Posts Tagged "Democracy"

Consolidating Democracy in Sierra Leone

Posted by admin on May 24, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

A Return to Prosperity?

In September 2007, Sierra Leone had the opportunity to define her democracy for the first time after 41 years of many miscarriages in her democratic process. The September 8, 2007 run-off elections were by all means a defining moment in Sierra Leone’s democratic development. But the outcome of the elections, which confirmed the APC front-runner Ernest Bai Koroma as President, would become more meaningful when the political changes the country has experienced take hold if Koroma’s administration could position itself to consolidate the democratic gains made in the 2007 elections.  The 2007 parliamentary and presidential elections were Sierra Leone’s first truly democratic national contest in 4 decades and the victory of Ernest Bai Koroma—a former Insurance executive who ran on the platform of “zero-tolerance on corruption”—should put an end to 41 years of bad leadership.

In contrast to the dubious nature of electoral processes of the previous four decades, and much to the credit of the strong leadership of Dr. Christiana Thorpe (the National Electoral Commission (N.E.C.) chairman); the run-off elections were transparently conducted, and their outcome was incontestable. Koroma’s victory in 2007 has triggered hopes for profound change, and the caliber of the people President Koroma has chosen for his cabinet is testament to the direction he wants to take the country—that of development that is progressive and sustainable.

But it was not the first time Sierra Leone had experienced such optimism. In 1996, former head of state Ahmad Tejan Kabbah found himself at a similar turning point. He had become president after being helped by a N.E.C. led by Dr. James Jonah which was blamed to have manipulated the elections in favor of Tejan Kabbah against the veteran politician Dr. Karefa Smart after two rounds. Dr. James Jonah was consequently rewarded by Kabbah by appointing him Minister of Finance. President Kabbah was immediately consumed by a host of problems: a profoundly alienated country, a hostile and offensive press, the ill feeling of the U.S. for his friendship with Iran and Libya, and the rancor within a military establishment angered by the fact that the militia Kamajors were more trusted and favored by a defense department whose day to day activities were administered by a “Kamajor chief” (Hinga Norman) as Deputy Defense Minister.  Despite being dignified in many ways, President Kabbah was also impossibly careless and irresponsibly negligent. And thus, instead of marking the start of a stable Sierra Leonean democracy, Tejan Kabbah’s ten-year government ended with nothing to be proud about.  Again, it is worthy of note that in April 1997, President Kabbah was ousted from office in a coup d’état by Lt. Col. Johnny Paul Koroma — setting off a period of ten months interregnum and plunging the country into sadistic chaos. The governance vacuum created by the A.F.R.C. junta rule did not end until February 1998, when President Kabbah ordered a bloody military intervention using ECOMOG forces led by the Nigerian General Maxwell Kobe to force the junta out of power. President Kabbah was restored as head of state. He was again expected to guide a return to peace in the country and guiding the prosperity of Sierra Leone by laying the foundation for a stable and progressing nation. But again, President Kabbah could not assure that peace in the country. Instead Sierra Leone’s manipulated democracy faced risks that ultimately led to the veiled negligence of President Tejan Kabbah. Can 2007 now mark the return of prosperity in Sierra Leone? 

Only fundamental consensus on the major objectives of the state can provide a society with a secure basis for democracy, and the new Sierra Leone seems to have such an agreement between its principal political actors. The outcome of the August 11 presidential and legislative elections held with the backing, notably, of the European Union (E.U.) and the United Nations (U.N.) with Ernest Koroma’s party winning 59 seats; the incumbent party of Solomon Berewa winning 43 seats; and the newly formed P.M.D.C. party of Charles Margai winning 10 seats brought about a convergence of will between Koroma’s A.P.C. and Margai’s P.M.D.C. from a common determination to end S.L.P.P. misrule in Sierra Leone in the wake of the second round of presidential elections held September 8, 2007. Therefore, the winning parties of the 2007 elections are the APC and the PMDC parties. These parties are both abundantly gifted with resources, authority, and persuasive skill, and can possibly establish a basic consensus with one another to guide the country through prosperity. The unity between the two parties and their understanding to support that unity has kept contemporary Sierra Leone in a state of governmental optimism.

Governmental optimism is already being demonstrated following the selection of cabinet ministers which included some of the gifted resources of the PMDC party (Dr. Soccoh Kabbia as Minister of Health; Mr. Benjamin Davies as Minister of Lands, Country Planning and Environment; and Mr. John Saab, as Minister of Housing and Infrastructural Development) to ensure that the P.M.D.C. is involved in nation building and making Sierra Leone governable from a broad platform of political ideologies. Another demonstration of governmental optimism is the appointment of the human rights activist and chief civil affairs officer to the U.N. Mission in Liberia, Mrs. Zainab Bangura as Minister of Foreign Affairs.  Lango Deen, an insightful contributor to the Leonenet Forum administered from the University of Maryland in the United States summed up Zainab Bangura’s appointment in this brilliant assessment, stating: “When President Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State he said, “In Dr. Rice, the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country.”  I am no President Koroma, but I’d like to say the same of Zainab Bangura. She is at ease with herself and no stranger to the global stage.  By nominating her for this high profile job, President Koroma has included all Sierra Leonean women as equal partners in the national endeavor. It is clear the president is aiming for a full engagement of Sierra Leonean women.”

In a country where conditions are so bad and a country that has experienced all sorts of chaos, any combination of party ideologies to inspire genuine social change is a giant step in the right direction. From such cooperation there will be a basic consensus on how to establish a firm rule of law. Organized crimes of corruption which have turned many Sierra Leoneans into innocent victims deprived of what their nation has to offer (which all members of the previous S.L.P.P. government failed to even recognize, for selfish reasons of their own). A cooperation of this nature again makes it easy for other aspects of the national agenda to be driven by general consensus to determine, for instance, the right ways to create wealth, economic growth, or employment; on how to modernize the energy sector; on how to combat poverty and inequality. In the last ten years, Sierra Leone’s political leaders have even failed to consider the value or the viability of the public institutions and the huge financial liabilities (such as those created by the relentless corruption of unscrupulous cabinet ministers and senior public servants and specific party privileges) being a continuation of the old.

All this obvious and underlying cooperation will inspire the furthering of democracy in Sierra Leone. The 2007 elections have demonstrated that the people of Sierra Leone who have been beaten too long by successive regimes have learned to appreciate the essence of democracy. Voting Koroma as President is a safeguard of the democratic process with Sierra Leoneans voting in a manner that transcends their immediate tribal interests. President Koroma must now behave as a head of state for all Sierra Leoneans, not just a representative of his party or his ethnic group. Then of course, civil society can contribute in many ways to help promote stability in the country. The media (local and international) has to be objective and impartial in their presentation and analysis of issues. However, going the right direction with the opportunity of becoming the number one man in Sierra Leone is the major responsibility of President Koroma’s APC government. It is up to him and his party whether Sierra Leonean democracy advances or is muzzled again, whether corruption is firmly dealt with or not dealt with at all. The humble but firm persona of Ernest Koroma gives some indication that he will rise above his short-term interests to consolidate Sierra Leone’s progress toward democratic stability.

The Promise of a Successful Presidency

The All People’s Congress (APC) has existed for 40 years. From its beginnings as a minor opposition party in a new independent country it had defended the rights of workers. The A.P.C. under Siaka Stevens showed an impressive tenacity in resisting and surviving the assaults of the S.L.P.P. machine. But this has also meant that with Siaka Stevens gone, the A.P.C. became more focused on limiting power than on exercising it — a quality that hurt the party when Joseph Momoh took over the presidency.

