Pakistan’s betterment – in Caliphate or Democracy?
In recent years, as a result of social unrest and economic stagnation, the idea has taken hold that we need an Islamic Caliphate in place of this so called “Democracy”. And always, the question comes to mind, what is the difference between the two?!
Upon the death of Hazrat Ali, the nature of the Caliphate changed completely; from then till its end in 1924, the Caliphate was a synonym for Kingdom and the Caliphs, for all intents and purposes, were kings. It is abundantly clear however, that the Caliphate as it is meant to be, the Caliphate as it was during the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs is just another name for Presidential Democracy with the addition of religion into the mix.
At the head of the Caliphate was of course the Caliph, who was elected by the people. Case in point is Hazrat Abu Bakr was unanimously elected by the people of Madina. So here we have a democratically elected Caliph at the head of the government who is required to act within a framework of rules, the Shariat, the Islamic Constitution. Note the resemblance to the modern day President of the United States who is the head of the government and bound to abide by the Constitution of the United States.
Then there is the Majlis al-Shura, the parliament of the Islamic state which advises the Caliph. This body has the authority to appoint a new Caliph, but only with the consent of the people. Again, note the similarity to the US House of Representatives.
Next comes the judiciary, more specifically, an independent judiciary, which as we all know is the cornerstone of any civilized and just society. Such was Hazrat Umar’s emphasis on a free judiciary and the rule of law that he himself appeared in a court in response to a complaint made against him. Nowhere is the judiciary more independent than in modern Western democracies. Ironically, our own Islamic Republic’s president enjoys immunity.
It’s sad really that Non-Muslims seem to have learnt much more from Islam than us, but it only shows how much we need to broaden our horizons, how much we need rearrange our priorities. Islam isn’t only about praying, or about covering up women, or about protesting against Danish cartoons. It’s much more than that! It’s a guide to building a peaceful, prosperous society, a society where every citizen feels secure, where he knows that his rights will be protected.
And the question is not what we’ll call our government. It’s about what our government will do to that name. We don’t need a Caliphate or democracy in name. What we need is radical Islamic systems being incorporated into the way the country is run.
No related posts.
I have advocated this idea for so long, i am glad someone wrote about it. I too believe Islamic system, if properly implemented, is just as democratic and grants equal freedom and rights.
For a country like Pakistan, it makes more sense to bring people towards true Islamic democracy (over 90% Muslims being the cause), rather than a bizarre fusion of the two as is the case today.
Very well written Aqib.
A fusion of the two is disastrous, but secularism will work wonders for the country; give it a chance.
Well written “Aqib”?
If only if it was that easy. Bring on a caliphate that the second largest muslim sect doesn’t even believe in? (I am sunni, mind you)
Secondly, I don’t buy the idea of the western civilization learning about democracy from us. Democracy took its roots in the greek civilization way before Islam and it had many of the aforementioned attributes. If anything, we took the model from them.
And lastly, a system like the caliphate can only work in a religious fervor that was created right after the formation of a new religion. The fact that it was never to be replicated after the 4 caliphs is testament to the fact.
The idea of Caliphate is impractical and naive. It leaves so many questions unanswered. Last time Caliphate was implemented was around 1400 years ago and even then it badly failed, how? Lets see 3 of the 4 rightly guided caliphs died an unnatural death, they were either murdered or poisoned i-e Umar, Usman and Ali . Their reigns were devastated by civil wars and that is where sect’s of Islam, as we know them today, were formed i-e During Usman and Ali’s reign.
My advice to people is to stop trying to drag Shariah into everything as it has been proved time and again not to work i-e refer to Zia’s reign. The fruit of terrorism we are facing today is because of the seeds he sowed.
Pakistan’s problem on the other hand is different. One of the major reasons for democracy not flourishing here is that dictatorship takes over whenever democracy is vulnerable or going through a tough phase. Generals are eagerly waiting for the moment when they see a weak brick and cant wait to push the whole wall to pieces. As long as military keeps taking over you can forget about pakistan becoming a self sustainable and well reputed country.
What is different about India and Pakistan is this very fact that there has never been a military take over there. While in pakistan on the other hand half of the time since independence we have been under military rule. In India One government fails, another comes in, it fails another comes. This cycle repeats and becomes a self correcting mechanism. This is the beauty of democracy and this is why we see them far ahead of us today. Only under this system can other institutions of the country also stand on their feet and become independent.
@Umar, neither do I, its pretty clear that the credit goes to the Greeks. I never implied in my article that they learnt about democracy from us.
@Arsalan: Ya, I firmly believe that secularism is the way to go, esp for a troubled nation like Pakistan. Sure, we need Islamic “principles”, such as justice, honesty, equality etc, but a secular democracy is the need of the hour.
What I’m trying to say here is that the Caliphate system is much like democracy; cut through all the Mullah Crap and you arrive at a Western Style Democracy.