The two essential desires or vital characteristic (prana dharma) of human beings are –security and freedom. So far as physical security is concerned, everybody needs food, shelter, clothes and medicine. Besides that people wants an environment, that is free from overt and covert violence. In India if we consider $1 as the minimum wage for poverty line then 75% people or about 800 million people are below poverty line. Only about 30% people enjoy the bounty of globalisation. And the social environment is influenced by mafia-politician-capitalist nexus. Hence in what kind of environment people lives can be imagined. Women’s situation is worse. In this country in every 20 years about 10 million unborn babies are killed simply because they are girls. Three rapes happen  per minute. 40% women are victim of family violence. Besides that 70% women are victim of other violence.

Freedom in physical sphere is limited. But people expect some freedom in political, economic, social and religious sphere. Our constitution guranteed unlimited accumulation of properties. Naturally on the economic tycoons enjoy that right. Political freedom under the guise of liberal democracy is a misnomer. In country like India, liberal democracy only safeguards the interests of the people of ‘wealth’ , feudal classes and party bosses. Common people can neither appreciate the slogan of economic freedom and for them political freedom means to through a paper into a box in every five years. What is liberal democracy?

LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

After the collapse of communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it has been argued that liberal democracy is the ultimate evolution of socio-economic system. These proponents of western liberal democracy also promote the idea that the west has a moral duty to promote liberal democracy all over the world.  Globalization of economy flourished in the background of liberal democracy. This aroused a deep question about the political and philosophical justification of liberalism.

The idea of liberalism began to gain intellectual and political importance in different parts of Europe since the 17th century. Liberalism considers the individual as the ultimate and irreducible unit of society.  The view that the individual is conceptually prior to society and can in principle be conceptualized and defined independently of society, is called individualism. This is the basic concept that lies at the heart of liberal thought and shapes its political, legal, moral, economic, methodological, epistemological and other aspects.

“In the liberal view, individuals define their individuality in terms of their separateness from others and feel ontologically threatened and diminished when the boundary of their individuality overlap with those of others.……… Liberal individuals seek to run their lives themselves, to make their own choices, to form their own beliefs and judgments, to take nothing for granted or as given.…… They remain suspicious of, and feel nervous in the presence of, feelings and emotions, especially those that are deep and powerful and not fully comprehensible to reason or easily brought under its control.……… How an open society can be created out of closed selves is a paradox to which no liberal theorist has paid much attention. Unless the self learns to open itself up to the thoughts and feelings of others and maintains both an open mind and an open heart, thereby creating the basic pre-conditions of a genuine dialogue, society can never be truly open.”1 Parekh Bhiku, Cultural Particularity of Liberal democracy: Prospect for Democracy: Polity Press UK,1994.

The idea of individual freedom was the article of faith during European Renaissance. But this idea of individualism could not fully transcend the influence of nationalism. History have witnessed ruthless suppression of individual liberty in Afro-Asian countries by the champions of individual liberty. Europe itself witnessed two devastating world wars under the influence of nationalism.

Liberal democracy asserts that the State should not engage itself in any large scale social, political and economic goals and welfare program. The duty of State should remain confined to ensure security and to allowcc liberty of individual to accumulate property and to control the means of production and to maintain law and order.

In Afro Asian countries the identity of individual is connected with the community—tribal, caste, religion, ancestral etc. That’s why in most part of the non-western world democracy in the sense of free elections, free speech and right to equality, has proved far more attractive than the concept of liberalism. Millions in non-western societies demand democracy, but in a suitably localised form, whereas they tend to reject the influence of  liberalism considering it to be subversive of what they most valued and cherished. According to their understanding, liberalism breaks up community, undermines the shared body of ideas and values, places the isolated individual above the community, encourages the ethos and ethic of aggressive self-assertion, rejects traditional wisdom and common sense in the name of scientific reason, and weakens the spirit of mutual accommodation and adjustment.  Forcing standard liberal democratic mold to these societies is bound to bring disaster.

The Athenian democracy was grounded in a sense of community whereas liberalism is individualist and finds it difficult to offer a coherent account of community. As the liberals define liberty in individualistic rather than communal terms and see little value in active political involvement as was promoted by Athenian democracy. Democracy in the Athenian sense does not satisfy their deepest aspirations and has at best only a marginal place in the conception of a good life. The Athenian democracy trusted the masses, whereas the liberal is deeply suspicious of them. For these and other reasons liberalism neither can accommodate nor has a need for classical democracy.

What kind of democracy the liberal democrats wants? James Madison(1751-1836), a liberal democrats of America, defined, during the Constitutional Convention, “democracy is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Actually in America and in many other countries democracy in real sense of the term does not exists. What is followed is polyarchy. In this system a small section of population is in control of decision making for the economy, political sphere, cultural sphere etc. In other words  the  power should be placed in the hands of only to those who are ‘responsible man’ or ‘wealth of the nation’. The rest of the population is supposed to be passive and acquiescent.

Robert W. McChesney  wrote in introduction to the book PROFIT OVER PEOPLE, by Noam Chomsky,:

“Neo-liberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time—it refers politics and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit.….”. For the past two decades neo-liberalism has been the dominant global political economic trend adopted by the political parties of the center and much of the traditional left as well as the right.

