Lokacin da ake nazarin ra'ayin iko da yadda ake mayar da shi daga Coci zuwa ga jama'a, masana falsafar Yamma sun karɓi wani ra'ayi na tunani, na zato, wanda ba shi da tushe a zahirin gaskiya. Maimakon haka, ra'ayin kawai tunanin mutanen Yamma ne, wanda a cikinsa ake iƙirarin cewa mutum yana rayuwa ne a yanayin daji, na dabi'a, sannan ya koma yanayin birni da wayewa ta hanyar yarjejeniyar zamantakewa. A cikin yarjejeniyar zamantakewa, daidaikun mutane sun amince su bar wani ɓangare na nufinsu, don su samar da nufi na gama-gari, wanda shi ne nufin jama'a da ke kafa iko. Amincewar daidaikun mutane na barin nufinsu (ko wani ɓangare nasa) ana kiranta yarjejeniyar zamantakewa, wadda ita ce tushen gwamnati, tushen iko, da tushen 'yancin jama'a. Sun yi imani cewa tsarin da ke wakiltar wannan ra'ayi, kamar yadda suke gani, shi ne tsarin dimokuradiyya, a matsayin hukuma ta siyasa da ke aiwatar da ikon al'umma. Saboda haka, tsarin mulkin Yamma yana kan dimokuradiyya. Kalmar Democracy kalma ce haɗaɗɗiya ta asalin Helenanci, SppoKpcma, demokratia, wadda ta fito daga demos (jama'a) da kratos (mulki), don haka ma'anarta "mulkin jama'a." Ana yawan bayyana dimokuradiyya da shahararriyar maganar Abraham Lincoln (mutuwa 1865), wanda ya ce, "gwamnatin jama'a, ta jama'a, domin jama'a," a cikin Jawabinsa na Gettysburg.

When examining the concept of authority and its transfer from the Church to the people, the Western philosophers adopted an imaginary, hypothetical idea that has no basis in reality. Instead, the idea is merely a mental construct of Westerners, in which it is claimed that Man used to live in a natural, feral state, then moved to an urbanized, civil state through a social contract. Within the social contract, individuals agreed to give up part of their will, to form a collective will, which is a public will constituting sovereignty. The agreement of individuals to give up their (part of) will is called social contract, which is the fundamental of the state, the fundamental of authority and the fundamental of public freedom. They viewed that the system that embodies this idea, as they perceive, is the democratic system, as a political entity to exercise the sovereignty of the populous. Accordingly, the ruling system of the West is based on Democracy. The word Democracy is a Greek-origin composite word, SppoKpcma, demokratia, which is from demos (people) and kratos (rule), so it means “rule of the people.” Democracy is usually defined by the famous saying of Abraham Lincoln (d 1865), who said, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” during his Gettysburg Address.

A cikin ma'anarta ta zamani, ta duniya, kamar yadda Yammaci ke yaɗawa, Dimokuraɗiyya ba ta rabuwa da ra'ayin 'yanci (liberty). Wannan al'amari ba sabo ba ne, kuma ba ya fitowa daga tunanin Yammacin zamani, kamar yadda ake zato. Maimakon haka, an gada ne kawai daga Helenawa. Aristotle ya ce a cikin littafinsa mai suna Politics: "Domin idan 'yanci da daidaito, kamar yadda wasu ke tunani, ana samun su musamman a cikin dimokuraɗiyya, to za a fi cimma su idan dukkan mutane suka raba mulki gaba ɗaya. Kuma tun da al'umma ita ce mafi rinjaye, kuma ra'ayin mafi rinjaye shi ne mai yanke hukunci, dole ne irin wannan gwamnati ta zama dimokuraɗiyya." Sai dai, ra'ayin 'yanci na zamani ya bambanta da na Helenawa. Wannan shi ne abin da ya bambanta Yammaci, tun daga zamanin Haskakawa (Enlightenment) da fitowar falsafar 'yanci ta Yammaci.

In its global, contemporary concept as promoted by the West, Democracy is inseparable from the idea of freedom (liberty). This matter is not new and has not emerged from modern Western thinking, as is held. Instead it is merely inherited from the Greeks. Aristotle says in his book Politics, “For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. And since the people are the majority, and the opinion of the majority is decisive, such a government must necessarily be a democracy.” However, the concept of modern freedom (liberty) differs from that of the Greeks. This is something that distinguishes the West, starting from the era of Enlightenment and the emergence of the Western liberal philosophy.