Like in 1967, the A.P.C. had another historic moment in 2007, and it had in Ernest Koroma a leader who, as the head of a veteran pro-democracy movement, “mesmerized Sierra Leoneans” — just as Siaka Stevens had done in his initial presidential campaign against Albert Margai, in 1967. (That campaign was truncated by Siaka Stevens’ exile to Guinea following the Brigadier Lansana coup d’état, but the unrest that ensued catapulted him to the presidency nonetheless.) For this impact, Koroma deserves much credit. Still, Koroma’s A.P.C. party carries some of the blame for the hard times and the degeneration of political life in the country. The performance of the A.P.C. during its 24 years of misrule (1968 – 1992) sowed the seeds of Sierra Leone’s chronic stagnation and stark deterioration of political life. And it could be a possibility for the sins of the A.P.C. under Siaka Stevens and Joseph Momoh’s leaderships to come to undermine Koroma’s status as “the champion of democracy” if he fails to use his initiative and be his own man to bring sanity in governance in Sierra Leone by any means necessary.

As president, Koroma has the opportunity to do enough real good. He has the right composition in Parliament—an A.P.C. majority plus the 10 seats of the P.M.D.C party under his belt. With good use of the emergency powers leverage he has to get Parliament to quickly act on various essential projects, the S.L.P.P. members in Parliament do not have the numbers to block Koroma’s projects. Koroma simply has to stave off any internal rivalries within his party to avoid possible stalemate from his own party ranks that would work against his cogent and logical catalog of obligatory reforms.  Koroma himself cannot make his party see any significant limitations in his persona. His personality cannot be unpredictable and be disposed to impulsive decisions, bizarre statements, and a lack of leadership and direction at critical moments.

Koroma can also learn how to keep his wife from intruding into the process of government and not make statements in public that may come to hurt his presidency.  It is clear that his cabinet choices so far will help him. By selecting the best possible people for his cabinet and the initiative he has taken to reach beyond the party for the best will help his presidency to succeed. Koroma can maintain a long-lasting public affection because his lingering popularity largely stems from the fact that he is a new kid in public life with no baggage. Many Sierra Leoneans view him as a “good man.” Moreover he deserves credit for some real accomplishments of his own as head of an insurance company he competently managed as Managing Director for over a decade. With his insurance background, Koroma can therefore use that experience to succeed in preserving macroeconomic stability and work to reduce unemployment or significantly improve growth. He has to respect the division of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the principles of good governance.

By introducing and implementing a law requiring open financial accounting in government that again will certainly reduce corruption. By also introducing various democratic reforms on labor and management issues, will continue to expand democracy in the country. With the media guru and erstwhile President of the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (Ibrahim Ben-Kargbo) now at the helm of the information ministry, Sierra Leone will now enjoy true freedom of expression, and will be an important achievement for Koroma’s government.

The people of Sierra Leone cannot afford to be disappointed this time. Koroma has presented himself to be a great and colorless leader during his campaigns in 2002 when he lost to former President Tejan Kabbah and in 2007. He thus has to fulfill his promises to fight crime and insecurity and to generate tangible social change and progress—his apparent commitment to which won him much support among poor Sierra Leoneans in 2007. Koroma is likely to occupy a place in history very much like that of Sir Milton Margai: immortalized as a considerate and respected figure who made tangible social progress during the short time he was Prime Minister of Sierra Leone.

The ousted S.L.P.P. thought the people of Sierra Leone had placed a final judgment on the A.P.C. because of its dismal record of 24 years of misrule and blatant brutality (from 1968 to 1992) that would affect the fortunes of the A.P.C. candidate in 2007. Evidently, the A.P.C. got a second chance because of its contributions to Sierra Leone’s democracy over the past ten years as the leading opposition party in Parliament. The party found an excellent candidate in Ernest Bai Koroma. The son of a veteran Electoral Commissioner (Sylvanus Koroma), he is honest, intelligent, hardworking, and, at 55, relatively matured for the job. Ernest Koroma and the A.P.C. have managed to win the presidency, and the prognosis for a creative government would now depend in part on his political competence and strength as a leader, but even more on his capacity to establish alliances with disaffected members of the defeated parties — something easier said than done. The good thing is that the P.M.D.C. “positive change” ideologues have allied themselves with the A.P.C. in Parliament giving the A.P.C. an overwhelming majority. Koroma’s victory is therefore a sweet one, because he would not encounter any kind of parliamentary resistance to get his job done. Thus, Sierra Leone clearly has the opportunity now to start truly deliberating and undertaking necessary reforms.

With the outcome of the 2007 elections in favor Ernest Koroma and his party, it is clear that the S.L.P.P. was instead punished because of the widely held perception that Kabbah and Berewa had not governed effectively. With that being the case, the S.L.P.P. has a chance to draw lessons from its ten years experience with power, to promote the rise of new and charismatic leaders, to rekindle its image and its now- obsolete platform of demonizing the A.P.C., to distance itself from its tribalistic traditions (still strong within the party), and to prepare itself for the elections of 2012. As a strong party of opposition, the S.L.P.P. could perform responsibly in Parliament; help to simplify issues for the public; and continue to toil in general for democracy and political harmony. And it can persuasively press on for improved economic programs that support the legitimate creation of wealth, foreign investment, and standard fiscal and monetary policies.

Misused Opportunities, Five Years in “Political Purgatory”

After losing the presidency in 2007, the S.L.P.P. can now start thinking of regrouping more successfully. In fact, the defeat may be to the S.L.P.P.’s long-term benefit, because it gives the party a chance to clean up its image.

The S.L.P.P. can better position itself as an ideological powerhouse: the party can push for more refined economic and development measures or it can push for openness and a message of one nation, one people — whichever suits the moment. But the party has to work very hard to push well-refined economic and development ideas this time because the moral burden of its past is considerable. Under S.L.P.P. rule, Sierra Leone was tormented by violent confrontations because of opportunities mismanaged by a power that had the democratic legitimacy but became a corrupt oligarchy.

When Tejan Kabbah became president in 1996 — after the “self-made Brigadier General” Maada Bio was forced to end his junta rule that year opening the gates to electoral democracy — he had the full support of the international community. His government received millions of dollars in aid money. Many Sierra Leoneans were not happy that Kabbah’s government mismanaged monies donated by the international community to help with post-war reconstruction. The party’s defeat in the 2007 elections is partly because of aid money and in kind donations (Gaddafi’s rice donation) that did not benefit the people. The S.L.P.P. leadership had filed an injunction against the credibility of the presidential run-off results, but the party’s leaders eventually recognized their defeat — in part because they understood that by peacefully accepting their descent from power, they could begin to purify their long record of tyranny and corruption. In typical fashion, the A.P.C. reoriented itself and, treading very carefully, set about reviving its political fortunes.

A presidential victory for the A.P.C. was within the bounds of possibility. Voters came to fear that an S.L.P.P. government would continue to plunder the country and to divide the country by obvious tribalism and nepotism; and a P.M.D.C. government too inexperienced because it is a new party; as such the A.P.C. became a compelling lesser evil. With the A.P.C. winning, in addition to the presidency, enough seats in Parliament, it was grateful to offer some positions in government to the P.M.D.C. Together, the A.P.C. and the P.M.D.C. could now secure a workable parliamentary majority, one that would be able to enact needed structural reforms. Some analysts are suggesting that to stave off the dangers of distracting dissension and even violence, the A.P.C. can extend the same offer of “cohabitation” to the S.L.P.P., although that does not sound like a good idea because the S.L.P.P. had misused opportunities during its ten years of rule, therefore, in the next five years it is reasonable for it to be in “political purgatory” to reflect on and repent its gross miscalculations.

The A.P.C. has proven to be synonymous with “the Sierra Leonean political system,” even though its previous 24 years of misrule continue to weigh heavily on its reputation and possible future. Today, however, its ranks include many experienced political professionals and technocrats, a number of them honest men and women, and the party seem to have a great deal of prestige or credibility among younger Sierra Leoneans. It has put forward some strong, qualified candidates for ministerial positions.

