Contrary to what some modern-day Islamic experts may say, democracy is as old as creation itself and is compatible with Islam. Muslims in the world today live in democracies, and a majority of the 47 Muslim-majority nations conduct elections.
If some Muslim countries today are not democratic, it is no fault of Islam, but is due to a mix of historical, cultural, political and economic factors. Islam, like other religions, can be interpreted in different ways, with some interpretations being totally out of context and presented to serve selfish, narrow ends, such as those put forward by Al-Qaeda and radical Islamists.
Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor with a doctorate in Islamic Thought from Oxford, says that Islam and democracy are a natural fit. They are both mobile ideas, philosophies that are easily understood in different cultures and carry universal truths, with similar basic elements. Both Islam and democracy hold that all humans are equal and that man has certain responsibilities to society. At its core, each treats human beings with respect and asks men to treat others the same way. He says that the incompatibility belief is misinformed.
According to Muqtedar Khan, director of international studies at Adrian College in Michigan, the principles in the constitution of Madinah, which was written by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 622 AD, are a powerful proof of the democratic ideals of Islam. The document set down the rules of the community of Madinah, as agreed to by Muslims and Jews of the city, and granted equal rights to Jews and Muslims who follow its laws.
Islamic democracy is based mainly on the Qur’an, and the Shariah, shoura (consultation), and ijma (principle of consensus). The leader continues to lead as long as he commands the trust of the people, and the depth and accountability are such that it is difficult to find similar importance being given in other forms. Islamic democracy is more responsibility-oriented than right-oriented. The leader is burdened with responsibility and not licensed to enjoy the rights of the office unashamedly.
In the prevailing worldwide climate, which is hostile to Islamic ideas, thoughts and practices and even governments, the book under review is an admirable scholarly attempt to present the case of Saudi Arabia. Appropriately, it has a foreword by Nelson Mandela, a universally respected personality known not to mince words. He says: “The tendency has increasingly been to view democracy as the set of institutions and cultural assumptions that are prevalent in the West. This view of democracy has always run into problems because the world is a culturally diverse place and no single culture has the monopoly on democratic practice. All cultures can thrive within a democratic environment and democracy within different cultural settings. The success with which Saudi Arabia has increased participation in its economy and politics shows the extent to which the dominant culture in that country can coexist with democratic arrangements.”
The author, Faisal ibn Mishaal ibn Saud, stresses that Saudi Arabia’s modernization process and success have been based on the identity of its people as Arabs and Muslims and its rejection of the concept that modernization means Westernization.
He goes on to define the political creed and construction of the Saudi political system. He presents the political development of Saudi Arabia along with an examination of the alternative concepts, discusses the Western and Marxist points of view, and then eases into the Islamic political system, saying it “shares many common aspects with its ideological counterparts, yet it has its own unique vision with regard to political and economic methodology.”
He goes on to refute the notion that Islam is dogmatic, explains sovereignty and legitimacy in the Muslim State, and legitimacy of authority in Islam, and turns to the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, covering its historical, political, and religious legitimacy, expansion of the realm, the early administrative mechanism, tribalism, the ulema, the structure of the government, and the formation of the Shoura Council.
The author also notes that the Saudi strategy of introducing greater political participation has been echoed or anticipated in other Gulf states like Oman, the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar.
The book includes a detailed survey of the Shoura Council, noting at length its members’ responses, both positive and negative, as well as recommendations and suggestions. The survey, conducted about four years ago, showed the mean age of the members as 55.05 years, with 71 percent of the respondents being from urban areas and the rest from villages. As for profession, 62 percent are from the administrative sector, followed by 49 percent from the academic side. Educational level is high — 63 percent holding doctorates and 24 percent Bachelor degrees.
As for reasons for the council’s existence, 71 percent of the respondents mentioned involving qualified Saudis in development followed by 68 percent who said encouraging public participation, and the need to complete the building of government institutions.
Freedom to voice an opinion received 63 percent “very satisfied,” and 89 percent said the Council of Ministers’ response to the Shoura resolutions was positive. Fifty percent found the role of the Shoura in rationalizing political decisions “very useful.”
On the weakness side, 29 percent mentioned support and information, and 24 percent restriction of the authority and jurisdiction of the council. Suggestions included expanding the authority and jurisdiction of the Shoura, creation of new committees, and strengthening relations with society. The detailed questionnaire forms part of the book. All in all, it is a very well researched and well presented book.
(Decision Making and the Role of Ash-Shura in Saudi Arabia, by Faisal bin Mishaal bin Saud Al-Saud, published by Vantage Press, Inc., New York, NY. Pp 216.)