Saboda haka, Dimokuradiyya an bayyana ta a zamani da kalmar dimokuradiyyar 'yanci (liberal democracy), wadda ta bambanta da sauran dimokuradiyyoyi, ko na da ko na yanzu, kamar dimokuradiyyar zamantakewa (social democracy). Dimokuradiyya ta gaskiya bisa fahimtar Yammacin duniya ita ce dimokuradiyyar da ke da alaka da ra'ayin 'yanci, wadda Yammacin duniya ta amince da ita a zamanin Haske (Enlightenment). Saboda haka, ana siffanta ta da tarin tunani da ka'idoji masu alaka da 'yanci, kamar yadda suke fahimta. Wasu masana na ganin ta a matsayin kafa 'yanci a cikin tsarin cibiyoyi (institutionalization of freedom). Ana iya cewa akwai yarjejeniya tsakanin mutanen Yamma masu goyon bayan dimokuradiyya cewa ba za a raba ta da wasu batutuwa da ake ganin su ne ginshikan dimokuradiyya ba, wadanda su ne: ikon mallakar jama'a (sovereignty of the people), rabuwar iko (separation of powers), 'yanci, hakkokin dan Adam, daidaito, bambancin ra'ayi (pluralism), zabuka na gaskiya da adalci wadanda ake bi da mika mulki cikin lumana, doka ta yi aiki a kan kowa (rule of law), da mulkin mafi rinjaye tare da kare hakkokin tsiraru (minorities).

Accordingly, Democracy is expressed in a modern term as liberal democracy, distinct from other democracies, whether ancient, or modern, such as social democracy. True democracy according to the Western perception is Democracy connected to the concept of freedom, acknowledged by the West in its era of Enlightenment. Therefore, it is described as a collection of thoughts and principles related to freedom, as they perceive. Some thinkers consider it as an institutionalization of freedom. It can be said that there is a consensus amongst Westerners who support Democracy, that it is inseparable from a group of matters that are considered as the pillars of Democracy, which are: Sovereignty of the people, separation of powers, freedoms, human rights, equality, pluralism, free and fair elections followed by peaceful transition of power, rule of law and majority rule whilst preserving the rights of minorities.

Ta fitar da bayani a takaice: Dimokuradiyya. Yana da muhimmanci a ambata cewa ita ma ta kasance, kuma har yanzu tana kasancewa, batun suka a tsakanin masana falsafar Yamma kansu. Wannan shi ne abin da Jacques Ranciere ya nuna a littafinsa, Hatred of Democracy, inda ya ce: "Ƙin dimokuradiyya tabbas ba wani sabon abu ba ne." Tushen sukar da yawancin masu sukar Yamma ke yi wa ka'idar dimokuradiyya ya samo asali ne daga kalmar 'jama'a'. Ana sukar ta a matsayin kalma mara ma'ana bayyananne, wadda ma'anarta ke bambanta daga wannan mai bayani zuwa wancan. Bayan haka, rashin jituwa ta koma kan bangaren tsarin aiki (procedure), domin tantance ma'anar mulkin jama'a. Bangaren tsarin aikin a aikace yana tabbatar da ra'ayin mulkin jama'a wanda ba shi da alaƙa da gaskiya. Idan aka dubi ma'anar kalmar dimokuradiyya ta fuskar harshe dangane da mulkin jama'a, sai mu ga cewa wannan ma'ana ba ta da alaƙa da gaskiya tun zamanin Girkawa da kansu. Girkawa ne suka fara shiga cikin wannan ra'ayi, inda aka takaita kalmar 'jama'a' ga 'yan ƙasa 'yanci kawai a tsakanin Girkawa, tare da fitar da mata, bayi, da waɗanda ba 'yan Athens ba. Lokacin da aka sake dawo da ra'ayin dimokuradiyya a karni na sha takwas miladiyya, wasu masana sun gane cewa ka'idar ba ta yiwuwa a aikace, ta fuskar ka'idar kanta. Wannan saboda yarjejeniyar dukkan jama'a kan mulki da gudanar da al'umma ba ta yiwuwa. Don haka suka samar da bangaren tsarin aikinta, suka kirkiro abin da ake kira dimokuradiyya ta wakilci, wato dimokuradiyyar 'yan majalisa da aka zaba.

This is Democracy, concisely. It is worth mentioning that it was and is still the subject of criticism amongst the Western thinkers themselves. This is what Jacques Ranciere alludes to in his book, Hatred of Democracy, “Hatred of democracy is certainly nothing new.” The basis of criticism towards the democratic theory levelled, by most of the Western critics, arises over the term ‘people.’ It is criticized as a vague term, differing in the definition of its meaning. Beyond that, disagreement moves on to focus on the procedural aspect to determine the concept of rule of the people. The procedural aspect practically affirms the unrealistic idea of the rule of the people. Upon looking at the linguistic meaning of Democracy with regards to the rule of the people, we find this meaning to be devoid of reality, since the days of the Greeks themselves. The Greeks were the first to indulge in this idea, wherein the word ‘people’ was restricted to the free people amongst the Greeks, whilst excluding women, slaves and those who were non-Athenians. When the idea of Democracy was reinstated in the eighteenth century CE, some thinkers realized the unrealistic nature of the theory, from a theoretical standpoint. This is because consensus of all the people over ruling and administration of the state is impossible. So they developed its procedural aspect, creating the so-called representative democracy, which is democracy of elected deputies.

