Medium

 

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 to 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 the 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 as 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 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 – Islamic Gems

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)