The A.P.C. was wise to choose a presidential candidate with a fresh face and a reputation for honesty — someone like Koroma, who has a moderate, pragmatic left-wing ideology that proved very attractive to Sierra Leonean voters. Koroma is not linked to the A.P.C’s dark past of manipulation, corruption, and disinformation. His choice as front-runner of the party did help to end the years the A.P.C. has been in “political purgatory.”

Consolidate Democracy Now or Die Trying

In many ways, the victory for a modern left-wing popular front — much like those that govern Botswana in south-central Africa through “a relatively uncorrupt bureaucracy accountable to government and with the economic underpinning of increasing resources distributed through government” (Neil Parsons) — is the best possible result for Sierra Leone in 2007. Fortunately, the reformed A.P.C. has the attributes of such a party. The A.P.C. seems to favor retaining complete state dominance of the minerals and agricultural industries and is in no way skeptical of free markets and foreign investments, labor reforms, and the worldwide integration of humanity (globalization) — a body of proclivities the A.P.C. leadership has shown a propensity to steadily adhere to as a reborn and modern party of the left that has long adjusted its ideological schema to reality.

Meanwhile, President Koroma has to prove that he is a strong and assertive president. But he also has to show that he is not going to manipulate power through messianic demagoguery. Preferably, he has to be fully committed to the autonomy of the judiciary and the demarcation of powers, to a free press, and to complete fiscal transparency and accountability in government; a respect for autonomous institutions such as the central bank; and coordinating a violence-free government strategy, especially when reforms can be accomplished peacefully with composure. These are all necessary tenets in an open democratic society, and some of Koroma’s past conduct (showing a propensity toward humility to accept defeat in 2002 and a spirit of reaching out to his opponents within his party who repeatedly challenged his leadership) suggests that he may respect them. A choice not to respect these tenets at the national level could put the consolidation of democracy itself at risk.

With the A.P.C. victory by such a large margin, Koroma must waive any inclination to revive the one-party state in Sierra Leone like his predecessor (Siaka Stevens) did. As president, Koroma would have to contend with a plethora of challenges. If he honors the fundamentals of an open democratic society, of the rule of law and the inalienable rights of individuals, he will have every clout to implement his social and economic projects, so long as he conducts himself in the ambit of reality rather than conceptual ideology. But if Koroma rebuffs these fundamentals, then Sierra Leone is going to lose yet another opportunity to consolidate its democracy and his government like the S.L.P.P. government under Tejan Kabbah and Solomon Berewa will (by 2012) die trying.

Read More

Democracy in India and in Pakistan

Posted by admin on May 17, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Democracy in India and in Pakistan.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

The people of India adopted democracy in 1952-53 and they are proud of the fact that they are carrying on his democracy during he last six decades when their neighbour Pakistan couldnot maintain democracy and the people of Pakistan have to face military rule time and again The people of India could declare that they are the largest democracy in the world, when their counterpart Pakistan could no boast like this. Therefore, we the people of India can declare that we are better placed in democracy and the democracy established in Pakistan remains at stake and as and when some elected people rule the country, they too function under the military pressures. They are not independent and as and when there is some weakness, the military takes over the charge without any permission from the civil authorities.

In 1947 when Pakistan was being established so many Muslims living in India were not agreeing for the establishment of Pakistan because they were of the view that this small country would not progress. The people who were demanding Pakistan were not so competent people who could run the administration of a country. But the British who were leaving Hindustan thought it better to partition this Hindustan so that these two countries could never establish peace. The creation of Pakistan was a conspiracy and that conspiracy turned out successful because since this partition, both these countries could not live in peace and they are at war, sometime in direct war and sometime they are busy in indirect war. It is on record that they are fighting and out of these fights one other country Bangladesh came into being. There is a Kashmir problems and that problems could not be solved and this Kashmir had been divided into two parts, one is held by Pakistan and the other is with the government of India. What shall be the future of this Kashmir, none on earth can give a suitable reply and making this Kashmir as a base, he terrorists from Pakistan side are spreading throughout in the whole of India.

In spite of all these ill efforts from Pakistan side, the people of Pakistan could not shake the Indian democracy. The people of India are still carrying out with democracy and the people of Pakistan are not in a position to establish democracy in Pakistan. The military authorities are always having an eye on the civil administration and as and when they get an opportunity, they come forward and occupy all seats of power. Military rule is no equal to democracy, but here we see the people who did not opt for Pakistan in 1947 were feeling better and they are proud of the fact that they had been living in a democracy throughout since the partition. What is the future of Pakistan, none could answer this question. They got a military ruler once again and whether he would be allowing them to function as a civilian government, this is a question, which is not to be answered at this stage. The people of Pakistan could not establish a permanent constitution and they are at liberty to change this time and again. This is not a good process, but the military rulers would not like that the civil governments should function without their supervision, therefore, they have framed the constitution as per their own choice.

The people of India is a democracy and they shall be establishing governments of their own choice with people from amongst themselves. Presently some groups are on the throne, but a time is coming when the people of India shall be nominating their own people who shall be committed to work for their welfare and this country India shall become one of the most developed country in the world because it has got all the potentials which could take this country ahead.

—————————

Read More

Chinese Democracy Ringtone | Guns N Roses – Chinese Democracy Ringtone

Posted by admin on May 10, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Click Here & Sign Up to Download the Chinese Democracy Ringtone by Guns N Roses

Chinese Democracy by Guns N Roses is one of the hottest songs in America and the Chinese Democracy Ringtone is one of the most popular ringtones in the world Chinese Democracy. The single has become a top-seller on iTunes and is climbing music charts all over the world, including the US Billboard Hot 100 and Canadian Hot 100. Chinese Democracy is the newest hit single by Guns N Roses and was released in 2008. The track is getting massive radio airplay all over America and the Chinese Democracy music video is one of the hottest clips on YouTube. The Chinese Democracy Ringtone by Guns N Roses has become one of the hottest ringtones of 2008.

Click Here to Get Bonus Guns N Roses Ringtones for your phone!

If you are a fan of Guns N Roses, click on the link above & sign up to receive bonus Guns N Roses Ringtones for your cell phone. Chinese Democracy is an awesome single and is the perfect choice for your next mobile phone ringtone. The Chinese Democracy Ringtone works with most major American mobile phone carriers and some international carriers as well. Whether you use AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile or any other carrier, check out the Chinese Democracy Ringtone by clicking on the link below. Don’t wait, download the Chinese Democracy Ringtone to your phone now by clicking on the link below and signing up Chinese Democracy:

Click Here to Download the Chinese Democracy Ringtone by Guns N Roses

Read More

Liberal Democracy and Socialism

Posted by admin on May 3, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND SOCIALISM

Liberal democracy is basically the same things as anarchism, my conception of anarchism anyway. My conception of anarchism is based upon the idea of equality of economic developments, equality of economic developments for all traditions, and\or equality of economic developments for independent traditions. We should have also the idea of liberal democracy and socialism, the political concept of socialism should also value the idea of liberal democracy, and also as anarchism which is basically the same things as liberal democracy is generally perceived also to be a socialist doctrine. It is stated therefore that the political concept of socialism should value and embrace the political concept of liberal democracy, and in so doing negate phoney deceitful socialist ideology, such as marxism, which tried to condition socialist thinking against the idea of democracy. The true nature of the political concept of anarchism can be analysed to be basically the same thing as the true nature of the political concept of socialism as is explained below.