Wanda wanda ya bi tafarkin ilimin zamantakewa na Yamma zai iya lura da cewa akwai wani yanayi da ya dade yana tabbata tsawon shekaru da dama a tsakanin rukunin masana, na karbar tsarin mulki mai aiki a zahiri. Yanayi ne na watsi da ka'idar dimokuradiyya ta ilimi, bayan da ya bayyana cewa dimokuradiyyar ilimi ba ta da ma'ana a aikace. Wannan yanayi yana karkashin jagorancin wasu masana, daga cikinsu akwai Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills da wasu. Sun karbi ka'idar masu mulki kadan (elite theory), wacce ta dogara kan ra'ayin cewa karfin mulki yana hannun wata karamar kungiya ta mutane a cikin al'umma. A cikin littafin Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory (Italiyanci: Elementi di scienza politica), a cikin makalarsa mai taken "Ajin Mulki" (Italiyanci: La Classe Politica), Gaetano Mosca ya takaita wannan gaskiyar da cewa: "Wadanda ke cikin ajin mulki za su fara samun ruhin kungiya. Za su kara zama masu keɓewa da kuma koyon fasahar mallakar, don amfanin kansu, halaye da iyawar da suke da muhimmanci wajen samun mulki da rikewa. Daga karshe, sai karfin da ke da ra'ayin kiyayewa ya bayyana, wato karfin al'ada. Mutane da dama sukan amince su zauna a matsayi kasa, yayin da mambobin wasu iyalai ko azuzuwa masu fifiko ke samun gamsuwa cewa suna da kusan hakkin zama a babban matsayi da umurni." A cikin wannan mahallin, masanin siyasa kuma masanin shari'a dan Faransa Maurice Duverger ya gabatar a cikin littafinsa mai suna "Political Parties" (Faransanci: Les Partis Politiques) cewa dimokuradiyya ba za ta iya zama "gwamnatin jama'a ta hannun jama'a" ba, sai dai "gwamnatin jama'a ta hannun wata ƙungiyar zaɓaɓɓu da ke tasowa daga cikin jama'a." Manyan sukar da masana na Yamma da kansu suka yi wa Dimokuradiyya su ne:

One who follows the Western intellectual movement can observe the existence of a crystallized trend for decades amongst the group of thinkers, about adopting the realistic procedure for ruling. It is a trend of rejecting the theoretical concept of Democracy, after the unrealistic nature of theoretical Democracy became clear. This trend is led by a group of thinkers, amongst them are, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills and others. They adopted the elite theory which is based on the idea of acquisition of power by a minority of the people in society. In the book, Foundations of Modem Sociological Theory (Italian: Elementi di scienza politica), in his essay, “The Ruling Class (Italian: La Classe Politica)” Gaetano Mosca summarizes this reality by saying, “those who belong to the ruling class will begin to acquire a group spirit. They will become more and more exclusive and learn better and better the art of monopolizing to their advantage the qualities and capacities that are essential to acquiring power and holding it. Then, at last, the force that is essentially conservative appears—the force of habit. Many people become resigned to a lowly station, while the members of certain privileged families or classes grow convinced that they have almost an absolute right to high station and command. (Italian: coloro che fanno parte della classe politica vanno acquistando Io spirito di corpo e di esclusivismo ed imparano I'arte di monopolizzare a loro vantaggio le qualita e le attitudini necessarie per arrivare al potere e per mantenerlo : infine, col tempo, si forma la forza conservatrice per eccellenza, quella dell'abitudine, per la quale molti si rassegnano a stare in bassoA ed i membri di cede famiglie o classi privilegiate acquistano la convinzione che per loro e quasi un diritto assoluto Io stare in alto ed il comandare.)” In this context, the French political and legal scholar Maurice Duverger proposes in his essay “Political Parties” (French: Les Partis Politiques) that democracy cannot be “government of the people by the people” but only “government of the people by an elite rising from the people.” The most important criticism levelled at Democracy by Western thinkers themselves are:

1. Zalunci daga bangaren mafiya rinjaye, tare da asarar haƙƙoƙin marasa rinjaye.

1. Oppression by the majority, with loss of minority rights.

2. Hatsarin faɗaɗa ikon ra'ayin jama'a, tun da zabuka da yanke shawarwari suna ƙarƙashin ra'ayin jama'a wanda wasu ƙarfi ke sarrafawa, daga cikin masu ruwa da tsaki da masu neman tasiri (lobbyists).

