17 May 2006
CO06036 | Towards an index of Islamic Governance
RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].
Commentary
SINCE the Iranian revolution in 1979, there has been an increasing politicisation of Islam and Islamisation of politics in Muslim societies. This can be seen in countries like Malaysia, Egypt, Indonesia and Jordan. One of the issues that has emerged from this development is the Islamic character of the state.
Many Muslims believe that Islam is a comprehensive religion governing all aspects of human life. Unlike secularism, Islam does not segregate religion from matters of society and state.
Such Muslims can be broadly divided into two categories. The first comprises those who view religion’s positive role in politics and public affairs, but do not subscribe to the idea of establishing an Islamic state as a religious obligation. They argue that Islam does not dictate specific forms of political institutions for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims are free to adopt any system as long it meets the most basic principle of governance in Islam — justice. Since God has entrusted man as His vicegerent in this world and no man can truly claim that he is a true representation of divine will in public affairs, man, therefore, becomes the key determinant in managing his worldly affairs.
Rule by the majority is an important factor in deciding the various tendencies in human beings. In that respect, democracy, it could be argued, is the most appropriate system for man. A democratic system is not necessarily value-free while the role of religion is recognised as a possible basis for a value-based governance. One clear example of this is Malaysia. During the Mahathir period, the Penerapan Nilai-nilai Islam (Inculcation of Islamic Values) policy was adopted, which called for the inculcation of universal Islamic values into the working culture of the government. Since then, Malaysia has seen a surge in the development of a pro-Islam policy. This takes opportunity of the constitutional guarantee for Islam as the official religion of the Federation and the guarantee for the implementation of some aspects of Islamic law and the establishment of various Islamic institutions at the level of the states.
Islamism
The second category belongs to what is currently known as Islamists. They not only view Islam and politics as two inseparable parts but, also, the establishment of Islamic state as an obligation of Muslims wherever they live. The two most important characteristics of a truly Islamic state agreed upon by the Islamists are that a) the state is ruled by a Muslim ruler and b) syariah is the sole basis of law. The Islamists require an Islamic state to fully implement the syariah in every aspect of life, which includes the Hudud law for criminal justice and punishment as well as the abolition of riba (usury) practices in economic transactions.
Although levels of support for Islamic-oriented parties vary from one Muslim country to another, the numbers who share the view that Islam should play an important role in state affairs are generally small, though they are growing community. These two broad views provide a wide space for a rich market place of ideas to be discussed.
Arguably however, neither view offers the most comprehensive option for this growing community of Muslims. It is difficult for either of these views to fully represent the totalness of Islam as believed by these Muslims.
Although the first category asserts the important role of religion in public affairs, it lacks a clear vision of how such a situation should be brought about, including a detailed set of characteristics of Islamically-oriented or -inspired governments. Its assertion that the contemporary form of the democratic Westphalian state is acceptable in Islam is perceived as mere submission to Western ideas, which are the products of a different historical experience and tradition from Islam. Strong contestation from the Islamists makes it difficult for the idea to gain acceptance among Muslims. Muslims also believe that Islamic teachings and traditions are sufficiently rich to allow them to develop their own unique modern system of government through synthesis. In other words, Islamic principles could be employed to improve the existing system. Therefore, merely recognizing the current system as Islamic does not reflect Islam’s true potential for positive contribution to mankind.
The Islamists’ view, on the other hand, is rather simplistic. It does not reflect the true nature of Islamic teachings that encompass moral values such as integrity, justice, equality, economic development, prosperity and meritocracy. Instead, it projects syariah as simply a legal code that needs to be enforced. Even if only one criterion is not met, a government is considered unIslamic regardless whether it is just, clean, and capable of providing worldly prosperity to its citizens.
Such a view defies the complexity of today’s reality. For example, beyond the two fundamental criteria proposed by the Islamists, some Western countries bear many positive characteristics that are consistent with Islamic values. Justice in Islam requires that due recognition be given to such Western countries despite the absence of the two criteria – a Muslim ruler and syariah — or the presence of other unIslamic practices in such societies.
Index of Islamic governance
An alternative to the above views is to construct a set of Islamic characteristics in a state through an index, which could be called, for now, an index of Islamic governance. The concept is similar to the various indexes currently available to measure economic performance, competitiveness, democratic practices, human rights preservation and corrupt practices.
The index should contain detailed characteristics of a government deemed to be Islamic based on the comprehensiveness of the syariah, going beyond the two characteristics held by the Islamists and adding value to the contemporary democratic system. It should be based on a point system, which could include different weightage for different characteristics or category of characteristics. The end result is a percentage point system measuring the “Islamicness” of a state.
This approach offers, on the one hand, a close reflection of the state of syariah and the complexity of the contemporary system, on the other. The end result would break the mindset of looking at the issue only through a binary black and white perspective. The index will help Muslims to see a state in terms of the degree of its Islamicness. For example, a state could be 70 percent Islamic or 30 percent unIslamic, depending on the result, rather than seeing it sweepingly as Islamic or not.
While the index is most useful to measure Muslim countries — the main concern of Muslims – – it could also be used to measure non-Muslim countries. In that respect, it would not be a surprise if many non-Muslim countries score better in the index than Muslim countries. Singapore, for example, could possibly be more “Islamic” than a Muslim could realize.
With clear characteristics provided by the index, Muslims will also have a guide on how to assess the “Islamicness” of a state. A state that is 70 percent Islamic could not be dismissed as not fitting the criteria simply because 30 percent of it is unislamic. This approach can therefore reconstruct the Muslim mind in the search for the ideal state.
About the Author
Muhammad Haniff Hassan is a research analyst at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
Last updated on 03/10/2014
RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].
