Islamic plans on the subject of democracy Throughout Islamic societies, the issue of democracy, its specific features and the forms and methods of its applications are of major concern and have long been attracting the attention of many of the world’s researchers and sociologists. The theoretical and practical aspect of this subject has gained importance both in Islamic and non-Islamic countries. Khomeini, who was responsible for the establishment of scientific Islam, could not differentiate between Islam and democracy. Once, Khomeini, the Islamic leader of Iran, said: “Without a proper execution of democracy, the Islamic victory will not be possible.” The term democracy is a Greek word, made up of two parts: “Demos,” meaning the nation, and “Kratus,” meaning the government, and together refer to the government of the people. From a legal aspect, democracy also denotes the rule of majority over the minority, with each member of society having equal rights. Democracy is also a form of government. It not only refers to a form of government, but it also applies to a form of social philosophy that at times signifies hope and a practical tool with which to rule a nation. Democracy came into existence at a specific stage in human history. Democracy is not an absolute term, but in comparison with the other world’s phenomena, it follows the definition of relativity, and it is precisely the relative definition of the term democracy that makes it accepted within society. Throughout history, although democracy has gained a much wider definition, democracy has never been a separate aspect of government. At times the term “anti-democratic” is used to describe a certain style of government. Many in our world consider democracy to represent the government of majority ruling over the minority. But here again, definitions are divided into many categories. The definitions of democracy in various countries of the world, at different times and places and according to the level of their historical development, are many and varied. The word democracy is also in line with individual rights in connection with government. In this case, the degree of individual freedom in society forms the basis for the general democratic values of that particular society. Democracy is not, however, an absolute term, but its limitations are apparent from the relative measures that are in operation. It is probable that the word democracy was used for the first time during the slavery periods of Greece. It should be understood, however, that slaves in those days were classed as tools of production and not as members of the general public. Aristotle, by categorizing the tools of production in three groups, once wrote: “Live tools of production such as cows, horses, camels and etc., solid tools of production such as spades, axe, etc., and finally, the tools of production with voice, meaning the slaves.” Here, the terminology of the people is not, however, complete, and the word democracy refers to those social systems in which people could freely elect their own representatives and also take direct participation in their social and national affairs. During European capitalist revolutions, groups and parties participating in the process of revolution took up the slogans of democracy against the rich and feudal sectors of society. Khomeini once called such democracies “incompetent democracies,” “subjective,” “parasitic,” “subtle,” “superficial,” etc. This, one-sided approach to the problem is incorrect and is obviously biased. No doubt capitalist democracies are to some extent limited. For this reason, these democracies are open to criticism. But the same democracies that are severely criticized by Khomeini have also in the past provided the means with which to protect him and his Islamic party, which subsequently gained strength and expanded. Can it be claimed that Khomeini and his associates in their immigration to Europe in the midst of the twentieth century were supported and assisted by the same so-called incompetent, subtle and subjective democracies? All this went on under the shadow of such “incompetent” democracies, and through which the European and American workforce laid the foundations for great successes in the enhancement of their standards of life. During World War II, the role of fascism in Europe not only failed to reduce the value of democracy, but indeed, it caused it to grow stronger. The question is whether or not the Islamic leaders have so far been capable of creating the same “incompetent” democracy under their slogans of socialist democracy? If we could recognize the style of government in Iran, which is declared by Islamic leaders as following the model of socialist democracy, then it would be a much easier task to distinguish the deep contradictions of their socialist democracy from a democratic system. Today, what is left of what once were laws and democratic measures applied to Islamic societies are purely their names and empty shells. In the past, democracy was primarily referred to as a political term, but today, the definition of democracy cannot only be limited to within political boundaries. Now, democracy not only is a political term but also includes economical, social and other terms. This new dimension, which covers man’s productive activities in the economy, has gradually gained prominent meaning in democracy. The terminology of democracy advances forward at such a rate that it is even included in literature, art and other social activities. The democratic rights of individuals in society cannot be measured using old-style political terms. Instead, the degree of man’s democratic expectations is evaluated by the degree of economic gains in society. This is how economic democracy within a democratic system plays a major role and indeed forms democratic infrastructure. In Islamic states, elections have not so far benefited from democracy and have not yet fallen within normal and natural trends. Only at times of extreme crisis do elections in Islamic states go through slight changes. And these are even then only to benefit the top echelon of the parties. The resultant changes in a party’s structure are met with disbelief and surprise by the public. One of the major obstacles for the advancement of democracy in Islamic states is the presence of intense censorship and the application of interrogation systems on individual views. In information movement, the imposition of censorship on the media and individuals’ views brings about a society of ill-informed people and confuses the direction of social forces into laying their unequal trust in politicians, scientists and other responsible government bodies. This unknown trust provides an obstacle to progress, and individual advancement will be obscured, which in turn results in many other unlawful deeds. The limitation of information movement not only makes controlling society difficult for government bodies, but it also destroys the credibility of people’s initiatives and converts the middle range of the public strata into immobile and useless social elements. The freedom of speech and opinion and the freedom of media in Islamic states today are at their lowest possible level. There are no signs of freedom in these countries with regard to activities such as art and scientific research, and especially in the fields of social sciences. Another aspect of Islamic states is the presence of insecurity for prominent social figures. There are still numerous people in Islamic states who are hunted down for their specific views on particular social issues. This is precisely why judicial procedures are hidden and closed to the public: so that, for instance, a healthy political activist could, on the recommendations of a “psychiatrist,” be sent to a mental institution, only to be chained to a bed. The individual’s right to travel is the most basic universal right, allowing mankind to travel freely. But Islamic states deprive citizens of the freedom to travel abroad. It is important to note that the term “freedom” is not absolute and has its limitations. This simply means that one’s freedom should not be at the expense of other members of society. It is evident that this matter has been carefully examined by social scientists. Democracy should not be at any stage mistaken for anarchy. For instance, fascists and racists are good examples of people who wish to dominate over other social groupings, making them their slaves and subjects. Thus, democracy must in essence have logical limitations. In the meantime, these logical restrictions must not be confused with any other limitations on freedom. “Scot Nearing,” an American philosopher, in his book under the heading of “Is freedom a promise or an intimidation?” criticizes some false aspects of Western democracies. Although at times he gets mixed up between “freedom” and “social discipline,” in his work, which arises from his experience of democracy and freedom in Islamic countries, he calls it “limited freedom.” In his recommendation to Asian and African countries, he writes: “The problems that are currently confronting these countries are not those of freedom but of their serious attempts to revitalize their countries and to rid themselves of dependence and slavery.” What constitutes a major problem confronting some Asian and African countries is how to abolish dependence and slavery. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that there exists an irremovable barrier between “freedom” and “social discipline.” These two are to some extent connected and interdependent. One of these two should not be sacrificed for the sake of the other. Manual and office workers, and farmers and the educated in Islamic countries are thirsty for freedom and democracy. Only a few bureaucratic minorities exist that oppose freedom and democracy. The bureaucrats, according to their nature and their interests, infuse fear into the uninformed sector of society in such a way that democracy is seen as a danger to their social rights and status. Yet it is evident that there is no danger arising from democracy—it is only the interests of the bureaucrats that are exposed to any such danger. Because of their class interests, the bureaucrats cannot integrate with the public at large and therefore do not make relevant decisions on their behalf.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 11:38:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015