Democracy,
Pluralism and Minority Rights (Part I)
By Professor Nazeer
Ahmed CA
Democracy
is the slogan of our times. The Americans use
it. The Russians use it. The Indians and Pakistanis
use it. The Europeans and the Chinese use it.
In a discussion, to be on the side of democracy
is "good". To be against it is "bad". The Americans
in particular, have set out to shape the world
in their own image. We are on record as declaring
that we will bring democracy to the world. No
other enterprise in human history, no empire and
no conqueror had such an audacious plan. The Romans
did not attempt it. Chengiz Khan did not attempt
it. The British did not attempt it. Neither did
the Turks.
It is so say the least, a grandiose first in history.
Somewhere in this debate, the global context of
the times is lost. What relevance does local governance,
democratic or undemocratic, have in a shrinking
world ruled by multinational corporations? Can
the European model, wherein an entire continent
is drawn together in the European Union, be extended
to other regions or perhaps even other continents?
If so, what does democracy mean in a multinational
state? Ask a common man what democracy is. An
overwhelming majority will say that it is rule
by the majority. If you attended school and learned
by rote, you will quote: "Democracy is rule by
the people, of the people, for the people". The
contradictions in these positions are obvious
if you are a minority. Even in seasoned democracies
such as the United States, access to political
power is not available to the average Joe.
One has to be rich, well connected or well known
to climb the political ladder. In India, where
the political gates are more open, democracy is
good, meaning it is good for the politicians.
The argument is not against democracy. Indeed,
democracy is the best idea on the table when the
issue is governance. Self-governance is the best
governance. The argument is how to apply democracy
so that it is rule by all the people, of all the
people, and for all the people, and not just for
some of the people. Stated another way, in a shrinking
world everyone is a minority. The Christians,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, they are all minorities.
The Germans, the Chinese, the Indonesians and
Senegalese are all global minorities. How does
one apply democracy so that it reflects the will
of all of these "minorities"? Even in a local
context, how does one ensure that the rights of
the minorities, the less privileged, or the subservient
groups are honored? It is an age-old question,
as old as democracy itself. In modern times, with
large segments of humankind experimenting with
multinational states, this question is even more
pertinent.
In a continental Europe, for instance, how does
one ensure that citizens of Monaco have the same
say as the citizens of Germany? Should Turkey
join the European community, will the large Turkish
population dominate a European parliament? Democracy
cannot just be rule by a simple majority. In its
application, it must design political structures,
invent and establish institutions, formulate laws,
enforce checks and balances, so that the will
of all the people is reflected in the process
of governance. Muslims have struggled with these
issues since the time of the Prophet. In the next
few articles, we will provide a brief historical
survey of these attempts. Included in this survey
are examples from the life of the Prophet, and
of Omar bin al Khattab, Omar bin Abdel Azeez,
Harun ar Rasheed, Nasiruddin al Tusi, Sulaiman
Qanooni, Jalaluddin Akbar, Ahmed Sirhindi and
Mohammed Iqbal.
These examples will throw some light on how the
relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims
were tackled, and the rights of religious and
cultural minorities honored, in situations when
Muslims were in power and when they were not.
We will also briefly touch upon the models of
democracy as visualized by Thomas Jefferson and
the French philosopher Rousseau. Very little work
has been done by Muslim thinkers to define what
it means to be a Muslim when you are a minority,
especially a minority in a democratic setup. There
is no Muslim minority fiqh, as such. At the outset
it pays to formulate the question correctly. By
the word democracy, do we mean rule by the majority?
Is the issue self-governance or governance under
a super-ordinate law, such as the Shariah? Or
is it the overall wellbeing (falah) of the people
irrespective of the nature of rule? History is
a great teacher. Hopefully, the lessons from the
examples cited here will provide some insights
for further reflections and further work. Models
of pluralism The Treaty of Hudaibiya was the first
formal treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The Prophet personally dictated the terms for
a cessation of hostilities between Mecca and Medina.
The rights of access to the Ka'ba were established
and prisoners were exchanged except that the Prophet
in his wisdom permitted Muslim prisoners to stay
behind so they could preach. The principle behind
Hudaibiya was freedom of worship. Believing and
non-believing societies could coexist in peace
as long freedom of worship was guaranteed. However,
there were limits to the Treaty as well. Hudaibiya
was not an inclusive model of pluralism, in the
modern sense. There were no reciprocal rights
(of citizenship) for Muslims and non-Muslims across
the borders in Mecca and Medina. Muslims through
the ages have looked to Hudaibiya as a model from
which to seek inspiration and evolve corresponding
models for their interaction with non-Muslims.
As late as the 1950s, when the devastation of
partition had settled down, and the large Muslim
minority in India looked for conceptual models
to participate in a democratic but predominantly
non-Muslim society, the Jamaat e Islami headed
by Maulana Maudoodi offered Hudaibiya as a model
for the Muslims of India.
The Maudoodi model was defective in its concept
and its execution. The Muslims in India were citizens
of a modern nation by birth. Legally, they were
rulers as well as the ruled, albeit as a religious
minority. The Jamaat contested in the first elections
in India in the early 1950s on their platform
and was thoroughly repudiated, even by the Muslims.
The Treaty of Hudaibiya established the acceptability
and desirability of peace and of a formal treaty
between a Muslim and a non-Muslim state where
there was freedom of worship. It opened the possibility
of discourse, mutual accommodation and dialogue
between Muslim and non-Muslim societies. The norms,
modalities and processes of such discourse as
well as the structures for participation of Muslims
as full partners in non-Muslim frameworks were
to be worked out by future generations. The wisdom
behind this example of the Sunnah, as in so many
other examples, was to establish the Shariah as
a dynamic and unfolding process so that future
generations had the latitude and the freedom to
successfully negotiate the turbulent waves of
history. (To be continued)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
