Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

Invincible till pushed?…(omar)

Professor Razi Azmi has an op-ed in Pakistan's Daily Times today.  The situation described by Dr. Azmi highlights one of the major failures of Islamicate thought in the last millennium: their inability to evolve a political theory beyond hereditary kingship or rule by strongman.


The earliest Islamic "state" was  a rather rudimentary affair in the early days, with minimal organizational structures until Muawiya and his successors built a more extensive state structure by fusing Byzantine and Arab tribal streams, held together by the new Islamic religious identity. There was no clearly defined notion of how to select rulers or organize the state. The prophet was everything in his time, but did not leave clear instructions about succession (or, if the Shia version is believed, gave somewhat vague instructions that were disregarded) and each of the first four caliphs was elected/selected in a different manner..and each faced some opposition with the crisis reaching its climax with the assassination of Uthman and open civil war in the time of Imam Ali (who never controlled large sections of the expanding Islamic empire).

The situation was eventually stabilized by the Ummayads by creating a hereditary kingship in all but name, but this issue was never really resolved. Most caliphs were challenged by religious rebels inspired by egalitarian and totalitarian elements in Islamic thought as well as by  supporters of the Ahle bait (the family of the prophet via Ali and Fatima), and of course, they were faced with the usual civil wars and strife seen in all empires with a hereditary kingship.

Similar crises in Europe were gradually resolved in favor of republican constitutional rule and nationalism, but remain unsolved in most of the Muslim world. Attempts are being made in places like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Turkey to import modern state systems with minimal Islamic cover added on to soothe Islamist sentiments, but the situation is not exactly stable since the Islamic cover is liable to being challenged by Islamists with a more authentic grasp of Islamic history and theology, and the Western component is discredited by corrupt elites and their alienation from their own culture.  I personally think there ARE elements within our cultural traditions (Islamicate as well as non-Islamic) that could be used to fashion a more authentic basis for a modern democratic state but that fight is not going well..

Iran is probably the only case where a very serious attempt at "Islamic democracy" has been made from within the clerical tradition, but that attempt is not going too well either. It seems that even the shia clergy (generally more educated and more enlightened than their Sunni counterparts) has not successfully resolved enough contradictions to make the system stable and workable.

Bangladesh and Indonesia may yet escape. Turkey maybe. Lets see what happens in Pakistan..Its not looking too good right now.

 

Posted in ,

3 responses to “Invincible till pushed?…(omar)”

  1. Ruchira

    Interesting and shameful, of course! But as Azmi rightly points out, the tendency towards perpetuating a family fiefdom is not an exclusively Islamic political propensity. The Islamic nations just are doing it better and with a firmer hand than most. India too is not immune to the charms of a “hereditary monarchy” type of government, except the Indian voters want to do it “democratically.” They have little problem with a succession of Nehru-Gandhis being at the helm as long as they go through the ordeal-by-fire of campaigning, sloganeering and folding their hands before the humblest of villagers. The voters then happily go and vote for the dynastic candidates. As soon as Mrs. Gandhi showed an inclination for grooming a political heir (Sanjay Gandhi) and an ill concealed desire to see him succeed her in the manner of the Islamic family dictatorships, the Indian electorate kicked her out of office. So, in India too “the son (or daughter) also rises” but the voters must approve.
    Dynastic power sharing is not an unusual instinct among most powerful people who sometimes begin to look at the nation they lead as a family corporation. Here is an interesting post by our own Anna, who unfortunately doesn’t write any more except in the comments section, when she expressed her displeasure at Hillary Clinton riding her husband’s political coattails in the 2008 presidential election. I had the same problem with her candidacy.

    Like

    Reply
  2. omar

    I personally see no big problem with voters electing family dynasties. The most important feature of modern democracies is not the actual choice of tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee, its the creation of a system of checks and balances that prevents extremes of arbitrary exercise of power. India would have been in the shoes of Arab autocracies if Indira’s emergency nonsense had succeeded. otherwise its not the same thing at all.
    Political dynasties in a democracy are not the same things as actual dynasties. it is a complete misunderstanding to imagine that somebody called the prime minister in a democracy actually runs the country like Mubarak runs Egypt or Asad ran Syria.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Ruchira

    I actually said the same thing as you are saying. No, the prime minister of India does not and cannot run the country like Mubarak or Asad. But it is still annoying to see “dynasties” exercising their clout due to their net work of influence. The best candidate doesn’t always win. ((See what we got ourselves into in 2000 due to the Bush family’s political reach) But I agree it is not the same thing as autocracy.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment