Dignifying Human Dignity: An Answer To Christianity
And Islam's Compatibility With Democracy
By Acmad Toquero Macarimbang
02 March, 2010
Countercurrents.org
Democracy is believed to be a modern phenomenon in governance. The word “democracy” is not directly stated in the Bible and Qur'an, but there are narratives and interpretations that are substantially relating to the notion of modern democracy. This paper will present theological reasons why both religions are compatible with democratic forms of governance and how these grounds are anchored in the elements of Christianity and Islamic worldviews. However, this paper is limited to the notion of democracy which is by representation – either Constitutional or Republic type of democracy. Before I discuss the main content, it is necessary to take a quick backgrounder on the development of democracy.
Fathi Osman of Georgetown University wrote in his occasional paper series “Islam in a Modern State: Democracy and the Concept of Shura, 2001” that democracy has maintained its common appeal to the modern human mind with regards to its basic principles. Osman wrote that the word “democracy” was developed in the sixth-century B.C.E. Greek city-states. It was derived from the Greek words “demos” [the people] and “kratia” [rule]. It has been defined in a condensed way to mean the government of the people, by the people, for the people. Osman added that democracy originally designates a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group or autocrat.
According to Battista Mondin in his essay “Religion and Politics from a Roman Catholic Perspective, Morality and Religion, 1992,” democracy is a big conquest of modern civilization, which little by little created the necessary conditions to transform what was believed to be a utopia into a concrete institution. Mondin attributed the spread of democracy in Europe and in the United States to the French and American revolutions which were inspired by the democratic ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity. At the same time, such democratic ideals were provided with a solid theoretical basis by the political philosophers John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) and Baron de Montesquieu (b. 1689, d. 1755).
As stated in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Locke [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ ] refuted the patriarchal version of giving divine rights to kings. According to Locke, God created man and man is God's property. Therefore, man has equal rights to life, liberty, health and property which we are supposed to have as individuals before the introduction of civil government. Locke's uses the theory of social contract where people agree that their condition in the state of nature is unsatisfactory and agree to transfer some of their rights to a central government while retaining others. Meanwhile, Montequieu [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/#1 ] defines the principle of democracy as a political virtue such as the love of the laws, the country and the constitution. Montequieu considers religion in relation only to the good produced in civil society and not to its truth or falsity. As a great political philosopher of the European Enlightenment, Montequieu distinctively identified the separation of the Church and State. He clarifies that the aim of religion is the perfection of individuals, while the aim civil laws is to the welfare of society. He asserted that as a means of guaranteeing the freedom of individuals, there must be separate and balancing powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Both Locke and Montesquieu were the intellectual founders of democracy which is by representation. The former's theory of natural law as identical with the law of God and guarantees equality among men has promoted the development of democratic institutions, which was later championed by the latter.
Rev. Stephen Noll of the United States Episcopalian in Enquirer, updated October 30, 2004, [ http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/30/tem_1030bible.html ], affirmed that democracy is fully compatible with biblical principles. In the Old Testament, Deutronomy 17: 14-20 and Samuel 8 speaks about detailed laws of justice including those given to Moses on Mount Sinai which were a kind of constitution ratified by the people. Deutronomy 17:14-20 tells about the Provision for Kingship, and it says, 17:14 When you come to the land the Lord your God is giving you and take it over and live in it and then say, “I will select a king like all the nations surrounding me,” 17:15 you must select without fail a king whom the Lord your God chooses. From among your fellow citizens you must appoint a king – you may not designate a foreigner who is not one of your fellows Israelites. 17:16 Moreover, he must not accumulate horses for himself or allow the people to return to Egypt to do so; for the Lord has said you must never again return that way. 17:17 Furthermore, he must not marry many wives lest his affections turn aside, and he must not accumulate much silver and gold. 17:18 When he sits on his royal throne he must make a copy of this law on a scroll given to him by the Levitical priests. 17:19 It must be with him constantly and he must read it as long as he lives, so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and observe all the words of this law and these statutes and carry them out. 17:20 Then he will not exalt himself above his fellow citizens or turn from the commandments to the right or left, and he and his descendants will enjoy many years ruling over his kingdom in Israel.
Matthew Henry in his complete commentary on Deutronomy 17 [ http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=017 ] explained that, the king must carefully apply himself to the law of God, and make that his rule to keep him right in all instances to his God and to his duty. Noll clarified that the Bible does not require kings, but it does make clear that kings are to be constitutional and bound by the moral law. Again, the notion of democracy is not explicitly written in the Old Testament but the idea of a free and voluntary choice from the people and for the good of the people is to be considered today an essential practice of democracy.