Simultenously every religion curtail the freedom of women. Though some society allows equal rights of women in legal documents but in practice mail chauvinist attitude and traditional dogma influence the behavioural pattern. In the national analyses for Family Health in India it has been found that 53% of girls below 18 are forced in marriage by their parents, in contradiction to the constitution. Some institutions ignore the legitimate rights of women under the pretense of God’s ordain. Hence freedom in real sense in religious, social, economic and political spheres remained a far cry.

Freedom also means liberation of intellect. That means mind must discard all forms of religious and socio-economic dogma and narrow sentiments. Neo-humanistic spirit or the spirit of unity in diversity can be achieved only when the intellect is liberated. And to realise freedom from the influence of psudo culture, mind must be able to conquer unbridled passion. This ultimately will prepare the ground for spiritual freedom.

Hence the effort for freedom in physical, intellectual and spiritual realm is a coherent process and not an isolated one.

The compatibility of Islam and democracy

Most Islamic democracies fall under the first definition, leading many analysts to dismiss the compatibility of Islam with democracy. Critics of the concept of Islamic democracy argue that Islam and  are opposite forces, that theocracy  is incompatible with democracy, and that Muslim culture lacks the liberal  social attitudes of democratic societies.

It is to be remembered that along with democracy all the Islamisation programme have failed so far.

Sunni viewpoint

The democratic ideal of a “government by the people” is compatible with the notion of an Islamic democracy. Deliberations of the Caliphates  were not democratic in the modern sense (rather, decision-making power lay with a council of notables or clan patriarchs), they show that some appeals to popular consent are permissible within Islam.
In the early Islamic Caliphates , the head of state, the  Caliph had a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad’s political authority, who, according to Sunnis, were ideally elected  by the people or their representatives. After the Rashidun  Caliphs, later Caliphates had a lesser degree of democratic participation, but since “no one was superior to anyone else except on the basis of piety and virtue” in Islam, and following the example of Muhammad later Islamic rulers often held public consultation  with the people in their affairs.
Much debate occurs on the subject of which Islamic traditions are fixed principles, and which are subject to democratic change, or other forms of modification in view of changing circumstances. Some Muslims allude to an “Islamic” style of democracy which would recognize such distinctions. . Another sensitive issue involves the status of monarchs and other leaders, the degree of loyalty which Muslims owe such people, and what to do in case of a conflicting loyalties (e.g., if a monarch disagrees with an imam).

Shi’a viewpoint

According to the Shia understanding, the Prophet Muhammad named as his successor (as leader, not as prophet–Muhammad being the final prophet), his son-in-law Ali. Therefore the first three of the four “Rightly Guided” Caliphs recognized by Sunnis (‘Ali being the fourth), are considered usurpers, notwithstanding their having been “elected” through some sort of consular deliberation. The largest Shi’a grouping–the Twelvers branch which rules Iran–recognizes a series of Twelve Imam the last of which (the Hidden Imam) is still alive and the Shi’as are waiting for his reappearance. The second-largest Shi’ia sect, the Ismaili  recognize a different lineage of Imams.
Since the revolution in Iran, Twelver Shi’a political thought has been dominated by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini . Imam Khomeini argued that in the absence of the Hidden Imam and other divinely-appointed figures (in whom ultimate political authority rests), Muslims have not only the right, but also the obligation, to establish an “Islamic state.” To that end they must turn to scholars of Islamic law (fiqh) who are qualified to interpret the Qur’an and the writings of the imams.
Khomeini divides the Islamic commandments or Ahkam  into three branches:

This last includes all commandments which relate to public affairs, such as constitution, social security, insurance, bank, labour law, taxation, election, congress etc. etc. Some of these codes may not strictly or implicitly pointed out in the Quran and generally in the Sunnah.
Khomeini emphasized that the Islamic state has absolute right  to enact state commandments, even if it violates the primary or secondary commandments of Islam. For example an Islamic state can ratify (according to some constitution) mandatory insurance of employees to all employers being Muslim or not even if it violates mutual consent between them. This shows the compatibility of Islam with modern forms of social codes for present and future life  as various countries and nations may have different kinds of constitutions now and will may have new ones in future.
Muhammad Iqbal(1877-1938) claimed that Islam had the “germs of an economic and democratic organisation of society”, but this growth was stunted by the idea of Islamic conquest and Islamic empire. Islam thus became political Islam, and its democratic essence disappeared.

Criticism

Today, two groups prevent the genuine reform movement seeking religious democracy: One group consists of those who think the less freedom a society enjoys, the stronger religion will be. They oppose the democratic process. The second is the group including those who believe that religion should be put aside from the scene of life in order to establish democracy and freedom.
Two major arguments against the possibility of a democratic Islamic state are as follow:

Islamic democratic systems have the same human rights issues as other democracies, but some matters which may cause friction include appeasing anti-democratic Islamists, non-Muslim religious minorities, the role of Islam in state education (especially with regard to Sunni and Shia traditions), women’s rights.This is further complicated by the deriving of punishments from Fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence, where, as in other legal systems, precedent assists the judiciary to come to a decision. Since the judiciary is not independent of a system of religious codes that are essentially the collective reasoning of often highly conservative scholars, the system is inherently conservative, and thus is less flexible and able to adapt to developing views of the subjects listed above.
To control political power, wealth and domination over women is the essence  of political Islam  and not so much about spirituality. They do not want encroachment over their space- economical, political, social or cultural. Cultural pluralism or political pluralism is a contradiction to political Islam. Hence in such a mental make up democratic values cannot flourish.