The writer is a PhD Scholar at West Virginia University in the US
In history, the actual conflict started between church and politics, and not church and state, when new stakeholders or commoners entered the arena, claiming that the rulers had to have the support of the people and not of the pulpit, in order to rule. The basis of this claim was a new idea of ‘majority rule’ or ‘government by consent of the people, i.e., liberal democracy’ promoted by Western political philosophers. From the seventeenth century onwards, religion had problems with democracy and not with the state. Religion did not have space for democracy nor did democracy have any room for religion because both were incompatible. A state could be based on the will of God, as religion suggests, but democracy is based on the will of the people only. Going by this, the whole Christian world, in so far as the government and its institutions are concerned, denies and defies the authority of God by applying democracy in their societies. For example, the Americans, though they trust in God, believe in democracy and follow the Constitution, not the Bible.
Democracy is purely a Western and secular concept having space for all religions without distinction. In simple words, a democratic state cannot promote one particular religion but can give people the right to practise whatever religion they want. The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the state to establish any religion or prefer one religion to the other. In religion, anything repugnant to the ‘revealed teachings’ is forbidden and punishable. Similarly, in a democratic state, all acts contrary to democratic principles, as laid down in the secular Constitution, are unacceptable. In a true democracy, people through their elected bodies can make or unmake anything or can even declare lawful same-sex marriages or the use of marijuana. Through democracy, the Western world has provided an antidote to the baleful and retrogressive leanings of religion.
Western liberal democracy and religion contradict each other. This is why true democracies in the world are also secular, including that in modern Turkey. All conservative forces of the past, the kings or queens (almost all European nations still have monarchs), clergy and military are still there in modern democracies of the West but these forces have surrendered before the will of the people. The most powerful armies of the world today, such as that of the US and European nations, have accepted the civilian supremacy as desired by their people.
In Pakistan, the conservative political forces are not yet ready to accept the will of the people in its true spirit. For many political forces in the country, particularly the religious parties, democracy is merely a tool to hold on to political power and they want to use it to promote religion or their vested interests. It makes sense when Sufi Muhammad, the founder of the Tehreek-e-Nefaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, and the Taliban leadership pronounce that Western democracy has no place in Islam. However, some people might cite the example of Iran as a democracy. But the truth of the matter is that Iran is not a democracy but the worst form of an electoral dictatorship of clerics because the right to participate in elections is highly restricted. It is also naive to say that there are different shades of democracy. Pure democracy has only one shade, i.e., respect for the will of the people. Impure or fake, democracy has as many shades as one can come up with.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 5th, 2013.
COMMENTS (29)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Interesting article, well written but the author says that in Iran its democracy is not a true democracy since participation is highly restricted. However in the advanced democracy of the US, in the recent Presidential election the total expenditure by both candidates exceeded $6 billion. Does the author really think and believe that an ordinary American can hope to run for President in the US? Is it not the case that most of this money for US Presidential elections is given by corporate interest and other lobbying groups?
Moreover in the US, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and other Western 'liberal democracies', only 2 or 3 incumbent establishment parties run for office e.g Democratic and Republican parties in the US. Nobody can readily attain power without joining these parties and hence towing the establishment line. The fact is, just as the author ironically concludes, that Democracy has its own rules for entry and Democracies in the West are also highly restrictive. Every ideology works to protect its system and is intolerant of alternatives as the West proved with Communism with the Soviet Union. Therefore if we consider alternatives system of governance such as the Islamic system of ruling of Khilafat, we should be open to such ideas for discussion without preconceived prejudice.
what a article..<3
nice artical specialy to understand real concept of democracy.
THE SOLUTION CAN BE FOUND OF GRAVE ISSUES OF PAKISTAN BETWEEN THE LINES...........the knife on the sacred throat of PAKISTAN is "SECTARIAN Violence".....and sir the democracy about which you are talking can be or we will not be wrong if we say IS the plausible solution of this problem........but the question is from where we will bring this virgin democracy???......we can not mark a single political system for all the nations..as the problems and culture varies from nation to nation ,in the same way the pol system also varies from nation to nation.......IRAn is progressing by leaps and bounds with their pol system and USA is developing with its own pol system.....and yes STATE must have no religion but the people yes....one should be free while performing its religious rites and rituals ..and that is the spirit....
@Tas, @Abid P Khan: Quoting definition of secular state from wikipedia "A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not guarantee that a state is secular".
So Denmark, UK, Norway meet the test of not discriminating between citizens on the basis of religion. This is a necessary condition for being secular but not sufficient. They also have to not have a state religion and they do not pass that test.