In Samuel 8, it is very clear that a government by monarchy was founded in sin and lack of faith in God. This was when Israel requested a king despite the God's warning and Samuel spoke all the words of God to the people, and it says, 8:11 He said, “Here are the policies of the king who will rule over you: He will conscript your sons and put them in his chariot forces and in his cavalry; they will run in front of his chariot. 8:12 He will appoint for himself leaders of thousands and leaders of fifties, as well as those who plow his ground, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and his chariot equipment. 8:13 He will take your daughters to be ointment makers, cooks, and bakers. 8:14 He will take your best fields and vineyards and give them to his own servants. 8:15 He will demand a tenth of your seed and of the produce of your vineyards and give it to his administrators and his servants. 8:16 He will take your male and female servants, as well as your best cattle and your donkeys, and assign them for his own use. 8:17 He will demand a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will be his servants 8:18 In that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord won't answer you in that day.”
On the other hand, the collective voice of the people ruled despite a strong opposition of God to anoint a king. God says to Samuel “Do as they say and install a king over them” (Samuel 8:22). In this case, the sovereignty resided with the people of Israel in their quest to be a nation. This is true with John W. de Gruchy's definition of a democracy in his book “Christianity and Democarcy, 1995.” For him, it is rather an ongoing quest for justice, and therefore, one whose success is contingent upon the development of the moral people who are able to participate fully in the body politic, and of institutions which allow and foster such participation. In the New Testament, 1 Peter 2:13-17 tells about the Submission to Authorities, and it says, 2:13 Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether to a king as supreme 2:14 or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. 2:15 For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. 2:16 Live as free people, not using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but as God's slaves. 2:17Honor all people, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the king.
Rev. Stephen Noll explained that the Bible tells believers to live as free men but subject for the Lord's sake to the rulers provided by God to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. However, he warned that government cannot claim absolute god-like authority. John Calvin on his Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles on the 1 Peter 2:13-17 [ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.iv.iii.v.html ], Peter reminds us that obedience is due to all who rule, because they have been raised to that honor not by chance, but by God's providence. Calvin added that there is no liberty given to us to hurt our neighbors, or to do any harm to others. True liberty is that which harms or injures no one. To confirm this, Peter declares that “those are free who serve God.” Calvin concluded that it is obvious that we obtain liberty in order that we may more promptly and more readily render obedience to God; for it is no other than a freedom from sin; and dominion is taken away from sin, that men may become obedient to righteousness.
In the Qur'an, there are verses that contain guidance about consultation, justice, equality and the relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims. These are among the important sources of qur'anic teachings as they relate to the practice of democracy. Al ‘Imran and Ash-Shura talks about consultation and it says, “It was by the mercy of Allah that thou was lenient with them [O Muhammad], for if thou hadst been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from round about thee. So pardon them and ask [Allah's] forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs.” –Al ‘Imran: 159, and “And those who answer the call of their Lord and establish worship, and whose affairs are a matter of counsel, and who spend of that we have bestowed on them. “– Ash-Shura: 38.
Ibn Kathir in his commentary “The Order for Consultation and to Abide by it” [ http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=9700 ] stated that Muhammad used to ask his Companions for advice about war and various matters. I will not go into details of the accounts of several consultations between the Prophet and his Companions on the position at the Battle of Badr, the Hudaybiyyah Agreement and the Badr Prisoners. The message is clear that the concept of consultation which is a vital part of democracy was developed during years of the Prophet. H. Munawir Sjadzali wrote in his book “Islam and Governmental System, 1991” that in spite of Muhammad being a Prophet, he was fond of consulting his followers on community affairs. But during consultations, he did not follow a single pattern. Frequently, he consulted only some senior companions. Infrequently, he asked for advice from experts on relevant matters. Sometimes, he exposed the problem to a larger audience, especially issues with wide impact on the community.
The following verses from An-Nahl and An-Nisa speak about Justice, while Al-Hujurat speaks about equality, and it says, “Lo! Allah enjoineth justice and kindness.” –An-Nahl: 90, and “Lo! Allah commandeth you that ye restore deposits to their owners, and, if ye judge between mankind, that ye judge justly.” –An-Nisa: 58, and “O Mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! The noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.” –Al-Hujurat: 13.
