Takeaway democracy [Archives:2006/925/Opinion]
By: Mohammed Abdulsalam Mansour
I have found nothing better than “takeaway democracy” to describe the type of democracy prepared by the U.S. political kitchen at the end of the Cold War. It was cooked more quickly than a Big Mac. This is democracy in the eyes of the U.S. Administration: no more than a magic meal with a modern flavor. It should be taken because it is rich and delicious. It revitalizes and invigorates states and cures people's ailments – backwardness, poverty, fanaticism, terrorism, dictatorship, etc. The most important thing is that it is cheap and easily prepared, with no need to sit at the table with a relative or friend. It is easily eaten, taken by each Arab state separately on their road, mapped by the Sykes-Picot Treaty.
This analogy between currently promoted democracy and a Big Mac doesn't mean that I belong to the cult that considers democracy a Western characteristic, delivered via a long-lived conflict with the church resulting in estranged state and religion. Such a cult claims that it is impossible to replicate democracy in societies where Islam is a religion and a state. Nor do I want my simile to be understood as support for the political stream that prefers postponing democracy until liberation, social justice and development are achieved. I don't stand by them due to certain convictions of mine.
The first reason is that political forms, be they states or governments, are a universal heritage. Various constitutional studies nearly confirm that all nations have experienced a wide range of governance modes. Different systems of governance – secular, royal, totalitarian, democratic, etc. – are not specific to a certain nation.
Therefore, democracy as participation in governance and selection of a ruler was known by ancient communities and peoples, most notably Greek democracy.
My second conviction boils down to the fact that democracy has no fixed shape. It had a multiplicity of forms which ultimately evolved into its two forms dominating Europe and its extensions (America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) with individual and social approaches. The former stressed participation in governance and the second stressed sharing wealth. Constitutional, political, social and philosophical studies have profoundly examined both types and concluded that it is impossible to say which is higher and purer. This opened the door for more modern and humanistic approaches to come into existence, asking for improvement of the two types in such a way as to ensure people's true participation in governance and fair distribution of wealth.
The third conviction has been crystallized through a prolonged and tiresome quest for Islam's true stance on the legality of political authority and the sources thereof. The huge mass of opinions, interpretations and conclusions forged by theological cults and jurisprudent sects hardened this quest. Muslims and non-Muslims easily can conclude the opinion of Islamic Sharia law regarding political authority by means of prudent examination of explicit Qur'anic verses and the Sunna in sayings and deeds.
In the Islamic viewpoint, a Muslim's action is related either to a religious or a mundane matter. The Prophet (pbuh) came to explain to people the particulars of their religion through the Qur'an, his sayings and deeds. However, mundane acts are to be entrusted to the individual and the community, doing what they think is in their interest and according to their human experience. The Prophet (pbuh) explicitly referred mundane acts to the sole judgment of mankind, saying, “You know better the affairs of your life.”
In other words, Islam is the religion of human nature, confining religious affairs within the boundaries of certain laws set forth in explicit verses and deeds. What remains (the wider circle of halal, an Islamic Arabic term meaning permissible) is a mundane affair. For example, agriculture, warfare, administration, industry and politics are mundane affairs.
In my opinion, Islam gives political affairs a priority, as it states clearly that they are mundane. This is why it was mentioned twice in the Qur'an: “Consult them,” and “Their decisions are by means of Shoura (mutual consultation).”
As the Prophet knew best that politics is a mundane affair, his messages to other nations were limited to the call to Islam as a peaceful creed. Concerning their political authority, he stated in his messages that it is left to them, giving it to whomever they trust.
The fourth of my convictions is that democracy, thus defined, is a human instinct. Each person tends to monopolize authority as long as their power and community's submission allow. Yet, this submission doesn't displace the instinctive love for power, at least to participate in it.
Therefore, we realize that efforts toward establishing a democratic system should not stop in any society and should not be conditioned by pre-achievement of a goal such as national liberation, development or social justice, even though such goals seem to be prerequisites for democracy.
I also am convinced that social developments are a debatable issue with entangled threads. I do believe that claiming democracy doesn't postpone the struggle for national liberation. Social, economic and political rights are pressing needs and we should work for obtaining them immediately and relentlessly.
The reader may feel this is inconsistent and wish to surprise me with the question: Why did you make that analogy of democracy? This is because I appeared right from the beginning to be unsatisfied with the U.S. Administration's democracy invitation and its support for Arabs to pressure their governments. Actually, I am very glad for this interrogative anxiety. Answering it will give me a chance to explain my view in a nutshell on aspects of the U.S. Administration's invitation and some of its predictable repercussions which will set the record straight.
The first sign: A historical glimpse of U.S. Arab-oriented policy, right from its plan to succeed European colonization in the Middle East, will show that it began since then to work more enthusiastically and diligently than any European country to stabilize Zionist existence. Afterward, it was intent to deter any Arab move toward awakening. It also tried to perpetuate political, social, economic and cultural conditions in the Arab world under the umbrella of backwardness, ignorance and tribalism.
If we trace the fate of petroleum wealth, we will find that vast amount of petrodollars have poured into U.S. Administration coffers, with as much dedicated to stabilizing deterioration through various media outlets and misleading, which turned facts about the area topsy-turvy and succeeded in instilling in the collective consciousness that liberal movements are secular and atheist, aiming to destroy Islam and Arab values. It incited some innocent groups to pursue them and encouraged them to use violence. The last of these groups is the Al-Qaeda organization, which, following the Cold War, discovered that it had been deceived by the U.S. Administration. When Al-Qaeda achieved U.S. aims, the U.S. Administration turned on it trying to stab it in the back, especially after it perceived that some religious groups began to have political projects against its agenda. This led to 9/11 events.
It can be said that since the U.S. Administration entered the area, it has stayed the course to annihilate every possibility for a democratic system to exist.
The second sign: Although slowed down, unstoppable historical development has widened the circle of intellectuals, experts and national and political parties, resulting in influence over cognition of backward time. A social commotion began to look for a way out of this reality. Democracy appeared to be one of the solutions to their social and political crisis. Immediately, the U.S. Administration forestalled maturing this consciousness by means of its democratic project. It began to hype and promote it to exclude any serious democratic project in Arab consciousness.
I likened this project to a Big Mac only to indicate that it does not relate whatsoever to the “democratic banquet” enjoyed by Western countries, primarily American and European societies.
We cannot gauge the difference between our democratic takeaway snack and their lavish banquet when we know what they have prepared for us, not in our political or social kitchen, but in theirs, although their democracy is totally unlike ours. Western countries did not beg anybody for democracy. It was established by the community as a whole including the farmer, worker, officer, etc. Their democracy oozed through centuries and they snatched it from the rulers of the past. They want our democracy to be the way they like and as a gift from them. They want it to be a means to help some Arab states survive and topple the rest of dissidents, a way opening for Arab communities the horizons of a new political roadmap featuring takeaway democracy. And when the oil wealth is depleted, Arab states shall be left in the labyrinth of a wasteland
Mohammed Abdulsalam Mansour is a Yemeni Poet with several poetry collections. He is also a judge and a legal consultant.
([email protected])
——
[archive-e:925-v:14-y:2006-d:2006-03-02-p:opinion]