My point is that it is possible to be democratic without being secular. All the 3 countries I listed are indeed democratic. I also would like to point out through these examples that a country may have a state religion and still be non-discriminatory. This is important in Pakistan's case since secularism is perhaps not an option for a state that was made for Muslims. But non-discrimination between different citizens should still be possible and it should be pursued with sincerity. If Pakistan wants to do that it will have to start with its constitution which is most definitely not even handed in its treatment of minorities.
@shahid: Wow, comparing US and Iranian voting systems! FACT, in the US any US citizen who qualifies can run for federal offices. FACT, in Iran the "guardian council" regularly bans all REFORMIST candidates from running for high office, leaving only the approved candidate to be the sole choice in a sham election!
Never read anything better sir... something which atleast makes sense regarding Democracy....
@gp65: "Wrong. Norway and Denmark are not secular but they are both democracies. They do have a state religion i.e. Lutheran. The same is true of England which has a state religion i.e. Church of England." . Wrong. Wrong and again Wrong. The Scandinavian countries have supposedly a state religion which has only a symbolic value. And no more. Out of tradition they have retained their attachment, in real life it plays no role. It is, more in the sense that they are not Catholic countries. . On the other hand Ireland, Poland or Italy can be definitely treated as confessional. They are devoted church goers even while residing abroad. Presence of religion being stark, abortion facilities are not available legally in Ireland but women don't mind taking a ferry across to England for the service. The country is part of Church of England officially but secular in values.. .
@gp65: Secular state means that it does not treat any of its citizens based on their religeon and every citizen has equal rights even if their is a state religeon. The fact that in Europe some countries have state religeons does not mean that they are not secular.
Well i believe that i learn a lot out of this piece. Although i have certain reservations but as a whole i appreciate the views of the author. Well done.
Great observation I ever seen. Salute to Express Tribune for giving space to such highly commendable thought-provoking articles. Look forward some such new effort by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Khan.
Good article kudos :)
@shahid: The high inflation, high double digit interest rates, unemployment, and the failure of rescue mission to save hostages from Iran were some of the basic causes of Carter's loss. In fact Carter's loss against Regan was not as big as Regan's second win against democrats which was the largest in modern history. The failure of Carter govt to deal with the domestic and Iran hostage crisis kept reminding the voter's of his failure. Even now with greater share of minority voters it was not an easy win for Obama due to high unemployment. American voters vote keeping in mind their pocketbooks. It is rare that an incumbent US president lose an election but Carter was an exception. The third candidate or not even Bill Clinton had a very popular third candidate but he was twice elected with less than 50% votes. Regards, M
@Victor: Sure the Guardian Council vets the candidates. But then why is it that despite the fact that several people put in their names to run for the US presidency one never hears about them? Why is it that the League of Women Voters never allows these other candidates any where near the debates. How does major money get channeled to candidates of only two parties? Why does all the media coverage has its focus only at them and the others are totally ignored. Does it make any difference if the filtering out is done in the open by a Council or behind the scenes by groups who more often then not remain hidden. Have you seen the laws that regulate the donations to the political candidates; these were highly unfair even before the Supreme Court removed all restrictions on group donations but now it is next to impossible to find out who is really funding whom and consequently ensuring that only the acceptable candidates are even allowed to contest. You have to have studied the electoral processes in USA over a length of time to really understand how restrictive the whole process is once it gets to the top level and how undesirable candidates are carefully weaned out.
@numbersnumbers: Well in the 1980 election Jimmy Carter was the democratic nominee, Ronald Regan was the republican nominee and there was also an independent candidate by the name Congressman John B. Anderson whose entire campaign was funded by a handful of filthy rich powerful people who passionately disliked Carter. These groups first supported Edward Kennedy against carter in the primary campaing and saw to it that Kenneday did not accept defeat till the start of the election. They used every trick of the trade to defame Carter in the public media during the primary campaign and to see to it that democratic voters are disillusioned from Carter. This was extremely damaging for Carter. When Carter squeaked through the primary process they propped up Congressman John B. Anderson out of the blue and saw to it that enough votes are diverted from Carter in states crucial for winning the election ensuring Regan's win. Once the campaign was over no one ever heard of Congressman John B. Anderson.
It is true that some of the western democracies have a state religion. However, the law of the land is superior to the old scriptures in those countries. Just like there is a Queen and Archbishop in the UK but they are symbolic and have no power over the will of the people. All religions have equal rights and freedom and state does not dictate religion on others. One can go out and severely criticize religion and queen in the streets without any fear of being killed. It is this violent imposition of religion and suppression of basic rights of others that is the real problem not the religion itself.
