Tailored System of Government
In the early days of Islam, members of the Consultative Council
controlled the wealth of the state. They ruled by tribal-sectarian law,
as is now the case in Saudi Arabia. Land became state property. The
state treasury financed its apparatus from collecting tax and accepting
one fifth of the booty, as a result of raids and plunder from new
conquests. Power was centralized. Absolute power was in the grip of a
handful. Prophet Muhammad naturally assumed Leadership.
With the establishment of the Islamic religion, the sectarian and
secular roles were both combined and held by Muhammad under his sole
leadership. After Muhammad’s death, the Khalipha assumed the dual role,
having absolute power in issuing dictates, as well as being the head of
the Islamic Umma Nation. Currently, and as far as the Islamic countries
are concerned, most of the states still follow this pattern but in a
more evasive way than their predecessors. The Khilapha succession title
being in limbo, many Islamic secular leaders find it hard to hold on to
power. To remain in office, a government leader occasionally criticizes
the style of the government he has inherited from past colonialism or
his predecessor. To prolong his stay in power, he goes along with the
clerics and changes certain secular laws because they are inconvenient
and clash with their traditional Islamic customs. To consolidate his
power, and win the support of the believers, he oftentimes dresses in
traditional native costume and headgear portraying himself as protector
of the faith.
Many Islamic leaders, out of necessity, to please their supporters,
criticise the West and shift the blame of their shortcomings on foreign
interference in the internal affairs of their countries. Somalia with
its warlords and Iran with its armed mullahs are two examples in the
extreme - residues of the Consultative Council. Afghanistan, Algeria and
the Sudan are following suit. In between these two, it is monarchy,
military or a one-party system.
Lack of a legitimate lineal descent from Prophet Muhammad, has resulted
in the Khilapha title to remain in disuse. Some Islamic rulers use the
term “Sultan” derived from the Assyrian word “Shultana” meaning (full)
Authority. This “Sultan” term is the closest a Muslim ruler can come to
the Khilapha title. There is no title higher than his. The Sultan can
act as he pleases but cannot claim the Khilapha title. A Khalipha could
act as a Sultan; a Sultan cannot do otherwise.
Apart from Israel, practicing democracy in the Middle East states is
hazardous - like treading on a stretch of land infested with landmines
or quicksand. It is a risky venture. The road to democracy in any
Islamic country is full of pitfalls. Islamic leaders hold the high seat
of government or presidency for life. The high seat falls vacant only by
death or forcible removal of its holder. They groom their children for
the high post, like Bashar, Assad‘s son of Syria; and Qusay, Saddam’s
son of Iraq. Mubarak of Egypt and Qathafi of Libya are both grooming
their sons to succeed them. That is their interpretation of the people’s
choice of democracy – tailor-made to the individual taste of the ruler,
not the people (Hiro, 1989: pp 11, 147; Pryce-Jones, 1989: pp 19, 29).
[TOP]
