The
assumption that Iqbal did not believe in democracy rests largely on a verse he
wrote in which he said that democracy was “that form of government in which
persons are counted, not weighed”. In a democracy, everyone counts for one and
no one counts for more than one. This is both the most obvious advantage (in the
sense that it prevents monopoly of power and privilege) and disadvantage (in the
sense that numerical equality is stressed at the expense of unequal merit) of
democracy. That Iqbal should have pointed out something obvious by no means
indicates that he was against democracy. -- Dr
Riffat Hassan
By Dr Riffat Hassan
11 Jun, 2010
THAT Iqbal was a critique of democracy is well
known. He saw it practised in the western, imperialist world of his time which
bred exploitation and corruption. A few months before his death, Iqbal said:
“The tyranny of imperialism struts abroad, covering its face in the masks of
democracy, nationalism, communism, fascism and heaven knows what else besides.
“Under these masks, in every corner of the earth,
the spirit of freedom and the dignity of man are being trampled underfoot … The
so-called statesmen to whom government and leadership of man was entrusted have
proved demons of bloodshed, tyranny and oppression. The rulers whose duty it was
to higher humanity to prevent man’s oppression of man and to elevate the moral
intellectual level of mankind, have in their hunger for dominion and imperial
possession shed the blood of millions and reduced millions to servitude simply
in order to pander to the greed and avarice of their own particular
groups.
“After subjugating and establishing their
dominion over weaker peoples, they have robbed them of their possessions, of
their religions, of their morals, of their cultural traditions and their
literatures. They sowed divisions among them that they should shed one another’s
blood, and go to sleep under the opiate of serfdom, so that the leech of serfdom
might go on sucking their blood without interruption.”
Iqbal also drew attention to some problems
created by democracy in general. “Democracy means rows,” he said, referring to
the endless debate and controversy it involves, not all of it constructive, and
“[it] lets loose all sorts of aspirations and grievances, which may have an
anarchic tendency or arouses hopes and ambitions often quite impractical”.
In Iqbal’s view, democracy, which was not always
guided by empirical considerations, “has a tendency to foster the spirit of
legality. This is not in itself bad; but unfortunately it tends to displace the
purely moral standpoint, and to make the illegal and wrong identical in
meaning”.
Yet, though Iqbal mentioned the limitations of
democracy, he did not despair of this form of government, again based on a keen
observation. In his view: “Democratic government has attendant difficulties but
these are difficulties which human experience elsewhere has shown to be
surmountable.”
Thus, the assumption that Iqbal did not believe
in democracy rests largely on a verse he wrote in which he said that democracy
was “that form of government in which persons are counted, not weighed”. In a
democracy, everyone counts for one and no one counts for more than one. This is
both the most obvious advantage (in the sense that it prevents monopoly of power
and privilege) and disadvantage (in the sense that numerical equality is
stressed at the expense of unequal merit) of democracy. That Iqbal should have
pointed out something obvious by no means indicates that he was against
democracy.
The distinction between ‘individuality’ and
‘personality’ which has been admirably brought out by one writer, is helpful in
understanding Iqbal’s attitude to democracy. “The notion of personality... does
not refer to matter as individuality does. It refers to the highest and deepest
dimension of being. Personality is rooted in the spirit and it constitutes the
secret depth of an ontological structure, a source of dynamic unity and inner
unification.
“The spirit forms personality, enlightens and
transfigures the biological individual and makes it the concrete fullness of
life ... The community too readily recognises what belongs to the world of
matter, meanwhile being blind to the reality of the spirit. It sees in men only
the shadow of real personality, namely the material individuality. The
consequence is that the person is enslaved to the social body.”
When Iqbal said that in a democracy persons were
‘counted’ and not ‘weighed’ he was drawing attention to the fact that society
takes note of ‘individuality’ which is a material fact but not of ‘personality’
which is a spiritual fact.
In an essay entitled Islam as a moral and
political ideal, Iqbal stated: “Democracy ... is the most important aspect of
Islam regarded as a political ideal”; and added that “there is no aristocracy in
Islam”. For him, the two basic propositions underlying Muslim political
constitution were: one, that the law of God is absolutely supreme. Authority,
except as an interpreter of the law, has no place in the social structure of
Islam. Islam has a horror of personal authority. We regard it as inimical to the
unfolding of individuality. Two, the conviction in the absolute equality of all
members of a community.
Iqbal remained highly critical of states which
considered themselves democratic but engaged in political, economic, social and
psychological exploitation of disadvantaged peoples within or outside of
themselves. However, to him real democracy was an integral part of his belief in
tauhid (oneness of God) upon which he built his thought.
To Iqbal the principle of tauhid implied the
equality of all human beings created by one God. Iqbal believed that “the
essence of tauhid as a working idea was equality, solidarity and freedom” —
principles that many today would consider essential characteristics of a
democratic society.
The writer is professor emerita at the University
of Louisville, US, and a scholar of Islam and
Iqbal.
rshass01@gwise.louisville.edu
Source: Dawn,
Pakistan
9:48 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment