The Government People Relationship in Western Thought

By: Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
The subject discussed in the previous session and about which there was a discourse as far as the time permitted was the relationship between the people and the government from the viewpoint of Islam. The summary of the previous discussion was that this issue can be examined in two methods: one in the form of a historical approach and another in an analytical method.
In the historical method, this issue is examined—in the Muslim world, how the relationship of those who have governed in the name of Islam with the people has been; similarly, in the Western world, how the relationship of those who have governed with non-Islamic ideologies has been.
We have stated that unfortunately, in both the Muslim world and the Western world, there are abundant criticisms and problems. We all know that only a few decades had passed after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) when there were those who used to govern under the name of succession [khilafah] to the Prophet (S) and even in the name of vicegerency of God and did things which were rare even in a non-religious government. The works the Umayyads and after them the ‘Abbasids did only show the absence of the Islamic government, but they were rulers in the name of Islam anyway.
Therefore, if anyone wants to examine the government’s relationship with the people from the perspective of the history of Muslims, he will naturally not arrive at good results. This is because the government’s relationship with the people in almost all cases has been that of a master-servant relationship. Of course, sometimes at the margin there had been some movements and to some extent the laws and values of Islam had been raised, but generally the government’s relationship with the people, like all monarchial systems, was a master-servant relationship.
One could hardly find the distinct difference between the government of the Umayyads, Marwanites and ‘Abbasids and that of the Persian kings and Roman emperors. Even the outward forms of the acts had reached a point wherein those who governed as the successors of the Prophet (S) had an assembly of impolite singing, drinking of forbidden drinks and carousal, and the same practices had been used to be done in courts of other kings.
In relation to the people, they did not refrain from committing oppression whether against Muslims or non-Muslims. Under the name of Islam, they started to pursue expansionism and conquering countries. Instead of behaving with the people on the basis of the ordinances of Islam and invite and guide them to the divine religion, they fought with them under the pretext of being infidels; they thus killed them and took as captives their wives and daughters and became a source of ignominy for Muslims.
The bitter memories of these military expeditions still remain in the minds of many and have become the source of abnormalities in the relations between Muslims and Christians. Nowadays, one can witness an example of such frictions in the events in the Balkans. In any case, historically we are not satisfied with the relationship between the governments that used to govern under the name of Islam and their people, and we have no proof to acquit them either. We have no proof or motive to present them as the original and real examples of the Islamic government. Similarly, there were those in the West who used to govern under the name of Christianity and were not behind these and perhaps worse than these. Those who launched the Wars of Crusades or those who formed the Inquisition were no better than the other kings.
Therefore, the examination of the government-people relationship from the ideological viewpoint of Islam or the Western ideological viewpoint through the study and examination of the actual and empirical examples of the governments that claim to be Islamic or democratic is not a proper method and the discussion will arrive at no conclusion. What can be concluded from these examinations is what has happened in the government of those who have ruled under the name of Islam and what relationship has existed between them and the people, or what has transpired in the government of those who have ruled under the name of Christianity in the West and what relationship has existed between them and their people as well as what happened during that time until it ended to the period of Renaissance and then to the period of modernity and the contemporary time in which the liberalist thought is dominant.
Meanwhile, the other method in examining the government-people relationship is the analytical one; that is, to examine what the intellectual and theoretical foundations of Islam or the intellectual and theoretical foundations of the West require. Of course, we have to bear in mind that in the West there have been no fixed intellectual foundations for the past fourteen centuries. Many developments have happened in the history of the Western thought, while we regard the Islamic thought as fixed. Differences of opinion on some secondary matters have come up but the principles and foundations have not changed. Today, the Islamic thought about politics and government is the same that existed during the time of the Holy Prophet (S), and what we know as Islam is that which comes from the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the life conduct [sirah] of the Prophet (S).
If we want to compare the theory of Islam with that of the West, it must be specified with which part of the Western thought we want to compare. Do we want to compare with Christianity which has been expelled for centuries from the page of social life in the West, from the political scene in particular? Should we compare the ideas during the Renaissance and after it, i.e. the period of modernity and postmodernism with Islam? What is most asked is the latter part; that is, if we want to compare Islam with the West, we have to do so with the present West and not with the West thousands of years or many centuries ago. That discussion does not have much use for us. Today, the dominant idea in the Western political and social circles is the liberalist thought. Therefore, it is better for us to compare these two thoughts, viz. Islam and liberalism.
The liberalist thought is dealt with in the form of democracy in the political and administrative scene. The origin of liberalist thought is an extensive one that covers the different economic, political, moral, legal, and other domains, but in the political domain, it is portrayed more in the form of democracy. The intellectual foundations of democracy are not identical with that of liberalism, but nowadays these two have practically become synonyms? Wherever the government is democratic, it is based on the liberalist ideas, and vice versa. For this reason, in our comparative discussion, we will tackle this issue what relationship between the government and the people the Islamic thought chooses and reciprocally, what relationship between the government and the people the liberalist-democratic thought prefers.
First, we will take a look at Western thought. In the Western thought, “God” is absolutely not discussed. It does not mean that it is negated. (For, sometimes they criticize the statement that Western thought is atheistic for there are also many faithful people there. We do not deny this fact.) What is meant is that in this totality of ideas, from the foundations to its superstructures, nowhere is it said that one should believe in God and divine revelation, observe the religious law, and make the laws of God prevail in politics, society, ethics, and other domains. In liberalist thought, belief in God is not a great deal.
Even if a person believes in God, it is mentioned merely as a personal communion with God for, in the realms of politics, society, law, and social rights and relations there is no room for God, religious law and religion. This is the meaning of secularism. Of course, among the seculars there may be believers in God and they go to church, but their religiosity is only their personal and emotional relationship with their Lord, and has no relation to their sociopolitical affairs.
That we say, “The dominant thinking in the West at the present (that is the same liberalist thought) is an atheistic thought,” means the absence of religion. In such an outlook, politics, man and all values mentioned for him have emanated from man himself, and the originator of values is man. Therefore, in this outlook a place for God and the Hereafter has not been taken into consideration. If ever there are those who have liberalist thought believe in God and the Resurrection, this belief of theirs has no influence on the organization of their social relations and it is regarded as a totally personal affair.
The humanist thought had been advanced centuries ago (more than 25 centuries ago) by the Sophists in ancient Greece. They used to regard man as the barometer of everything including ideological, political, legal, moral, and other issues. Its simple formula is that whatever the people accept and vote for is credible; and nothing has credibility unless it is accepted by people, be it in the spheres of law, ethics, or social matters. If ever we say, “So-and-so is credible,” it is because the people say so. If we also say, “It is not credible,” it is because the people say so.
For this reason, it is possible that a certain thing is credible in one society but not in another society, because the people of the former society accept it while the people of the latter do not accept it. So, the only criterion is the vote, wish, acceptance, and will of the people. And since acceptance differs among people, it naturally follows that values will become relative. The first outcome of the West’s humanist thought is that we can never talk about a universal and fixed value because we know that the tastes of people differ from one another. Based on this perspective, to talk about all-encompassing universal values has no logical underpinning unless someone says that some values are common in all societies and have been accepted by all peoples.
Of course, the existence or nonexistence of such values is questionable and worthy of reflection. A simple example which is usually cited is that everybody accepts that truthfulness or honesty is good, but this claim is not true and this case is not acceptable to some others, such as the Marxists who explicitly declare that truthfulness or honesty is actually not always good.
The Marxists used to say that stealing is not always bad; rather, it may be good sometimes. If there is a time when stealing has effect on the establishment of the communist system and the dominance of the proletariats over the bourgeoisies, in this case it is good, because the end justifies the means. The objective is to make supreme the “modern level” system in the world and all people equal in terms of class distinction. Whatever assists in the realization of this objective is valuable. If one day the means of realization of this objective is to steal, there is nothing wrong with it.
Of course, nowadays, nobody explicitly says so, but there are those who believe in it in practice. In the name of freedom, in the name of peace and in the name of human rights, they do things that the natural human disposition abhors. They commit the most grievous crimes against humanity, yet they name it human rights advocacy. One of its most vivid manifestations can be witnessed in the Occupied Palestine. Although the most horrendous and grievous crimes have been committed there against humanity for many years, we can see that the powerful states in the world who are alleged defenders of human rights and are at loggers with the entire world over this issue are totally supporting Israel. Outwardly, they say that peace is good and human rights are preeminent and respectable, but they say so while they in practice do not believe in it.