Allah tells us to be fair and kind; and all mankind are descendants of Adam and Hawwa (Eve) and must share the honor equally. Nevertheless, these are Qur'anic references to the establishment of justice and equality in Islam.
The passages I presented above talks about the laws of justice and a constitution bound by a moral law (Deutronomy 17:14-20); the sovereignty of the people, the quest for justice, and institutions for moral development (Samuel 8); the true liberty by obedience and not harming others (1 Peter 2:13-17); the importance of consultation, and the humility a leader should have (Al ‘Imran: 159; Ash-Shura: 38); Justice and Kindness (An-Nahl:90, An-Nisa:58)and; Equality among mankind (Al-Hujurat:13).
The Scriptures can attest that Christianity and Islam believed on human dignity as foundation of one's faith toward a guided life as individual and as member of a society. The notion of human dignity becomes a strong Christian and Islamic belief making the two faiths compatible with democratic forms of governance. In a general terminology, human dignity means freedom and equality, and democracy speaks about freedom and equality as well.
Christianity and Democracy
In Christianity, human dignity is always identified with the concept of imago dei. All persons are made in the image of God. Therefore, men and women should be equally respected by the state and fellow citizens. Their rights as citizens of a democratic society should be properly observed at all times in a community that grants equality among its citizens. However, according to Robert Kraynak in his book “Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, 2001,” Christianity has a deep resistance to the concept of human rights because of the doctrine of original sin that implies distrust of weak and fallible human beings to use rights properly. It is true that this doctrine has a role in determining the validity of political systems like monarchy that corrupt its own people and overlooks the sinfulness of its governance. On the other hand, the totality of Christian's worldview on political and social order is itself recognition of the doctrine of original sin that is being magnified through the will of majority. It is through this doctrine that Christians strongly believe in the trust that popular sovereignty is an adequate channel for a divine sovereignty. I believed that each person was born with a tendency toward sinful behavior, because of the cosmogonic myth that all human beings are traceable back to the doctrine of original sin. So, men and women have a moral obligation among themselves and with God to restore and live a community with equality among the majority and minority citizens. Pope John XXIII in his encyclical “Pacem In Terris: Encyclical of Pope John XXIII on Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity and Liberty, 1963” updated 11 April 1963, ( http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html ) affirmed that man's personal dignity is from the standpoint of divine revelation. Men have been ransomed by the blood of Jesus Christ, so grace has made them sons and friends of God, and heirs to eternal glory. Pope John XXIII added that man's personal dignity involves his right to take an active part in public life, and to make his own contribution to the common welfare of his fellow citizens. Therefore, a society should be consonant with human dignity. However, according to Kraynak, it is Immanuel Kant who offered the most explicit formulation of the ethical principles of human dignity that now shape Christian politics. Kant speaks about the infinite and absolute worth of every human being and the unconditional duty to treat everyone as a person and the moral imperative to respect the rights of persons in liberal democratic political order. Kraynak analyzed that it is because of Kant that Christians speak about persons, dignity, rights and respect than about sin, redemption and compassion. Thus, Kant makes democracy in Christianity a moral duty.
In the Old Testament, God makes a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation. Also, God's covenant with Noah is a factual example of bilateral and moral duties between God and human being. The people recognize God's sovereignty and God provides for their protection and law. This doctrine of covenant is the reference points how Christian understands society. Daniel Elazar of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs ( http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/bibcov.htm ) mentioned that, pursuant to those original covenants with God, humans entered into subsequent pacts with each other. First, with God as a party, and later with God as a witness, to establish political and legal orders capable of delivering on those original covenants, culminating in modern constitutionalism.
In the New Testament, God works through His incarnation with Jesus Christ who preaches the kingdom of God. God is not anymore in a bond with Israel or a certain community, but God is everywhere. Again, it is because God created human beings equally in His own image. God is in covenant with all people. Jesus Christ was a teacher, a healer, He fed the hungry, and He spoke on behalf of widows, orphans and despised people. He favors the poor and humble over the rich; and God cares about schools, hospitals, retirement homes, orphanages and relief operations. This concept of imago dei is a moral response to the notion of human dignity. Kraynak said that imago dei requires a human person to possess reason and free will. It is the divine image in man being a human person who is created not only to recover lost immortality and to return God as the source of its being but also to claim inalienable human rights and to assert those rights on behalf of others. Kraynak believed that this view of the divine image establishes a connection in principle between Christian ethics and a specific political order, which means setting up a democratic political system that protects human rights.
