| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Accountability without Western Democracy |
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Introduction
The vocal demands of Muslims around the globe for an Islamic State can no longer be ignored either by politicians, policymakers of secular states or the 'prophets' of globalization.The re-establishment of an Islamic political authority as an effective defence against a multitude of perceived victimizations of the Islamic world is gaining credence in all strata of Muslim society.
Currently, economic and scientific development is attributed to the post-Enlightenment rise of secular western liberal democracies. Indeed, governments that are accountable, freedom of association and human rights seem to be newfound gems belonging only to modern societies. So, when discussion of an alternative Islamic political system or authority is raised, proponents of such alternatives face expressions of incredulity and are quizzed about the wisdom of returning to an authoritarian system of governance, where the citizens' right to account their rulers is denied. The ghosts of the 'authoritarian' past haunt many, including those who are contemplating an Islamic system of governance. Those who are calling for the establishment of an Islamic State are told that only the integration of broad aspects of western political thought and political experience will enable Islam to survive as a meaningful political force - particularly in the area of democratic institutions. [1]
This article aims to explore the nature of authority, particularly the precarious relationship between 'the authoritative' and 'the authoritarian', as the former can quite easily become the latter when enforcement capability is acquired.
The Nature of Authority
Discussion about the Islamic State cannot take place without debating what constitutes authority in Islam.There is no agreement on a single social theory of authority as far as society is concerned; there are only multiple perspectives that are plausible. In Michel Foucault's words: "Each society has its regime of truth, its 'general politics' of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true". [2] Indeed, the idea of authority is always contentious in any legal and political system, despite a general consensus that no society can function effectively without a unified legal system under some form of authority.
The law in any society demands our obedience and hence authority over us. The main problem people have with authority is the degree of submission of reason and of self-autonomy to it. It is in the nature of authority that it requires submission; even if one thinks that what is requested is irrational. [3] Similarly the principle of autonomy entails action on one's own judgement. Since authority sometimes requires action against one's own judgement, it requires abandoning one's moral autonomy. [4]
Authority therefore, in a certain sense, goes against the very fabric of rational thinking and autonomy. If this is the case, then those who believe in authority are subsequently committed to a somewhat irrational belief. However, others who may be critical of the legitimacy of any authority, or most authorities, from both a rational and moral perspective, will still be deterred by the thought that no authority can ever be legitimate. Despite such apparent paradoxes, authority in the shape of a 'political authority' is recognized as a necessity for human society. Without it agreement on how a society should function or how systems of the state should be implemented cannot be realized. The Islamic society at its inception recognised obedience to such an authority based in the belief of existence of God (Allah) and the authenticity of His communication:The Qur'an,
"Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you." [5] (TMQ:4:59)
Types of Authority
Further distinction should be made regarding what form of authority is being referred to in any discussion. Terms such as 'coercive authority' and 'persuasive authority' [6] or being 'in authority' and being 'an authority' [7] need to be distinguished before discussion of the Islamic context.
Coercive authority is the ability to direct the conduct of another person through enforcement mechanisms such as benefits, threats or punishment attempting to leave the person no option but to comply with directives. These enforcement mechanisms are attributed usually to someone 'in authority', meaning someone occupying an official or structural position and hence empowered to command obedience. Political authority with such enforcement mechanisms is essentially coercive authority.
Persuasive authority involves the ability to direct the belief and conduct of a person through trust. The dynamics are different to coercive authority in the sense that a person surrenders his autonomy of judgement to the perceived special knowledge, judgement and wisdom of 'an authority'.This person or body is considered as 'authoritative' on a particular given matter by the person who is persuaded by their authority.
Coercive authority does not require the surrender of private judgement.The private conscience of the submitting person is irrelevant to such authority as long as there is obedience. Social philosopher Richard Friedman argues that relying on someone who is an authority involves establishing a common ground where the person who is an authority and the person deferring to him, both agree on a shared framework in a particular field of knowledge.This includes understanding what is accessible to the human in terms of knowledge and insight, even though the person obeying acknowledges that he is himself deprived from that knowledge or experience through the lack of necessary learning, wisdom, opportunity, revelation, etc. [8] Friedman views that deference to persuasive authority necessarily means a surrendering of independent judgement and reasoning. [9]
Professor Abou El Fadl (UCLA) considers Friedman too restrictive in his view of authority as he argues that just because a person expects an explanation for a particular issue from an expert or an (persuasive) authority does not necessarily relegate his or her authoritativeness to that person. [10]
In the context of discussing the types of authority both the persuasive and coercive elements are at play in the Islamic political system.
| |
| |
| |
| |
1 2 3 > Last »
Page 1 of 5 pages
| |
|
|