 

The idea of equality of economic developments can be firstly elucidated in relation to housing. We all need a place to live, an abode – a house, apartment, cottage, bungalow etc. As we all need an abode, a home, to be equally economically self-sufficient, equally economically self-empowered we should all own our own homes, our own abodes. Equality of economic developments in that sense, in relation to the self-ownership of housing, can be also thought of as the anarchist idea of a society where all are their own masters. People become their own masters in that sense, they become economically self-sufficient, economically self-empowered when they come to own their own homes. As such it can be said, that such anarchism evolves from capitalism. As all over the world, the economic means to provide housing for people is controlled by the political concept of capitalism, the banks and capitalist property developers, then it is such capitalism that provides housing for people, but it can also be said that the idea of anarchism evolves, derives from such capitalism, for people become their own economic masters when their mortgages are paid off and they come to own their own homes. It is desirable that all people should own their own homes and become economically self-empowered in that way, and therefore we have the idea of equality of economic developments in relation to housing.

 

We also have the theory of equality of economic developments in a broader political sense in relation to traditions. In accordance with liberal democratic thinking, and in accordance with my conception of anarchism, various traditions, all traditions should flourish, and in so flourishing, to be economically self-empowered as distinct traditions should have their own quota of economic developments, and therefore we have the idea of equality of economic developments for all traditions. Therefore, this theory of equality of economic developments for all traditions, which is only a theory with regard to the political concepts of anarchism and socialism, as the political concepts of anarchism and socialism don’t have control of economic power, states that various traditions should own their own economic developments such as houses, hotels, shops, restaurants, schools, universities etc.

 

An anarchism can also be derived from the internet. On the internet people can create their own web-sites, and in creating their own web-sites individuals have a sense of self-achievement, of self-empowerment. Anarchism therefore can be deduced to derive from the internet in that individuals become their own masters in that sense when they create their own web-sites. Therefore, we can recognise that the political concept of anarchism can derive something from capitalism. As both housing and the internet are creations of capitalism, it is true that people become their own masters, become self-empowered when they come to own their own homes and when they create their own websites.

 

Anarchism can be thought of as being basically the same thing as liberal democracy. The idea of liberal democracy is that all people, including different traditions and individuals should be free and flourish in democratic conditions. The conception of socialist anarchism says that this also has to be economic, that individuals and traditions should flourish by being equally economically empowered, by the idea of equality of equality of economic developments. And in Chapter 6 ”Equality Of Economic Developments For All Traditions” in the section “The Anarchist Idea of Power Distribution” I say that power should be distributed among individuals as well as traditions. An individual doesn’t necessarily have to be part of a tradition, doesn’t necessarily have to regard himself or herself as being part of a tradition, and surely it enhances the idea of democracy if there are also individuals who are free and empowered as well as various traditions being empowered. As the political concept of liberal democracy emphasises the idea of the individual, this also concurs with my anarchist idea of power distribution.

 

While the political concept of anarchism therefore can derive something from capitalism, we should, as socialists, have thoughtfulness for people who were told they were communists. I don’t accept that there should be such a political concept as communism. I don’t think people should be called communists, it’s a dehumanising concept. And therefore I refer to such people as people who were told they were communists either by the deceitful ideology of marxism and\or by a marxist state, and as a socialist I think that such people should be set free.

 

Nobody should be called a communist, nobody really wants to be called a communist, it’s a dehumanising concept. It’s dehumanising because the idea of communism would be oppressive and one-dimensional. And it’s dehumanising because it’s based upon a political deceit, the ideological deceit of marxism which was invented by God. Such people who were told they were ‘communists’ by the ideological deceit of marxism and\or by a marxist state, should be, need to be set free. Wouldn’t it be good, wouldn’t it be an inspiration, to realise such a person or persons are being set free, by giving them the inspiration to be liberal democrats, by giving them the inspiration to believe that they value the values of liberal democracy, human rights, democratic rights, that all traditions should flourish, that capitalism should be. For phoney socialist ideology is deceitful anyway, for capitalism is God’s capitalism, it was invented by God and it’s what God wants.

 

Such people should be set free by being told that socialism can have a moral democratic perspective, and that the political concept of socialism embraces and values the idea of liberal democracy, and therefore people who were told they were communists, if they want to be socialists, upon having political ideology clarified for them and the true nature of political reality revealed to them, can also value and believe in liberal democracy. And wouldn’t it be good to set such a person or persons free, a person or persons who were told they communists, who were deceived by God, and to see that such a person has been set free from phoney socialism, from the ideological deceit of marxism which was invented by God, so that such a person has the inspiration to be a liberal democrat, and if such a person, having had political ideology clarified , having had the true nature of political reality revealed, wants to be a socialist, that such a person is a socialist as a liberal democratic, that such a person is a socialist and a liberal democratic, that such a person is a democratic socialist in being a socialist and a liberal democrat.

 

And let it be said that it is I who wants to convey this idea to such a person, and not God, and not phoney socialist parties. They never said they wanted to convey this idea to such a person.

 

For, as I have said in my book “True Nature of the Political Concept of Socialism Revealed”, it is rare to find expressions of inspiration, of morality, of moral inspiration, in so-called socialist ideology. I found a few, and therefore as I, as a socialist, am inspired to find such expressions of moral inspiration, it is my wish to want to convey this morality with other socialists, with people who were told they were communists for example, to want to share this inspiration of socialist morality with them, so that they have the inspiration to be liberal democrats and socialists. And we should have the idea of socialism and liberal democracy.

 

As I have said above liberal democracy is basically the same things as anarchism, and as anarchism is generally regarded as being a socialist doctrine, and in realisation of the true nature of political reality, then the true nature of the political concept of anarchism is basically the same thing as the true nature of the political concept of socialism.

 

The true nature of the political concept of socialism is revealed by revealing the true nature of political reality.

 

The true nature of political reality is that God exists, that there is only one God, that the power of God exists, that as the power exists and as God created human beings it is inevitable that God must desire to share his power with human beings, that God has done this, that God has shared his power with his friends, that God has come to live in the world to share his power with his friends, that God’s chosen friends are the state and capitalism, that God therefore is a capitalist-royalist, that God is the power and intelligence behind the means of production. This is the true nature of political reality.

 

The true nature of the political concept of socialism therefore is revealed by revealing this true nature of political reality. The true nature of the political concept of socialism is that, as the original socialist objects to all war, and as the political concept of socialism has to do with the desire for control of the means of production, and as the true nature of political reality is that the means of production are controlled by God, the state and capitalism, socialism is a democratic socialism, a socialism that values liberal democracy, and seeks for some control of economic power, of the means of production by peaceful means.

 

As this is the true nature of the political concept of socialism, and as the true nature of the political concept of socialism has not yet achieved economic power, as the true nature of political reality is that economic power is controlled by God, the state and capitalism, if the true nature of the political concept of socialism was to achieve economic power, it could only be a minority concept, a minority achievement.

 

But true socialists can become satisfied that socialism would only be a minority concept, if socialism were to achieve power, because you can come to the view, to the belief that it is good to be in the minority.

Read More

The Problem of the Democracy

Posted by admin on Apr 26, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Undoubtedly, democracy enjoys a prominent status in the world arena. It takes its place on the throne of the one-pole, uncontested empire of the world and serves as the social doctrine, political guide, and cultural identity, and the approach followed by its civilization. It is the glorious message of that empire to all creation. The said empire befriends and gets close to those who accept democracy and adhere to it, and it quarrels with and fights those who reject it and opt for something else. This has made democracy, either willingly or out of fear, the beloved of politicians and thinkers. People from everywhere, except a resisting few, compete for its love. Thus democracy has become the master that orders and forbids and that controls the procession of human security and the management of its affairs. Lovers who belong to various creeds, cultures, and civilizations vie for its love and the honour for proving its kinship to their religion and culture.