Democracy as it is today is not the real democracy as the way Greeks defined it. Even so, it is not the real political forms of governance that the Bible and Qur'an were implying. In the Philippines, democracy is about freedom to corrupt; freedom to manipulate elections; and freedom to kill members of civil society. Gary Elliott wrote in his article “Philippine Graft and Corruption: Decades of Plunder Have Dramatically Stunted National Development,” updated February 09, 2008 ( http://philippines.suite101.com/article.cfm/philippine_graft_and_corruption ) that Philippine's political system and its institutions allow graft and corruption to flourish, but it is people, not institutions who are robbing government funds. Returning back to de Gruchy, he said that it is the essence of democracy that elected representatives as well as the bureaucrats and technocrats appointed by them should be held accountable to the people. However, the exacerbating effect of abuse to democracy is present in the Philippine society today which is becoming a state of impunity to accommodate great extent of selfishness for self-interest undermining the sovereignty of the people. According to this News Break report written by Aries Rufo and Gemma Bagayaua, “Gloria's Mark: big corruption cases involving her family and associates remain unresolved,” updated February 11, 2007 ( http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=
com_content&task=view&id=2398&Itemid=88889066 ) that under the presidency of Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, there have been numerous corruption cases allegedly by the First Family and their cohorts in the executive and legislative branches who took government's funds for their personal and election-fraud purposes. A few examples of this include the poll automation contract in 2007 that was overpriced by (Peso) Php500 million; and the Php728 million fertilizer fund allegedly distributed to Arroyo's allies during the 2004 elections. Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur to the Philippines' Extrajudicial Killings reported at the United Nations General Assembly of the Human Rights Council, 2008, “Since 2001 (the year Arroyo assumed presidency) the number of politically motivated killings in the Philippines has been high and the death toll has mounted steadily. These killings have eliminated civil society leaders, including human rights defenders, trade unionists, and land reform advocates, as well as many others on the left of the political spectrum. Of particular concern is the fact that those killed appear to have been carefully selected and intentionally targeted. The aim has been to intimidate a much larger number of civil society actors, many of whom have, as a result, been placed on notice that the same fate awaits them if they continue their activism. One of the consequences is that the democratic rights that the people of the Philippines fought so hard to assert are under serious threat.”
The Philippine Human Rights Group KARAPATAN ( http://www.karapatan.org/2009-HR-Report ) on their 2009 Year-end report recorded a total of 1,118 victims of extra-judicial killings and 204 cases of enforced disappearances, under the Macapagal-Arroyo's presidency. I wrote in my previous paper entitled ‘The Debt Crisis in the Year of the Jubilee, updated November 21, 2009' ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16212 ) that, the Philippine government and leaders being officially Catholic have been taught from childhood simple instructions from the Bible on being good Christian and on how to live a Christian life, but because of the changing times and rampant corruption and other social diseases, worldview seems to be against what Christianity has taught them.
Islam and Democracy
There is a question whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy. However, my paper will not deal on that matter; instead this paper will try to give an argument why Islam is highly compatible with democratic values. I believe the question arises because of the Islamic worldview that Islam rejects the Western idea of a separation of Church and State. On the other hand, I would like to quote Sjadzali about the Madina Charter which believed to be as first Islamic constitution, and he wrote, “It is worth noting that the Madinah Charter which many political scientists claimed as the first constitution of an Islamic state did not mention the state religion.” The prophet Muhammad established the Muslim's way of life within a state with a plural society and imparted democratic values of human dignity. It is intriguing why Islam cannot be compatible with democracy when the Prophet himself taught shura, justice and equality among Muslims and non-Muslims living in Madinah. In fact, the comprehensibility of Islam as it encompasses all human dimensions is a valid claim that indeed Islam is compatible with democratic forms of governance. Osman warned that any restrictions in regards to spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical being of the citizens within the country or throughout the world is considered against human dignity. He added that human dignity comprises the fulfillment of obligations as well as the security of rights which should be together carried out to secure the human dignity. It is a foundation of Islamic ethos to look forward into the hereafter and whatever we do in earth is to be rewarded and/or punished in the hereafter; and securing human dignity is a condition for rewards in the afterlife. Therefore, it is similar to Christianity, that democracy is a moral duty in Islam.