First Criticism to this Theory
Our first criticism to them is that based on this notion that all “musts and must-nots” as well as values whether in the domain of law (including civil law, penal law, international law, commercial law, and all other branches) or in the domain of ethics depend on the will, acceptance and approval of the people, we cannot have fixed values in the whole world and expect all people to accept a certain value from us. The first outcome is that we should strike a red line over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
So, to say that everybody must acknowledge human rights because the Declaration deals on universal values is idle talk. Based on their notion, have they not said that values are based on the will of the people? Therefore, if some people do not approve this declaration, rejecting it, and their taste is something else, what is the reason that this declaration acquires universal value and must be imposed upon everybody? If one day certain people accepted and approved this declaration but the next day changed their mind, why should they be compelled to follow it? Have they not claimed that values are in accordance with the will of the people? Thus, if one day (the people of) a state decided to approve the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but after sometime, they changed their decision, saying, “We are in regret and from now on, we do not accept it,” what is your right to condemn them and take into consideration punishments for them?

Second Criticism
Secondly, based on this outlook, you have to grant right to the people to regard their choice as respectable whenever they change their mind, while this issue has repercussions to which no country or government is bound, and none of those who have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could abide by it. Among these repercussions is that if a group of people in a country living in a province, a city, or even a village say, “We want to live independently and to have independence on sociopolitical issues,” no country can have any right to hinder them because it is the will of the people.
Yet, is this observed in practice? Many wars in the Balkans and other parts of the world have occurred because the people of those regions said, “We want to be independent.” So, why do the claimants of sovereignty on the basis of the will of people not pay heed to these people?! No state, as much as it can, will permit a section of its people to gather and form a separate state. This is while the intellectual foundation of the West does not permit so, and in fact, they have to submit to the will of the people.
They had been saying, “We want to have a single state.” But now, they want to have two separate states. In consonance with the foundation of liberal democracy, one should yield to the will of the people. In practice, however, wherever this music is played, under the pretext of insurrection and that a number of troublemakers are planning to disintegrate the country and endanger the national independence and territorial integrity, the central government suppresses them. Based on the intellectual foundation of the liberal democrats, this should not be done. Yet, according to another foundation, we may grant such a right to the states and governments, but based on the thought acceptable to the West, they have no right to hinder the realization of the will of the people whatever it is.

Third Criticism
The third criticism to this way of thinking is that if one day the people changed their choice, saying, “Yesterday, we voted for so-and-so. Today, we realized that we were wrong,” or “Yesterday, we wanted that thing, and today we want another thing and to change our vote,” they are supposed to be able to do so. Yet, nowhere in the world are such people given that permission. It is said to them, “You were supposed to be aware from the very beginning.”
To claim that “They deceived us,” or “We were mistaken,” or “We wanted it yesterday but now we do not like it” is not acceptable. The question is: What hinders the people if yesterday they wanted something and cast their votes on the basis of it but now they want to retrieve it? They say, “It is the law.” But the crux of the matter is exactly here. The law is anchored in the will of the people and the same people say that they do not like it. Does this thought not claim that if a people approve a law, the following day they have the right to amend it?! Everywhere in the world, it is said that even the constitution is amendable.
What does it mean by amendable? It means that yesterday the people ratified this constitution and tomorrow they will say, “We do not accept it.” If the people have such a right, why if one day they voted for a president but tomorrow they have no right to say, “We do not like him?” In reply to this question, it may be said that during the presidential election it is said that to whomever you will vote for shall be the president for two, four or seven years, and on the basis of that they have cast their votes. The reply is that such was their will on that day and today they like another thing, and based on the liberalist thought the criterion is the will of the people.

Fourth Criticism
The fourth criticism is this: Where can you find in the world a place in which the will of the people is a hundred percent identical and one?! In all countries there are always minorities. Perhaps it is unprecedented in the world the formation of a government like the Islamic Republic of Iran in which ninety-eight percent of the people voted for it, but this high percentage still means that a small percent of the people did not accept it. If the criterion is the vote of the people, what shall be done in this case with respect to them who do not accept the law or the government? When two percent is faced with the ninety-eight percent, in practice they are forced to yield and can do nothing. Yet, this is something which your theory is not conforming with. If the criterion is the will of the people, it follows that these minorities have a right to form a government of its own.
In reply to this criticism, the liberal democrats argue, “We do observe the rights of the minorities under the aegis of democracy.” It is however clear that this answer is wrong because these people labeled as “minority” do not want the essence of this government. Ten percent of the people say, “We do not like this government at all,” and yet you say to them, “We will observe your rights under the aegis of this government!” Those people do not like the basis of this government. Does the credibility of this government not depend on the votes of the people?! Is this group not part of the people?! This minority constitutes ten percent of these people and they say, “We do not like you,” and still you make this promise: “We respect the minority,” but the government runs on the basis of the will of the majority.
Therefore, in the democratic government the will of the minority remains unanswered, and for the minority to submit to the majority while keeping view of the basis that the criterion is the will of the people has no logical justification. If the minority says, “We do not like this government” and assuming that the credibility of this government depends on the vote of the people, what right do you have to oppose it?
These and similar criticisms have no logical answers and are true with respect to this theory. The last answer they will give is this: “We do not know a better way and in the evolution of theory on the government and its form, we have reached the point that liberal democracy is the best form of government.”

A Summary of the Criticisms to this Theory
In any case, there is a series of logical criticisms and objections which have still remained unanswered. Regarding the criticism of the intellectual foundation of liberal democracy, hundreds of books have been written by the Westerns themselves. If a government based on such an idea is formed, these contradictions exist there, among which is that the minority must be oppressed! It is their right not to approve this government but it is imposed on them. This basis requires that if tomorrow the vote of the people for their elected officials changes, it shall have credibility. If today they vote for a president and tomorrow they say, “We do not like him,” this must be given importance because the vote is the vote of the people and their will. Yet, is such a thing possible? Naturally, no one will do such a thing because in this case the government will experience many instabilities and regarding everything, it should always be through a referendum as to whether the people want it or not.
It may be said that the representatives of the people come, cast their votes and enact laws. The problem with this is that the representatives themselves may change their votes. Today the representatives confirm something, and it happens frequently that they change their votes afterward. The law changes as easy as such. In addition, the main problem is this: If tomorrow the people reject these representatives and their enacted laws, what should be done?
These fundamental problems exist in this way of thinking and it has no logical answer. Here, the relationship between the people and the government changes into a relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor in numerous cases. Even according to this very outlook, in many cases the right of the people is not given to them while their votes and views have no bearing at all. In some cases, very horrible crimes are even committed.1