ABDUL-AZIZ A. ALIYU, DEPT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, KADUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC, ZARIA, KADUNA STATE. INTRODUCTION In discussing this topic, we have to refer to the fundamental characteristics of every political regime, the origin of legitimate power. In contemporary Islamic societies, we see the coexistence of two concept of power. The first is a modern one and consider only the state the seat of legitimate power. It is the well known secular European Weberian concept that has been introduce to Islam thought in the 19th and 20th centuries alongside the concept of the nation-state. The landmark contributions of Islam and early Muslim to the political system and structures have not been fully acknowledged by the west. Some indolent “scholar’1 have even claimed that modern democracy and system of governance have their origin in western civilization while Islam represent ignorance and retrogression. This concept presupposes that the community is immune from error and cannot make a wrong decision because it is guided and directed through the process by divide authority the idea of the ummah is legitimised by the Sunnah which cherishes the word of Prophet Muhammad: “My community will never agree upon an error.” The Ummah‘s Consensuses is transformed into a source of legality and everything that has been agree upon on its basis becomes legitimate. Consensuses symbolises the decision of the ummah in its totality and the idea of its isma or immaculacy in this manner, the juristic tradition rejects the practice of hereditary succession. The new caliph is chosen through consensus by al ulama (Legal scholars.) Thus, the make a sort of a contract between the ruled in which both side have obligation. In practice, the building of consensus in the selection of the ruler is achieved through the process of shura (consultation) the first historical evidence of shura in the election of the supreme ruler through this practice dates back to 644 when six prominent Meccans were appointed to elect the third caliph after the murder of caliph Umar ibn al-khattab. It was after the collapse of caliphate system of government that we saw to the emergency of various form of government such as; Oligarchy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Communism and lately Democracy. The former system of government are at one time existed, but due to the weak policy on which it operates they could not stand the test of time and have since been faced out, in most countries except few in the Asian part of the World. Throughout the history of human civilization, the system of government has been an important issue and various schools, old and new, such as those of the ancient Roman and regimes found today such as Marxist, socialist and Capitalist have evolved in the course of time. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE The Islamic Concept of power, much more important and difficult to grasp is the second concept of power in Islamic society according to which political power receive it legitimacy from religious law. Power, therefore belongs to professional legal elites, the jurist. Theologian developed the principle of the Islamic doctrine of power and established the permanent connection between politics and theology- the classic Islam philosophy and these re indigenous concept within the Islamic tradition. The Islamic concept of power was developed by the 11th century by the religious scholar and jurist, Abu –Hassan – al-Maward (974-1058) to him power is unquestionable because it stems from sacred law. The institution of the state is subordinate to the religious community and can be even considered to be its instrument because, in Islam, sacred law comes before any idea of social and politic organization. 2 Monarchy The most common form of government from ancient times to the early part of the 20th century was monarchy, or rule by a hereditary king or queen. Monarchy passed through three basic stages, varying according to the nation and the political and economic climate. The first stage was that of the absolute monarch. In the Christian part of the world during the middle Ages, a conflict developed between the pope and the kings who recognized his spiritual authority. The pope wanted to expand the power of the church beyond spiritual matters to include the temporal realm. But some kings proclaimed that God had given them the right to rule, and by proclaiming this divine right they were able to give legitimacy to their reigns and limit the popes power. (See church and state; investiture controversy.) Limited monarchy was the second stage. Kings depended on the support of the most powerful members of the nobility to retain their thrones. In England and some other Western European countries, the nobility placed limits on the power of the ruler to govern. This was done in England, for example, through the Magna Carta. Threatened with the loss of political and financial support, even the strongest kings and emperors had to accept a system of laws that protected the rights and privileges of powerful social and economic classes. The third stage in the evolution of monarchy was the constitutional monarchy. Present-day monarchs are nearly all symbolic rather than actual rulers of their countries. (A few exceptions can be found in Africa and Asia.) In such monarchies as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain, governing power is now in the hands of the national parliaments. 