Many Muslims have followed such a course. They have been claiming the honour of the kinship between democracy and the great approach of Islam. They speak of the “democracy of Islam,” and claim that Islam was the first to follow the system of democracy. They have been repeating that “There is no shortage of terminology. Islam is democracy, and democracy is Islam.” Books and essays have been written on the subject, praising democracy, its gifts, and its blessings. It is described as the faithful and sincere innovator and savior of mankind from the filth of deviation and error, and from the causes of backwardness and corruption.

This dramatic scene, in which democracy is featured under the spotlights of the world stage, reminds one of a previous dramatic scene that featured a former mistress of great beauty and charm. Intellectual, political, economic, and social circles were all fascinated by her and fell in love with her in the 1950s and 1960s. Her name was socialism. The finest poetry was composed and the most eloquent prose written to sing her charms, alluring beauty, and the elegance of her bright red dresses. All intellectual writers contributed to this: left, center, and some right. The crowd was not without some Islam advocates who fell head over heels in love with this Eastern beauty and were, probably, her most devoted and passionate lovers and the most jealous about her lineage. Some of them were quick to adopt her and claim exclusive right to her lineage. They wrote about the socialism of Islam. Even the famous Arab singer Um Kulthoom chanted, “You are the leader of socialists,” expressing pride that the Prophet and Messenger of Islam, our master Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, is the leader of all socialists on earth. Days passed, and the beauty grew old. Her figure was bent, her charm wilted, and her dresses were worn out. Then the idol fell down and the star faded. The poets and prose writers retracted what they had written and were dumbfounded.

Of course I am not recalling this case to gloat over what happened. Not at all. I am not one who gloats over the misfortunes of others, and this has never been one of my traits. In my book Islam and the World Order, I wrote that I was pained and saddened by the fall of the Soviet Union, in spite the complete difference between its thought and ideology and mine, and by the absence of an empire that had made significant contribution to the current structure of civilization. I wished that civilization would correct its course and reconsider the approach of its culture and civilization, so that it might be in harmony with human nature and its spiritual and affective elements. It collapsed, was fragmented, and lost all its energy because it ignored the individual’s inner world: his spirit and affection. This fact is expressed by the well-known former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in his famous book Perestroika, who tried in the lost time to save the staggering Soviet Union, but it was too late. He says, “Our main mission today is to enhance the individual’s morale, respect his inner world, and give him moral power. We are striving to make the intellectual abilities and all the cultural potential of society combine to create a socially-active, spiritually-rich, straightforward, conscientious individual.”

No, I am not gloating when I recall the case of the socialist mistress after her prime had faded and her lovers felt embarrassed. I mention here my sad feelings at the collapse of the Soviet Union, in spite of differences in ideology and culture, to emphasize that I have no tendency to gloat over this or anything else. I believe that in his approach, conduct, and culture, a Muslim should always be on the side of construction and of the rationalization and improvement of every act of civilization, rather than the side of destruction, ruin, and removal of others. Ultimately, a civilization remains a part of the human heritage. It remains a human interest and gain. When it strays, it should be rationalized, corrected, and developed.

I also m recall the story of socialism and its lovers in order to say to the lovers of democracy today, “Slow down, gentleman. Be moderate in loving your beloved, who may one day turn into your enemy, and be moderate in hating your enemy, who may one day turn into your beloved. I do not here equate socialism and democracy; the difference between them, without doubt, is not small. What I am saying is that as socialism, hideous as it was, was not devoid of positive points, democracy, in spite of the good that it has, is not devoid of negative and sour points.

One day, I had a conversation with His Excellency, Mr. Loren Craner , assistant to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was accompanied by a large delegation composed of:

1. His Excellency Mr. Robert Jordan, former U.S. Ambassador in Riyadh;

2. Her Excellency Mrs. Gina Abercrombie-Win Stanley, U.S. Consul General in Jeddah;

3. Her Excellency Mrs. Elizabeth Dugan, Chief Advisor for Democratic Affairs at the U.S. State Department;

4. His Excellency Mr. Michael E. Parmly, Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary;

5. Her Excellency Mrs. Joanna Levisohn, a U.S. State Department official;

6. His Excellency Mr. Don Brown, Officer of Political Affairs, U.S. Consulate in Jeddah; and

7. Her Excellency Mrs. Sallma Wabber r, Assistant Officer of Political affairs and Protocol.

The meeting, with the whole delegation attending, was held in Jeddah 11:00 a.m. on Monday, 11 Jumada I, 1424 A.H. / 21 July, 2003 A.D. and was concluded at 1:00 p.m. After greetings and expression of courtesy, the Head of the delegation, Mr. Craner, asked me, “What is the relationship between Islam and democracy as you see it ?

I said, “There is something wrong with such a direct comparison between Islam and democracy?”

“What is wrong?” he asked.

I said, “(1) Islam, as everyone knows, is a comprehensive system that has an overall vision of the universe and life, while (2) democracy is part of liberalism, and the latter is also an all-inclusive system that has its own philosophy of the universe and life. On that basis, it is not fair to compare part of a system with another system. The concepts of a part cannot be sufficiently clear except through its position within the web of the system to which it belongs. Therefore, a comparison of this sort, which is common among many Muslim intellectuals, is wrong and harmful to items, Islam and democracy. That is what is wrong, and that is the reason to consider a direct comparison between them a common mistake.”

He said, “What do you consider to be a correct comparison?”

“The comparison would be right,” I said, “if it is made between Islam and liberalism, since both of them are comprehensive systems in their outlook and values. It would also be a correct comparison if it is made between corresponding parts of the two systems.”

He asked, “What part of Islam corresponds to democracy in the system of liberalism?”

I said, “This is a sound and objective question. But before I answer you, let me give you an outline of the way I understand liberalism. If you find it acceptable, I can then answer your important question.”

He welcomed the idea, and I said, “In my modest understanding, liberalism consists briefly of (1) its own view of the universe and life; (2) a legislative authority that is given entirely to the people; (3) a social contract, which is a contract of performance, called democracy; and (4) a system and mechanism for implementation, which is done through the parliament institution. Is this understanding correct and acceptable to you?”

“It is very acceptable,” he said. “I can even say that many liberals would probably fail to present liberalism in such a ‘skillful synopsis’.” That is the description he used.

I said, “Let me, likewise, sum up the system of Islam as I understand it.”

“That will be a pleasure,” he said. “I need to understand what the system of Islam is.”

I said, “The system of Islam, also briefly consists of (1) an integrated comprehen­sive view of the universe and life; (2) a legislative authority that Islam makes all its basics, with no exception, in the hands of God, the Most Sublime, and his Messenger, and next to them in the hands of legislators, who are knowledgeable and specialized people who deduce, and legislate in the various fields of life, within the basic principles and general objectives of Islamic Law; (3) a social contract, which is a contract of performance, dominated and controlled by a contract of faith with God, the Most Sublime, which is called pledged allegiance; and (4) a system and mechanisms for implemen­ta­tion, which is done through the Shura (advisory) institution. Is this way of explaining clear to you, or do you need further details?”

He said, “It is clear, and thank you for this concise summary.”

I started to say, “Now I can answer your question.…”

But he interrupted me, saying, “It is clear that what corresponds to democracy from your point of view is pledged allegiance.”

“Yes,” said I. “Because both pledged allegiance and democracy are social contracts. Here I can say that your and our performance contracts agree to the extent of as much as 80%

With astonishment, he asked “Is that true?”

I said, “Yes, and this is not mere Arab generosity.”

“But what is the cause of the 20% difference between the contracts?” he asked.

I replied, “It is there because of the contract of faith, which you ignore in your social contract, while we still hold to it. We firmly believe that it is the basic and most important contract in our lives. We insist on retaining it and adhering to it, because it is the foundation for rationalizing and controlling the soundness of our social and civilization-related performance. There is another reason for the difference between your and our social performance contract, and it relates to distinctive cultural characteristics.”