Pakistan has been a Muslim country since 1947 and it is increasingly becoming more and more religious. The proof is millions of Tableeghi Jamat members and millions with hijabs. However, the morality is going in the other direction and corruption is increasing fast. This is happening despite the religion and religious parties and teachings of thousands of madarsas in the country. Morality and religion cannot be imposed from the top. Those who talk about imposing Shari only prove the argument of non-Muslims that Islam is spread by force even though it was not true.
I don't understand this. Islam is the only true Religion from the real God and hence perfect. What does the Quran say about Secularism and Democracy?
Shouldn't Sharia be imposed, which is perfect and has no flaws(Duh.. obviously!), which will wipe out a lot of ills in Pakistani society, immediately?
Democracy has meaning if its allowed in Islam or even mentioned. There are so many Islam experts telling you its un-Islamic, which implicitly means its not perfect. Look at India!
The way to go for Pakistan is: Islam!!!!
There is what is known as "guided democracy" which was practised in Indonesia during Sukarno's time. Maybe Pakistan too is a kind of guided democracy. The guardians of pure religion guide it. Or is it the Army guiding it?
"This is why true democracies in the world are also secular, including that in modern Turkey."
Wrong. Norway and Denmark are not secular but they are both democracies. They do have a state religion i.e. Lutheran. The same is true of England which has a state religion i.e. Church of England.
"Democracy is purely a Western and secular concept having space for all religions without distinction"
he definition of Democracy is incorrect. You can be democraic without being secular. Example Denmark, Norway both of which have a state religion.
All that democracy means that the rulers are selected by the people 'demos'. Secularism prevailed in India long before such a term existed in India - even at a time when most parts of India could have been described as monarchy not democracy. This is why there was no bloodshed as a largely Hindu India became largely Buddhist and revered back to being largely Hindu. Parsis, Jews escaped oppression in their own homeland and came to India. Christianity too came to Indian shores long before the British or even Dutch came here. The land gave birth to 4 religions i.e. Hinduism, Buddism. Jainism, Sikhism.
Let me try again:
Democracy (rule by consensus ) is not a western idea; it is in vogue ever since humans started to live in communities as tribe. The still practiced jirga and panchayat are an excellent examples of community based democracy, and the practice of democracy in the US is essentially a jirga or panchayat based on secular ideas. -election of judges, mayor, police chief, and trial by jury.
Now the issue is what are the charters of such democracy; a system where only roman citizens have the privilege and others are considered as dhimmi or equality for all and disservice to none? This is the debate.
If a pulpit preaches equality to all then it is a secular democratic charter; if it preaches roman style democracy then it is a tribal jirga and it is inapplicable to multi tribal state.
This is the conflict in Islamic democracies. It is not the state or the pulpit but the charter of democracy coming from the pulpit or the state that matters.
If an islamic democracy or a crown or pulpit gives equality to all, then it is secular. Neither Iran pulpit nor KSA crown or the jirga or parliament of many Islamic countries give equality to all and all citizen rights come with "conditional" rights. Hence, they are incomplete and will remain so until the Devine conditions are changed.
@shahid: Just what are you talking about where you say that "Carter .... Had to be forced out despite the fact that he won the democratic nomination"??? Carter was the democratic candidate for the US presidency in 1980, while Ronald Reagan was the republican candidate. Reagan won the election and became president!
@shahid: Shahid, In a democracy, interest groups mostly represent a set of people who are lobbying for certain things. Give and take is the basis of democracy and if you call Iran a democracy, and if this is what most of Pakistanis feel, i feel sorry for Pakistan.Do you know that the candidates have to be vetted by the "Guardian council"?
Nice article Pakistan should be a full democratic state but unfortunately that will never happen because of our mullah parties
sir i think the democracy is a system of better governance and now that better governance can not be achieved through thiefes and thugs so Iran is doing good, pakistan is one of the worst example of goverment of people by the way.
so my point is that if the Ruler is serving its people it can be any one and any way
And how many people are practically allowed to participate in the presidential elections in the USA? On paper more than two, but in reality the choice is carefully pared down to two or once in a while three when some power political interests are finding it difficult to have their way. This happened against Carter in the early eighties when he had to be forced out despite the fact that he had won the democratic nomination. In the Iranian case a least the process is open and despite their selection process Khatami was elected and Rafsanjani was defeated. The later was one of the founders of the revolution. Study the electoral process in USA over a long time period and it would become sufficiently clear how the choices are controlled and restricted by a process which is far more effective than what the Iranian selection council has been able to do. In their case at least people know if an injustice has been done..
Well the perception of reality is in the eye of the beholder and careful selection and/or deselection of context and facts can make all the difference.
Good article. Though I wonder if there is any data that strongly suggests that the will of people of pak is have democratic system!