from this authority will likewise lack permanence. Therefore, it is logical that this concept of sovereignty implies multiple authorities, multiple wills, and different laws and judgments.
The nature and meaning of such sovereignty are not what Islam seeks. In Islamic law, sovereignty is a divine attribute: God’s dominion is direct, and His commands, as set forth in the Qur’an, constitute the embodiment of law and the constitution of the nation and state. As the Qur’an states:
-
“Say, ‘To whom belongs the earth and everyone on it?’” [3]
-
“Say, ‘Who holds sovereignty over all things in His hand, while He protects and none can protect against Him, if you know?’” [4]
-
“Say, ‘Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Mighty Throne?’” [5]
The Qur’an also declares that the Messenger of Islam is not above the law of God. Accordingly, the Qur’an commands the Messenger of Allah (PBUH):
-
“Say, ‘I am only a human being like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is only One God.’” [6]
-
“We did not send any messenger except to obey Allah’s permission.” [7]
To be continued…
References:
[1] The Myth of Democracy, p. 131.
[2] Schmitt, Carl (1397), The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol.
[3] Qur’an, al-Mu’minun: 84.
[4] Qur’an, al-Mu’minun: 88.
[5] Qur’an, al-Mu’minun: 86.
[6] Qur’an, al-Kahf: 110.
[7] Qur’an, al-Nisa’: 64.
