|
The Different Approaches in Discussing the Mutual Relationship between the People and the Government
By: Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
The subject under discussion, i.e. the mutual relationship between the people and the government, can be studied and examined from different angles. One is from historical perspective; that is, for us to examine the governments existing in human societies throughout history and how they established relations with the people. This approach requires extensive work which is in need of historical information.
Another angle is to examine the present condition in the world and the relationships between the people and the present-day governments and it shall be in the form of a descriptive discussion. Under this approach, the relationships existing between the governments and the peoples under their respective jurisdictions in the different societies shall be stated from the perspective of the different schools and ideologies. Of course, this description shall be the groundwork for the succeeding assessment of the scale of desirability of the various elements of those relationships. At any rate, the nature of the discussion is a descriptive one.
Another angle is related to the viewpoint of Islam about the government and its relationship with the people. This issue can be examined from two perspectives: One is in the form of an imperative and theoretical discussion, while the second is in the form of a thematic and objective discussion. In the context of the actual observations of the Islamic government, the government’s relationship with the people from the time of the Islamic government established in Medina by the Holy Prophet (S) can be examined as the evidence and basis for finding out and understanding the viewpoint of Islam on social issues.
In the same context, similar to this kind of relations can also be examined in other periods where governments were founded in the name of Islam. What is more worthy to note for us is the examination of the relationship of the government during the period of the Islamic Revolution whose example was the Imam’s relationship with the people. The mode of this discussion is an examination of actual and external cases. In this method, the society serves as a laboratory to be studied in order to arrive at a theory and to examine and evaluate it.
The other mode of the discussion is in the form of an analytical discussion keeping in view of the foundations of Islam, how should the government’s relationship with the people be. In this method, while disregarding what relations have been established throughout the history of Muslim societies, the point is to know which of them is consistent with the standards and foundations of the Islamic thought and which of them is not. Reciprocally, in a comparative discussion, one can examine the type of relations of the governments with the people in the other schools and societies, especially in the West in the present time. In this method, one can study the said relations actually and externally (descriptive discussion) as well as on the basis of intellectual foundations they adopt in political philosophy (analytical discussion).
The fact is that many of these subjects can be expressed in theory, discussion, speech, or writing, but cannot be put into practice perfectly. Instead, a very wide gap (sometimes even to the extent of 180 degrees) between what is said and what is materialized in actuality can be witnessed. In the Muslim world, the same manifestations also exist. We have the theory of Islamic government but in different ages of the Muslim history, in some parts of the Muslim countries, some people obtained power to govern, adopted different methods of governance, and organized their relations with the people in such a manner that has not been far from that of the government of infidels. The governments of the likes of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf1 or some other Marwanites (descendants of Marwan ibn al-Hakam and their followers) under the name of Islam and even under the name of the caliph (successor) of the Holy Prophet (S) have been many throughout the history of Islam while they used to act diametrically in opposition to the objectives of the Islamic government and contrary to the theory of Islamic government.
Some people, especially those who are more inclined toward sociological discussions, say, “We do not have much concern with theoretical and hypothetical discussions. We rather observe the actual behaviors.” In their opinion, Islam is that which the Muslims have while Christianity is that which the Christians have. For us to say that Islam is such-and-such, or Islam says that such a thing must be done, but in practice we observe that the actual reality among Muslims is something else, is a useless discussion. If we really intend to describe and explain the Islamic government, we have to see how the government of Muslims has been and what the condition of the present governments reigning in the name of Islam is.
The above outlook is a sociological one which does not give much value to theoretical and value-laden discussions. In this outlook, they examine the actual happenings and pass judgment on the basis of the events. Perhaps, throughout these two decades after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, you might have observed such an approach in some writings or speeches. Prior to the Revolution, there were those who used to discuss and speak in the name of Islam and Islamology, saying, “Islam is that which can be witnessed in the practice of the Muslims. For us to imagine that Islam is something different from what we can observe in the practice of the Muslims is nothing but sheer illusion, dream and imagination.” However, the fact is that we, the Muslims, believe that Islam is that which has been ordained by God the Exalted or that which is required through the statements of the Holy Prophet (S) and the pure Imams (‘a). Islam is that which is introduced by the Qur’an. Therefore, the truth of Islam is not exactly consistent with what the Muslims have done or are doing.
You can take this point as the theory of Islamic government after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. If they say, “The theory of the Islamic government and the Islamic revolution must be presented through the actual happenings and performance of the Islamic Republic,” such an outlook is wrong and such a method is incorrect because in many cases there may be deviations and that which was desirable might have not been realized. There is a difference between theory and practice.
Of course, those who want that whatever they have accepted in theory is also realized in practice will always try to see to it that their behaviors are gearing toward the ideal point and their movement’s trend as ascending, and if they suddenly and unexpectedly do not achieve their ultimate goal, at least the direction is something which is always near the ideal target. But if the direction of the movement is not like that, we have not promised that throughout its path, this government is totally and definitely the ideal Islamic government and that we have to defend it thoroughly. We will defend the present government so long as it is consistent with the principles and foundations of Islam as well as the principles and theory of the Islamic government. As to whether there is deviation or not throughout its lifespan, we do not guarantee that since they are ruling in the name of Islam, certainly everything is proper and we defend all its particularities.
Is there any considerable period throughout human history wherein a religion government (prior to Islam) or an Islamic government (after the advent of Islam) has been perfectly established according to what God wanted and the requirement of the doctrine? My answer is, “I do not know.” If there is really such a thing, it was only a short period during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and an equally short period during the time of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a). But in other times, whatever has transpired to the followers of other religions and Muslims, or done in the name of religious or Islamic government, we do not know them as completely religious or Islamic, and we defend only that extent which is consistent with the religious or Islamic foundations and principles. We also criticize wherever there is deviation.
Yet, those who have sociological inclination do not pass judgment in this manner. They say, “The Islamic government is the same thing which exists and is practiced in Iran.” As such, if lack of success and deficiencies are observed, it is clear that the Islamic government has these deficiencies. The outcome of such a statement will be this one: If this government fails to realize its objectives, it will become clear that Islam cannot actualize whatever it says and promises. Therefore, in their opinion, that defect will be from Islam. We pointed out earlier that in our opinion, such a judgment is not accurate, because Islam may have given admonitions and orders, but for whatever reason we have failed or did not desire to act upon those admonitions and orders, we might have still failed to reach the ideal point.
|