The most widely known reason of compatibility of Islam and democracy is the Islamic concept of shura or mutual consultation. It has to do with the election of people's representatives in the modern parliaments and its practice of legislation. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in their book “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, 2007” clarified that shura is coupled with “ijma” or community consensus as a way to reflect the collective judgment of the community. The practice of shura is explicitly written in the Qur'an and the Prophet himself practice shura on his state affairs especially about war. After his death, Abu Bakr was elected as the first khalifah or head of state through election in open consultation among the leaders of tribes representing the Islamic community. I can say that the concept of shura is an answer to each person's differences of views and agenda to avoid misunderstanding among the ruler and the ruled; and not lead to a chaos and unstable community. In short, it allows for community as envisioned by the Prophet with high regards to human dignity.
Prince El Hassan bin Talal in his book “To Be A Muslim: Islam, Peace and Democracy, 2004” stated that human variety is considered to be one of the proofs of God. It is a Muslim tradition that holds that diversity in our appearances, languages and so forth is among God's signs. Thus, bin Talal said, Islam commands that human being should respect and learn from each other's differences. This ‘human variety' speaks about equality among citizens and respects differences in appearances, languages, views and ideas because all are proofs of God; and each has an obligation to fulfill in all areas of human dimensions that is morally acceptable to God and fellow citizens. This also speaks about tolerance in belief especially religion. El Hassan bin Talal stresses the quality and dignity of each and every human soul. He said that Islamic teachings favor quality, respect individual and communal rights of belief and citizenship; and advocate the peaceful management of diversity. Going back to the Madinah Charter, it was a Constitution stating the equal rights of Christian and Jews and other tribes. This subject of tolerance in Islamic tradition should be given attention because this is a clear statement on how Islamic ethos values human dignity that Islamic scholars forget in explaining democratic values in Islam.
In Iran's fraudulent election case and political turmoil, I am speaking as a researcher on democracy in today's society and I may not wholly present the context of Iran's democratic history into its current political turmoil. But, as I read from reports, most conditions that make democracy in an authentic sense possible are not being observed in Iran. The free and fair elections, representation of a fair proportion of the electorate in a legislative body, decisions reached by a majority vote on all major questions of policy, freedom to organize political parties, freedom of speech, the freedom of press and of assembly, the rule of law and therefore from arbitrary arrest or punishment are not equivalent to democracy, but are conducive to it. According to the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization or UNPO ( http://www.unpo.org/content/view/9719/83/ ) updated June 18, 2009, there was a lack of representation of ethnic groups in the elections such as the Kurds, Baloch, Ahwazi, and the Southern Azerbaijanis who comprise a large part of Iran's population. The group added that Dr. Alami one of the founders and parts of the establishment of the Islamic Republic was disqualified to run in the elections for speaking in his Turkish-Azeri mother tongue in a rally in Tabeiz. They strongly believed that since Ahmadinejad's reign in 2005, Iran's policies promote subversion of regional identities in favor of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) activity in the peripheral areas, particularly in the South-Eastern region dominated by the Baloch people that arouse number of mass protests and violent attacks against IRGC installations and oil pipelines.
The increase of mass protests in Tehran, the Iran Republic banned or either arrested foreign and local journalists from covering any demonstrations. Then, De Gruchy is correct in saying that the weakness of democracy which is the danger of incompetent and inefficient government is paradoxically indicative of its strength because such government is regarded as legitimate and remains accountable. However, in Iran's case, the people are regarding the governance of Ahmadinejad as illegitimate and accountable for the mountable violations he made against the Iranian people. Going back to Fathi Osman on the issue of restrictions in regards to spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical being of the citizens is considered against human dignity; and democracy in Iran is not anymore fulfilling its obligations to secure Iranian's human dignity.
The innate dignity in human being is the starting point why Christianity and Islam are compatible with democratic forms of governance. Following the real definition of democracy to its application in a real socio-political and religious setting, there will be less chaos and complications in a modern society. Democracy is too good to be true, but it is the most popular if not the only form of governance that speaks about morality, equality, freedom, justice and human dimensions in spirituality, politically, intellectually and physically all at the same time. It is time for Christian and Islamic democratic countries to re-check the conditions of their governance if it is really working as dignified nations. After all, democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.#
Acmad Toquero Macarimbang is a Filipino-Muslim currently taking Graduate Certificate in Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations, Hartford Seminary, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. He took Islamic Studies at the Institute of Islamic Studies, University of the Philippines, Diliman. [email protected]
