Voting on the 5th May (Part 2) – Can It Make A Difference?

This is the second article looking at the reality of voting in the context of change and progress in society. The first article discussed the feel-good factor, celebrity endorsements, AV and the reality of the economy today.

A Right Royal Hangover

Now that the Royal celebrations are behind us, we can look forward to a summer of discontent, as the reality of the morning after takes hold. While the party was in full swing, did we stop to think about the dictators the ruling elite originally invited to join in the celebrations, amongst them the Crown Prince of Bahrain, and ambassadors from the tyrannical regimes in Zimbabwe, Syria and Libya. Did we stop to consider how much it cost the taxpayer? Or the role of a monarchy in an advanced democracy such as the UK? Or even whether we support the idea of a monarchy in today’s day and age. I guess for some, any excuse for a party.

Democracy Double Standards

Certainly, democracy is billed as the way forward globally by the western nations. Though it is a pity that certain non democratic regimes have been supported fervently by the likes of Britain and US, and the ‘voice of the people’ has been silenced by brute force, oppression and dictatorship. So is it a case of double standards from the west, with democracy supported only if it produces the right results, but quelled otherwise. So is democracy a means to an end, rather than an end in itself? If so, what is the end?

All Aboard the Revolution...

As we are witnessing, the long backed dictators in the Middle East are now being toppled by popular revolts. The end in these countries was to silence any opposition to the status quo (political, economic, military), to maintain control through divide and rule, and to steal the wealth through the corporate machine of multi-nationals. Dictatorships (Egypt, Libya, Iraq), hereditary monarchies (Saudi, Bahrain), or controlled democracy (Iraq, Afghanistan) allowed these aims to be achieved. What is clear from the uprisings is that people are seeking justice...the question is how will it be delivered? It should not be assumed that because people reject dictatorships, this means they support western democracy. We do hear a call for democracy, but what exactly does that mean? Especially when even in well established democracies like the UK and US, there are many voices of discontent amongst sections of society.

What is a Democracy?

Democracy is understood in various ways....it can mean many things to many people. Daily usage indicates taking a consultative approach, especially in the context of decision making, say within companies. Others equate democracy to the process of elections, where everyone’s opinion is considered through a popular vote.  Others refer to the establishment of civil institutions which demonstrate a democratic society – e.g. a free media, an independent judicial system or the presence of a political opposition.  A traditional interpretation would make reference to Abe Lincoln’s ‘government of the people by the people and for the people’. And some voices in the Middle East call for democratic Islam or Islam and democracy.

Though all these differ in some ways, a common theme throughout is a call for a sense of justice for all, accountability, involvement and transparency. So, irrespective of the kind of democracy implemented in different countries, the true measure should be the presence of these underlying values. For a democracy that fails to deliver these, there may as well be a despotic dictatorship.

Does Democracy Really Deliver?

Although often termed as the best alternative to a dictatorship, democracies have been seen failing the people in delivering justice, accountability and involvement. Democracies have throughout history been viewed negatively as a force for change by many great thinkers. Plato & Aristotle were hostile to the tenets of democracy. The founding fathers of the US constitution were dismissive of democracy. Thomas Jefferson referred to democracy as ‘nothing more than mob-rule, where fifty-one per cent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.’ John Adams, the 2^nd President of the US famously said ‘Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.’

An academic text, How Parties Organise, suggest that democracies stymie social change. ‘..participation in the electoral process implicates the vote...other potentially more effective channels are made illegitimate. Democracy becomes a means of achieving social stability rather tan social change...’

Is Democracy Sensible?

Just because everybody has an opinion, does it make sense that the opinion is correct and should be considered when making decisions of great magnitude. Would you allow a layman to decide your tax affairs for you over an accountant or tax specialist? So why should the uninformed opinion of the masses be relevant when it comes to deciding major policy issues relating to the economy, foreign policy, home affairs and the like? Winston Churchill himself said the main argument against democracy was ‘a ten-minute conversation with the average voter’.

Further, why would a law become superior to other laws based on the number of people voting for it?  Do we adopt the same approach when it comes to scientific debate, or do we defer to the ‘experts’ to help us understand such complex matters?

What do Periodic Elections Achieve?

Even the idea of regular elections every four or four years can be demonstrated as flawed. The ‘re-election’ to office becomes an end in itself; on this basis politicians forego making long term strategic decisions in favour of shorter term tweaks, which may produce the immediate results required for re-election. Capital is also drawn into such situations, and the clear line between the politicians and their business interests is muddied. The resultant politics turns out to serve the elite, at the expense of the public, and leads to corrupt politicians, wealth concentrated in few hands, and the neglect of long term strategy. We see this clearly in the run up to elections in all democracies, and how ‘victories’ are paraded to swoon the electorate – Margaret Thatcher was re-elected in 1983 on the back of an unnecessary war in the Falklands, George Bush revealed the timely capture of Saddam Hussein for an election boost in 2003; Barrack Obama’s achievement in tracking down and assassinating enemy number one Bin Laden after ten long years is also perfectly timed for an pre-election boost. Many of his supporters argue his hands will be ‘untied’ once he is re-elected for a second term, when he can brazenly implement some of the more radical reforms which may be unpopular with neo-cons and real power brokers in Washington DC – again, pointing to the short termism promoted by periodic elections.

Voting – Halaal or Haraam?

For Muslims, the issue of voting is even more controversial, as the question of voting in a secular democracy arises. Many articles have been written on the matter, some supporting and others denouncing.

Groups such as MPAC encourage participation (and are siding with Yes for AV) in the electoral process, arguing non-participation is a neglecting one’s civic duty, and by abstaining one is allowing political space to the extremist right to take hold. In reality, extreme right wing parties have little support in the country as a whole; the real threat comes from the mainstream parties who adopt policies similar to the extreme right. Is the mainstream actually more dangerous because Muslims actively represent and support these parties and have strong affiliation with them? So however unpopular Labour or Conservative policies amongst Muslims may be (wars in Iraq, Afpak), individuals are unable to influence them away from them, which demonstrates the limitations of a secular democracy. Individuals like Robin Cook and Clare Short were principled enough to resign from Government positions over the Iraq war. is it enough to voice disagreement but continue to put an X in the box?

Other groups, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir amongst others, argue that participation in a secular democracy is impermissible, as this has its roots in man-made legislation and not divinely ordained. They also point out the imperfections of such man-made systems, and how they actually lead to injustice and oppression, rather than the opposite. Many clear textual evidences support this stance; a commonly quoted ayat makes reference to the Jews and Christians taking their rabbis and monks to be their Lord, besides Allah (Surah at-Tawbah, 9-31). This is elaborated on in a hadith, where a former Christian protested to the Holy Prophet(saw), saying they did not look upon their leaders as lords. The Prophet(saw) said they did, as the leaders legalised for them what Allah (swt) forbade. This indicated the worshiping of them.

The editorial team at Bayyina Foundation support the view that participation in a secular democracy where the legislation is not based on Quran and Sunnah is impermissible. This does not imply that Muslims should be politically inactive, as many who support voting would then suggest is the only alternative. There are many many groups working in the UK, Muslim and non-Muslim, who have demonstrated that real change is achieved through sincerity and selfless commitment at the grass roots levels – these include, political, charitable, and self-help organisations, who change the lives of individuals for the better.

Now surely, this the real measure of the politics of change?

Editorial Team

Bayyina Foundation

4^th May 2011