He said, “Then the common ground between us is great?”

I said, “Yes.”

He asked, “Why is there this flaw in our relations?”

I said:

For several reasons, and they include:

1. Deficient knowledge of the followers of the two cultures.

2. Misunderstanding or lack of understanding among a large sector of your and our cultural circles of the meaning of pledged allegiance and of democracy.

3. The failure to give a concrete form to the common ground and the shared goal of pledged allegiance and democracy.

4. Faulty performance in practicing both pledged allegiance and democracy in most of your and our communities.

5. The growth of the tendency in your culture to do without the other, because many of you believe that you have reached the pinnacle of intellectual and civilization-related creativity, so you have no need for the values and virtues the other has. Meanwhile, you believe that it is the other that needs you and your culture. Hence, the idea of the end of history developed in your culture. Of course, to many of you, you are the end of history and the ceiling of human creativity. Your approach to and model of civilization is the best possible one, you believe.

6. In juxtaposition to that, some people on our side have the tendency to reject the other and unwillingness to deal with him. This is a tendency that, I assure you, is wrong and conflicts with the origin and orientation of the Islamic approach.

7. Poor performance in international politics on your part in your capacity as the most active party in the international arena. I do not exonerate ourselves from contributing to some degree, one way or the other, to this malfunction in international politics.

A long conversation followed, and we went into very specific details, which I do not have to go into here, but I will mention the most important points.

Mr. Parmly, the Special Advisor of Mr. Wren asked, “But how is pledged allegiance implemented?”

I said, “The Islamic system does not define a formula of implement­ation. It is left for the nation to determine it by mutual consent according to time and place. Islam, after all, stresses principles and goals, and leaves means and mechanisms to be chosen by peoples, according to the dictations of their situations and needs, which change with the change of time and place.”

“But who has the jurisdiction to determine the nation’s choice in this matter?” M. Warren asked.

I replied, “It is the official in charge (the ruler) and influential people (experienced and specialized people).”

He asked, “But who decides who the influential people are?”

“This is an open choice for the official in charge. It can be by recommendation, election, appointment, or some other method, as the conditions and interests of the nation require.”

Mr. Warren asked, “What is meant by influential people?”

“They are,” I said, “specialized people who are qualified to investigate and decide.”

He said, “If you are asked to set a plan and a mechanism to choose specialized people according to current social conditions, what are the most prominent features and steps of such a project?”

I said:

The categories of specialization in any society today are those of various scientific and academic specializations, and those with experience and applied skills. For example, there are politicians, economists, educa­tionists, social scientists, financial experts, businessmen, manufacturers, etc. In my opinion the features of the mechanism can be summed up as follows.

1. The proper qualification for members of each category of specialization would be specified.

2. The number required from each segment would be decided.

3. Each segment would be asked to choose the required number of its members.

4. The whole group of the chosen specialists would form the council of qualified people, or whatever else the council is called.

5. The mechanisms of the council’s performance would be determined in a way that serves public interests.

He said, “What is the name of the institution of qualified people in Islam?”

I said, “The Advisory (Shura) Council or any other council, house, or assembly. Names are not a problem in the Islamic approach. The important thing is how to achieve ends and goals.”

“Are the decisions of the Advisory Council binding for the ruler?” he asked.

I said, “The decisions in the advisory system in Islam are of two types: (1) decisions on matters related to the basic principles of Islamic Law, and these are binding for the whole nation, i.e. to the ruler and the people, and (2) decisions on emerging matters that have room for opinion. With theses, the official in charge, or the ruler, has the right to outweigh one opinion from these and other considered opinions that are available to him through other institutions and higher specialized advisory councils of the state. He also has the right of amendment and postponement in accordance with the dictates of the nation’s higher interests.”

He asked, “What do you mean by the ruler’s right to outweigh?”

“In principle,” I said, “it corresponds to the U.S. president’s right to veto some resolutions of the congress, but with some difference.”

“What is the difference?” he asked.

I said, “There are a cultural difference and a procedural difference. Culturally, I think the expression ‘to outweigh’ is more polite and more respectful of the decision maker. In procedure, the expression implies adherence to and acceptance of the submitted decision, but, in the view of the Muslim ruler, there is something more appropriate for the national interest. ‘More appropriate’ here can mean any of several things: more appropriate in timing, for the location, in performance, in phrasing, etc. While the phrase ‘to veto’ has a connotation of rejection and objection and implies a conclusive procedure. Still, we Arabs say that ‘there is no shortage of terminology.’”

Mrs. Elizabeth Dugan asked, “But why do you insist on continuing the relationship between religion and the state? Does this not obstruct your progress and stimulate non-acceptance of the other?”

I said, “I do understand the background of your question, Madam. You had a great and intricate problem with the Church’s teachings, because they conflicted with the nature of things and with the stimulation of creativity, innovation, development, and progress. This resulted in a state of conflict between your ambitions in life and the inflexible teachings of the Church. We, however, have a problem of a different kind with Islam.”

She asked anxiously, “What is it?”

I said, “Regrettably, we are behind the teachings and encouragements of Islam in this matter. The teachings of Islam repeatedly and insistently encourage learning, creativity, development, and progress in all fields of life, at the level of the earth and the level of stars and planets. The religion of Islam even makes that one of the best offerings and most venerated types of worship. In Islam, worship is of two types: spiritual worship and constructional worship, which is the maintenance of life and harnessing what the universe contains to serve human beings. God’s satisfaction is attained only through a delicate balance between the two types of worship. A Muslim is accountable for any failure in his constructional worship, the same as he is for failure in spiritual worship. This is the reason of our insistence on the continuity of the relationship and inseparability of religion and the state. Does it make any sense for an individual to keep his life separate from what stimulates, urges, and calls upon him to pursue science and scholarship, to acquire skills, to work diligently in the fields of technological creativity, and to climb up to higher positions in all fields of life?

She asked, “Where do women stand on all this?”

I said, “In Islam, man and woman are partners in responsibility on the basis of their equitable complementarity in the fields of life. Certain controls and rules govern this partnership to allow its objectives to be realized in a manner that does not disrupt the nation’s values and the nature of its approach to civilization. The family is the first social institution, in which the formula of equitable complementarity is realized and materialized in the responsibilities of man and woman. In Islam, the family is a basic institution of civic society. In fact, it is the good nucleus of a good society.”

Mr. Crener asked, “What about the reform and change movement?”

I said, “I prefer the expression of ‘restoration and development.’”

“Why?” he asked.

“Because it fits our reality and our approach better,” I said. “Restora­tion and development is not something new in our life, nor is it an extraordinary case of an emergent situation. It is a permanent principle of religion and approach of legislation. ‘At the beginning of every one hundred years, God sends someone who renews for Muslims the state of their religion.’ Islam is the only system that, in order to encourage research and creativity, rewards a creative researcher, even when he errs. In order to encourage him to go on and improve, the reward is doubled for him if he succeeds.”

I then asked Mr. Crener, “but what about restoration and development in your case?’”

“What do you mean?” he asked back.

I asked, “Is it not time for a reconsideration of your system and means which have been without change or development for several decades? Is it not time for a reconsideration of the philosophy of liberalism itself? Is it not time for a reconsideration of democracy, the parliamentary system, and their methods? Do they not need development, improvement, and adjustment to the new social, political, and moral factors and other new factors of civilization in general on the various regional and international levels?”

He replied, “Undoubtedly these are objective questions that we have to cope with, but do you have specific observations?”

I said jokingly, “The bill is long and needs a long period of time.”

“As for time,” he said, “you are absolutely right. We have several appointments, one after the other. I will not keep it a secret from you that we have decided to cancel some of these because of the benefit we feel we are getting from the conversation with you.”