3 Dictatorship As a form of government, dictatorship is principally a 20th-century phenomenon. The dictator, often a military leader, concentrates political power in himself and his clique. There is no effective rule of law. The regime may or may not have a distinctive political ideology and may or may not allow token opposition. The main function of a dictatorship is to maintain control of all governmental operations. There have been some cases—Indira Gandhi in India and several military dictatorships in Latin America—in which authoritarian rulers have relaxed their control and have even allowed open elections. The totalitarian dictatorship, as in Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the former USSR, is much more thoroughgoing. It seeks to control all aspects of national life, including the beliefs and attitudes of its people. It has a set of ideas that everyone is expected to embrace, such as revolutionary Marxism or counterrevolutionary fascism. At its most extreme, as during the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the USSR, the power of the dictator may become more absolute than in any of the earlier forms of tyranny. Such gross power in the hands of one person results inevitably in the development of what has been called a cult of personality. The leader is credited with almost infallible wisdom, because to admit that he or she may be wrong would deprive the regime of its authority. In some Communist countries the cult of personality appears to have given way to the dominance of a group of party leaders—a ruling oligarchy. The administrative complexities of managing a modern industrial state are too great to be monopolized by an individual leader such as Stalin or Mao Zedong (Mao Tsetung).4 The end goal of transitional administrations in war-torn or failed states has invariably been the creation of new institutions. Such institutions are the development of democracy and these has been the world most popular system of government; let me start with a brief definition of democracy. An enormous amount of literature has been devoted to this topic believe, however, that the “state of the game” in contemporary politic science allows us to speak with a reasonable degree of certainty about democracy. To cut the long way short, I would simply suggest that we stick to the general definition of the America politic scientist, Robert A. Dahl, who has gradually emerged as the main authority on this question during the last decades. According to him, modern democracy is a system of governance with specific practices, strategies and rules. The members of that system treat each other as political equals, govern collectively, and have at their disposal rights, resources and institutions that guarantee their capacity for self-government. 5 In this political regime, the rulers are held accountable for what they do in public sphere by citizens and citizens are political actors who act indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives. The practice of democracy has become a universally accepted value, and has made it global alternative practical system of governance. Even in societies where social tensions limit its possibilities, where war and political violence make democracy difficult, where there are tough policy choices on balancing security and freedoms, and where the socio-economic conditions for the rapid introduction of democracy are not conducive to its quick consolidation. Arguing for the universality of democracy in practice when circumstances are unfavourable for its success is a marked change from contending that democracy must wait until certain favourable “preconditions” are achieved. The universality of democracy applies even in deeply divided societies, including war-torn “failed states” in which state capacities are destroyed, civil society is weakened, and political violence and manipulation are paths of least resistance to securing territory and power. In internationally managed transitions in such failed-state environments (such as those in which the United Nations has exercised trusteeship-type authority), tight control over politics by the UN during a transitional period has been aimed at building democratic institutions to eventually allow for direct public participation in governance. Is Democracy compatible with Islam? Events in the Arab world in 2011 put the relationship between Islam and democracy at the heart of global politics. In January of that year, an act of individual protest in Tunisia triggered the events that raised the expectations of the democratic world that hopefully named them the “Arab spring”. Until then, Arab countries had authoritarian political system which they are now trying to transform into democratic rule. The rise of Islamist parties as a result of democratic elections opens the question of the compatibility of Islam with democracy. 6 CONCLUSION The great value of Islam’s contributions to the development of political system can not be overemphasize, sequel to transition and time some eastern Europe dictators were forced from power in bloodless coups or voluntarily relinquished their authority to popularly elected officials as soviet power declined. While, popular demand for democracy has become a universally accepted value, even in societies where social tensions limit its possibilities. Reference 1. These include Islamophobes .like Robert Spencer, Eliana Benador, David Yerushalmi and Pamela Geller. 2. http;//papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm (accessed on 6th July, 2014). 3. Hartmann, Thomas B. Government. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2014. Web. 1 July 2014. (Accessed on the 7th July, 2014). 4. Op cit. 5. Op cit 6. Mariana Mali nova, (Unpublished Article, 1996). Society and system of Governance. Marks: 50+25+23 = 98%
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 10:47:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015