Commentary
SINCE the Iranian revolution in 1979, there has been an increasing politicisation of Islam and Islamisation of politics in Muslim societies. This can be seen in countries like Malaysia, Egypt, Indonesia and Jordan. One of the issues that has emerged from this development is the Islamic character of the state.
Many Muslims believe that Islam is a comprehensive religion governing all aspects of human life. Unlike secularism, Islam does not segregate religion from matters of society and state.
Such Muslims can be broadly divided into two categories. The first comprises those who view religion’s positive role in politics and public affairs, but do not subscribe to the idea of establishing an Islamic state as a religious obligation. They argue that Islam does not dictate specific forms of political institutions for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims are free to adopt any system as long it meets the most basic principle of governance in Islam — justice. Since God has entrusted man as His vicegerent in this world and no man can truly claim that he is a true representation of divine will in public affairs, man, therefore, becomes the key determinant in managing his worldly affairs.
Rule by the majority is an important factor in deciding the various tendencies in human beings. In that respect, democracy, it could be argued, is the most appropriate system for man. A democratic system is not necessarily value-free while the role of religion is recognised as a possible basis for a value-based governance. One clear example of this is Malaysia. During the Mahathir period, the Penerapan Nilai-nilai Islam (Inculcation of Islamic Values) policy was adopted, which called for the inculcation of universal Islamic values into the working culture of the government. Since then, Malaysia has seen a surge in the development of a pro-Islam policy. This takes opportunity of the constitutional guarantee for Islam as the official religion of the Federation and the guarantee for the implementation of some aspects of Islamic law and the establishment of various Islamic institutions at the level of the states.
Islamism
The second category belongs to what is currently known as Islamists. They not only view Islam and politics as two inseparable parts but, also, the establishment of Islamic state as an obligation of Muslims wherever they live. The two most important characteristics of a truly Islamic state agreed upon by the Islamists are that a) the state is ruled by a Muslim ruler and b) syariah is the sole basis of law. The Islamists require an Islamic state to fully implement the syariah in every aspect of life, which includes the Hudud law for criminal justice and punishment as well as the abolition of riba (usury) practices in economic transactions.
Although levels of support for Islamic-oriented parties vary from one Muslim country to another, the numbers who share the view that Islam should play an important role in state affairs are generally small, though they are growing community. These two broad views provide a wide space for a rich market place of ideas to be discussed.
Arguably however, neither view offers the most comprehensive option for this growing community of Muslims. It is difficult for either of these views to fully represent the totalness of Islam as believed by these Muslims.
Although the first category asserts the important role of religion in public affairs, it lacks a clear vision of how such a situation should be brought about, including a detailed set of characteristics of Islamically-oriented or -inspired governments. Its assertion that the contemporary form of the democratic Westphalian state is acceptable in Islam is perceived as mere submission to Western ideas, which are the products of a different historical experience and tradition from Islam. Strong contestation from the Islamists makes it difficult for the idea to gain acceptance among Muslims. Muslims also believe that Islamic teachings and traditions are sufficiently rich to allow them to develop their own unique modern system of government through synthesis. In other words, Islamic principles could be employed to improve the existing system. Therefore, merely recognizing the current system as Islamic does not reflect Islam’s true potential for positive contribution to mankind.
The Islamists’ view, on the other hand, is rather simplistic. It does not reflect the true nature of Islamic teachings that encompass moral values such as integrity, justice, equality, economic development, prosperity and meritocracy. Instead, it projects syariah as simply a legal code that needs to be enforced. Even if only one criterion is not met, a government is considered unIslamic regardless whether it is just, clean, and capable of providing worldly prosperity to its citizens.
Such a view defies the complexity of today’s reality. For example, beyond the two fundamental criteria proposed by the Islamists, some Western countries bear many positive characteristics that are consistent with Islamic values. Justice in Islam requires that due recognition be given to such Western countries despite the absence of the two criteria – a Muslim ruler and syariah — or the presence of other unIslamic practices in such societies.
Index of Islamic governance
An alternative to the above views is to construct a set of Islamic characteristics in a state through an index, which could be called, for now, an index of Islamic governance. The concept is similar to the various indexes currently available to measure economic performance, competitiveness, democratic practices, human rights preservation and corrupt practices.
The index should contain detailed characteristics of a government deemed to be Islamic based on the comprehensiveness of the syariah, going beyond the two characteristics held by the Islamists and adding value to the contemporary democratic system. It should be based on a point system, which could include different weightage for different characteristics or category of characteristics. The end result is a percentage point system measuring the “Islamicness” of a state.
This approach offers, on the one hand, a close reflection of the state of syariah and the complexity of the contemporary system, on the other. The end result would break the mindset of looking at the issue only through a binary black and white perspective. The index will help Muslims to see a state in terms of the degree of its Islamicness. For example, a state could be 70 percent Islamic or 30 percent unIslamic, depending on the result, rather than seeing it sweepingly as Islamic or not.
While the index is most useful to measure Muslim countries — the main concern of Muslims – – it could also be used to measure non-Muslim countries. In that respect, it would not be a surprise if many non-Muslim countries score better in the index than Muslim countries. Singapore, for example, could possibly be more “Islamic” than a Muslim could realize.
With clear characteristics provided by the index, Muslims will also have a guide on how to assess the “Islamicness” of a state. A state that is 70 percent Islamic could not be dismissed as not fitting the criteria simply because 30 percent of it is unislamic. This approach can therefore reconstruct the Muslim mind in the search for the ideal state.
About the Author
Muhammad Haniff Hassan is a research analyst at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
Last updated on 03/10/2014