I said, “Thank you, dear colleague. This is a testimony I am proud of, and I, in turn, am glad and pleased with your questions, which have allowed me to explain what has pleased you to hear.”

He told me, “We have half an hour more with you, so tell us briefly two examples of the observations you have about our system, so we can resume our questions.”

I said:

I have brief points to make, which are:

o You continue to ignore the dimension of religion and values in the content of your social contract, and this, I believe reflects negatively on the performance of your civilization.

o There is an exaggeration, and I can even say going beyond limits, in your principle of freedom of choice, which takes the form of influencing the voter through lengthy election campaigns and the accompanying inducements to win the voter and direct his choice to the benefit of a certain side.

o You have made the votes of voters absolutely equal on matters that are vital to the nation.

He said, “What do you mean?”

I said, “Does it make sense that the vote of your Excellency, not as a human being but rather as a man of distinguished competence and experience, is equal to the vote of an ordinary person with modest competence, and sometimes with no competence at all, in deciding the question of who is best for the nation or deciding some other vital concern of the nation.”

“Do you want us to follow the principle of qualified people?” he asked.

I said:

That is your choice. You may find something even better. The important thing is to reconsider the question.

o The final point is that I recommend a reconsideration of the social permissiveness law that you are known to have, which has flooded the American society with all kinds of crime, as stated by your former Secretary of State James Baker.

He said, “Thank you for your bold remarks, and believe me they will receive attention. What else do you suggest for further acquaintance.”

I said:

I recommend the direct and objective dialogue and exchange of points of view between us to go on, with utmost transparency, truthfulness, and respect, without any devious mediators. Direct acquaintance remains more effective and more capable of allowing people to arrive at sound mutual understanding. We should stay away from erroneous explanations and interpretations, which are most often used by mediators and by biased and mercenary information media. This type of information that is at enmity with our strategic relationship has, unfortunately, a negative role that influences the American public. In my estimation, the area of the common ground we share in regards to objectives is vast, while means and mechanisms have to remain connected to the nature of societies and their various distinctive cultural characteristics. We share together the responsibility of developing and increasing the area of the common ground we share through objective and direct dialogue.”

His Excellency welcomed this idea. We went back after that to the comparison between Islam and liberalism, and pledged allegiance and democracy, which had been interrupted by their above quoted questions. I told the delegation:

If we contemplate the components of both systems, we will easily discover the points of agreement and difference they have. On the other hand, we can discover the common ground they share. This will give us the chance to develop and reinforce the points of agreement and to understand the points of difference in a way to prevent their being a hindrance to the realization of the common interests of followers of the two systems.

After this brief introduction, anyone who wants can make a comparison between the two systems, Islam and liberalism, in general, or between corresponding parts of the two, such as making a comparison between:

· the overall outlooks of the two system towards life and the universe;

· the legislative authorities of both;

· the two systems’ social contracts: pledged allegiance and democracy;

· Shura (the advisory system) and the parliamentary system, which are the legislative and implementation/supervisory institutions of the two systems.

Thus, the comparison would be, in my view, specific and objective.

“Let us make a comparison between pledged allegiance and democracy,” said Mr. Mr. Crener.

I said:

As defined by its own people, democracy is

· the government of the majority,

· a government in which the people have supreme authority, or

· The government of the people by the people.

In light of the cited definitions of democracy, we can conclude that it is a social contract between the people and the ruler, between the people as the source of legislation and the ruler as an executive agent.

Meanwhile, pledged allegiance is the government of people according to the law of God, the Most Sublime, on the basis of the contract of faith. The ruler is empowered by the people to manage and organize the life of people and serve their interests on the basis of God’s Law and the contract between them, which is the constitution or the system of governance.

This means that pledged allegiance is a contract of faith and a social contract, which means it is a compound agreement composed of two contacts:

1. a contract of faith between God, the Most Sublime, and the nation, i.e. the ruler and the people, by which everybody is committed to God’s law, and

2. A contract of performance between the ruler and the people to serve the interests of the nation as defined in both the contract of faith and the charter of this contract between ruler and people, which is the constitution or the system of governance.

By contemplating the notions I have mentioned about democracy and pledged allegiance, it is easy to identify the points of agreement and of difference between them.

v There is no doubt that democracy, in principle, has achieved a great amount of good in the lives of societies that are sincere and serious in their attitude.

v Democracy and pledged allegiance agree on being contracts of performance (the social contract).

v Democracy implements about 80% of pledged allegiance, through the contract of performance.

v Democracy differs from pledged allegiance in that the contract of faith is lacking.

v The absence of the contract of faith in democracy creates the following differences between it and pledged allegiance.

· Democracy is the absolute rule of the people while pledged allegiance is the absolute rule of God through human performance and organization.

· The people is the source of legislation in democracy.

· The source of the principles of legislation in pledged allegiance, however, is God, the Most Glorious, and his Messenger. The nation has the right to interpret, legislate, deduce, and develop the systems and principles it needs to serve its interest as long as they do not differ from the basics of Islamic law.

· The ruler in a democracy is responsible to the people alone.

· The ruler in pledged allegiance is responsible to God, the Most Sublime, and then to the people for applying Islamic Law and implementing the charter of the performance contract. This is carried out through mutual advice and cooperation.

· The relationship between the ruler and the people in a democracy is merely an executive one.

· The relationship between the ruler and the people in pledged allegiance is that of complementarity of responsibilities on a basis of mutual consultation and advice to serve the interests of the nation on the basis of the contract of faith and in accordance with their contract of performance, i.e. the constitution.

· In a democracy, it is the majority that exclusively decides what is right and what is wrong in the nation’s life.

· In pledged allegiance, the principles of Islamic Law are the major arbiter in deciding what is right and what is wrong in the nation’s life. The majority’s opinion is taken and adhered to only in matters that are open to considered opinion on what is closer to the spirit and supreme objectives of the Law. If the majority supports an opinion that is in conflict with the principles of Islamic Law, it is not valid and cannot be accepted.

· There are other differences between democracy and pledged allegiance, but it is not the time to go into them now, since the dialogue has already been very long. I conclude, however, with the following:

v Democracy can be of greater benefit and safer if it adopts and adheres to religious and moral values.

v Therefore, I call on liberal societies to re-evaluate the question of their negligence of the contract of faith and to make an effort to reinforce democracy with divine values and religious and ethical controls. The Glorious Qur’an made this same recommendation over fourteen centuries ago to followers of other religions:

· God, the Most Sublime, says, “If they would observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to them by their Lord, they would be given abundance from above and from beneath. A group of them are on the right course, and many of them follow an evil course” (Al-Maidah V: 66).

· He also says, “Say ‘People of the Book, you achieve nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you by your Lord’” (Al-Maidah V: 68).

v On the other hand, Muslims need badly, in the majority of their countries, to deal more seriously, sincerely, and objectively with pledged allegiance and its Islamic legal controls. They also need to develop the methods, mecha­nisms, and skills of the contract of faith in order to achieve greater justice, security, and prosperity for their societies.

For the record, this conversation took two hours without interruption.

By clarifying the relationship between pledged allegiance and democracy, I wanted to clear the ambiguity common to many thinkers about this question, when attempting to establish a relationship between democracy as an imported system and the originality of the Islamic nation’s identity. One person says, “Democracy is social justice.”

Another says that democracy is Islam, “for Islam is democratic.”

A third one claims that democracy is Shura, and “a Shura regime corresponds to a democratic one.”

A fourth settles the question by saying, “The Shura system is democracy.”

Others reply, “No, Islam is not democracy, nor democracy is Shura. Islam is something else. Yet, democracy has its place in Islam, so let us speak of ‘democracy in Islam.’”

A sub-group objects to the argument of their colleagues and says, “Democracy is an Islamic characteristic and objective, so it is better to speak of ‘the democracy of Islam.’”

A group of a different color joins in and says, “Why is all this fuss and all this altercation? Let us forget this controversy on terminology and turn to essence. Since democracy is a working and tried system and has brought benefits to others, let us adopt it, and thus God will spare us the argument.”

Another group answers, “You have to know if the whole package of democracy is adopted; a later step would be commitment to the standards of its cultural roots, moral behavior, and social and civilization-related philosophy. Democracy is not a system carved out of hard stone; it is an approach that belongs to a system and a self-contained philosophy with its own values and standards. A person who wants to take a part of that system and ideology is objectively and practically obliged to take the whole philosophical set. Otherwise he would be subjecting himself to a faulty cloning process that produces a fretful child who makes his parents miserable and increases their unhappiness and sense of failure.

Faced with this seething situation and confused attitude towards democracy, and after considerable reflection, I found that the question is easy to understand and conceive. If one goes to the roots of the liberal system and the cradle of its Greek birth, one can learn about the birth of democracy, as a social contract that organizes the relationship between ruler and subject in order to accomplish the objectives of liberalism and its social philosophy in general. As it is well known, and in very brief words, though I hope not to be distorting, way, liberalism is based on the idea and tendency of glorifying and sanctifying human freedom. The Roman word liber refers to the god of freedom, who is the Roman adaptation of the Greek god Dionysus, who is also the God of fertility (or sex). It seems this is the origin of the philosophy of sexual permissiveness in the liberal system.

Next came the idea of a contract between the ruler and the people to control the waywardness of absolute freedom, which is the spirit and foundation of the philosophy of liberalism. The ruler, after all, is a human being, and if his freedom and whims are not controlled, the subjects and their interests will suffer. With the development of the mechanisms and rules of the notion of absolute freedom, a nice and equitable expression surfaced in Western circles, which is: “Your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins.”

Meanwhile, within the framework of the social contract, the principle of the freedom of quarreling, conflict of opinion, and controversy was adopted, and an institution that organized the principle of quarreling and conflict was established and called parliament. The word is derived from the Greek and Latin root parley, which means a dialogue between two foes or enemies. This is the origin of the concept of opposition or the conflict in the parliamentary system. Disagreement, conflict, and quarreling is the origin and the distinctive characteristic of the relationship between parliament members in the proper parliamentary performance, while agreement and harmony are an indication of faulty performance or of regression of the principle of freedom, difference of opinion, and controversy.

Islam, on the other hand, has been upholding from the beginning the principle of controlled freedom and has legislated a set of ethical rules to control and organize that principle. Thus an individual freedom remains under the control of the interests of others’ freedom and of society in general. Islam regards absolute freedom as a rebellion and a violation of controls and of the other’s freedom and interests. Personally, having contemplated the principle of freedom and the mechanisms of its practice at the individual and social levels, I say that absolute freedom is an agent of absolute corruption and peril.

Because Islam is the system of the Lord – Who is all knowing about His creatures, merciful to them, and aware of their affairs – it has set up its system on rules and moral standards that makes it above such contradiction and frivolity that afflict most other systems. The Islamic system establishes foundations for an affective, faithful condition that makes the satisfaction of God, the Most Sublime, the end to which a faithful individual looks forward and a compass that guides his behavior in the fields of life. It has laid foundations to the rule of inseparability and complementarity of the interests of the individual and society. It has espoused the principle of cooperation and mutual advice between the members of society, both rulers and subjects, for the accomplishment of the public interest and the competi­tion to improve and develop it. To achieve these noble and sublime ends, the Islamic system has espoused the principle of Shura (consultation and advice) between the nation’s various organs and groups, so that they may cooperate and compete to achieve the best for everybody. It is on the basis of mutual consultation, advice, and cooperation that the methodology and performance mechanisms of Shura are founded.

Shura and mutual consultation is in fact a process of joint reflection on and study of the opinions and conceptions submitted to the members of the Shura (Advisory) Council in order to arrive at the best way to achieve the common end. That end is the satisfaction of God, the Most Sublime, through the realization of the nation’s interests. With this spirit as the starting point, the tendency for conflict and clash, on which the philosophy of the parliamentary form of the liberal system is based, disappears.

In other, more concise words, Shura is based on mutual advice, while the parliamentary system is based on mutual butting. Shura tends towards mutual tolerance, while the parliamentary system prefers mutual scandalizing. Shura works for the complementarity of gains that serve interests. One of the meaning of the Arabic word Shura is “honey,” and mutual consultation, therefore, requires mutual usage of sweet and refined language, rather than insults and obscenities, as is, regrettably, witnessed in the parliamentary arenas of the democratic system. Probably, dear reader, you have heard what millions of other people have: a president of the United States of America saying that his dog so-and-so understands politics better than a certain person that he named.

In spite of these differences between the two systems, however, I believe that respect for distinctive religious and cultural characteristics, as well as objecti­vity and transparency, make it necessary for followers of the two systems or contracts of democracy and pledged allegiance to explore the horizons of common understanding and constructive cooperation. Such exploration would serve their common interests and promote the equitable and secure coexistence of societies, within a framework of mutual respect and without any violation of the political and cultural homeland sovereignty and any intervention in the distinctive characteristics of the civilization of each nation.

One last word that has to be said is the emphasis that the system of Islam is based in all its aspects on the contract principle. Making contracts is the essence and characteristic of that system. Belief in God is one king of contract.

… And called them to bear witness about themselves. “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes …” (Al-A’raaf VII: 172).

Belief in the message of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and what he has brought from his Lord has a contract basis.

Those who pledge allegiance to you, pledge allegiance to God. God’s hand is above theirs (Al-Fattah XLVIII: 10).

Marriage is a contract.

How can you take it away when each of you has been privy with the other, and they have received from you a firm pledge? (Al-Nisaa IV: 21).

Selling and buying is done through contract, and all other relationships that manage the life affairs of individuals and groups are based on contracts.

Do not be averse to writing it down, be it small or great, together with the time when it becomes due; that is more equitable in the sight of God, lends greater credence to the testimony, and is more likely to spare you any doubt. (Al-Baqarah II: 282).

Islam emphasizes that contracts and covenants should be respected and adhered to.

Believers fulfill your contract obligations (Al-Maidah V: 1).

A contract is a charter of consent by the parties involved, whether individuals, groups, communities, or countries. Acceptance, mutual consent, and concluding a contract expressing that is the pinnacle of justice and mutual respect. It is also a source of reassurance and stability, and it dispels doubt and suspicion, and safeguards against forgetfulness. It guarantees rights and it is more equitable and fair for people.

Finally, such a system – with such a method of appealing to the affection of its followers, and such approach, mechanisms, rules, behavioral patterns, and the orientation of all its objectives; which is based on mutual consent and on contracts, not as a matter of interest only, but also of religiousness, worship, and seeking God’s satisfaction; and which uses all this as a basis to organize the lives of people – is certainly worthy of being followed. It is worthy of having the human race learn about its justice and charity. A nation that believes in this system and the Lord of this system, yet gets lax when it comes to implementation of its values, principles, and controls in its life, and fails, through the way it conducts its life, to inform other people about it and to follow a wise approach of introducing it to others—such a nation undoubtedly wrongs itself and the people around it. It deprives its generations and those of the whole human race of the justice and straight course of its Lord. God, we have been gravely unjust to ourselves. God, accept our repentance, forgive us, and guide us to Your ways, the ways of uprightness.

Prof. Dr. Hamid bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie

President, International Islamic Forum For Dialogue

Assistant Secretary General, Muslim World League

From His Book (Partners … not Guardians) Part Four / Chapter Fifteen

Read More