2. The danger of expanding the power of public opinion, since elections and decisions are subject to public opinion that is controlled by certain powers, from amongst the stakeholders and lobbyists.

3. "Dokar ƙarfe ta oligarchy" wadda ta tanadi mallakar iko da jam'iyyun siyasa a hannun ƙananan ƙungiyoyin 'yan jari-hujja.

3. The "iron law of oligarchy" that stipulates the monopoly of power and political parties, in the hands of a few groupings of capitalists.

Akan lokaci, dimokuradiyya takan koma zama bureaucracy. Yayin da lokaci ke tafiya, dimokuradiyya takan ƙara zama mai sarƙaƙiya, har ta kai ga cewa iko yana kasancewa ne a hannun ƙwararrun ma'aikatan gwamnati kaɗai.

4. Over time, democracy turns into bureaucracy. As time goes by, democracy becomes more and more complex so that the power transpires in the hands of career professionals alone.

Waɗannan wasu daga cikin sukar da masana na Yammacin duniya kansu suka yi wa dimokuraɗiyya. Sai dai yawancinsu ba sa gabatar da madadin ta. Maimakon haka, sun ɗauki dimokuraɗiyya a matsayin ƙa'ida da ba za a iya ko tunanin madadin ta ba. Ɗan siyasar Birtaniya Anthony Birch ya lura da hakan a littafinsa, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. Ta wani ɓangare, Birch ya tabbatar cewa masu rinjaye ba su iya mulki ba, inda ya ce: "Ɗaya daga cikin sahihan kalaman Dahl da yawa game da gwamnatin tarayya shi ne cewa, a babban ɓangare, 'masu rinjayen adadi ba su iya ɗaukar wani aiki da aka daidaita ba. Sassan masu rinjayen adadi ne kawai ke da hanyoyin aiki.'" Duk da haka, a ɗaya ɓangaren kuma, Birch ya ci gaba da nacewa: "Na yi imani cewa dimokuraɗiyyar wakilci ita ce mafi kyawun tsarin gwamnati da aka ƙirƙira zuwa yanzu." Haka nan, mun ga cewa yawancin masana da suke ƙoƙarin bunƙasa hanyoyin dimokuraɗiyya da farfaɗo da ra'ayoyinta da dabi'unta, sun yarda cewa dimokuraɗiyya ce mafi kyau duk da sukar da take fuskanta. A cikin littafinsa, Democracy and Its Critics, Robert Alan Dahl ya goyi bayan dimokuraɗiyya. Ya tabbatar da cewa dimokuraɗiyya tana haɓaka 'yanci ta hanyar rungumar muhimman haƙƙoƙin siyasa da 'yancin ɗan adam, kamar 'yancin faɗin ra'ayi, kuma tana ba da damar "mutane su rayu ƙarƙashin dokokin da suka zaɓa da kansu." Ya yi iƙirarin cewa shigar jama'a cikin siyasa a dimokuraɗiyya yana haifar da kyawawan halaye na "'yancin kai, dogaro da kai, da kishin al'umma." Robert Dahl ya sake tabbatar da tsarin dimokuraɗiyya "a matsayin hanya mafi aminci ta kare da haɓaka alheri da muradun dukkan mutanen da ke ƙarƙashin yanke shawara na gama gari."

These are some of the criticisms directed towards democracy from Western thinkers themselves. However, most of them do not present an alternative. Instead, they deemed democracy as a fixed principle for which one cannot even conceive of an alternative. The British politician Anthony Birch recognized this in his book, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. So on the one hand Birch maintained that the majority is incapable of ruling by saying, One of Dahl’s many accurate comments on the federal government was that, to a large extent, ‘the numerical majority is incapable of undertaking any co­ ordinated action. It is the various components of the numerical majority that have the means for action.’ However, on the other hand Birch still insists “I believe that representative democracy is the best institutional arrangement for government yet devised.” Thus we find many of the thinkers who attempt to develop the procedures of democracy and revive its concepts and values, agreeing that democracy is the best despite strong criticism. In his book, Democracy and Its Critics, Robert Alan Dahl endorses Democracy. He asserts Democracy maximizes freedom by embracing basic political rights and liberties, such as free expression, and allows “persons to live under laws of their own choosing.” He claims that political participation by the public in a democracy fosters the desirable qualities of “independence, self-reliance, and public-spiritedness.” Robert Dahl reaffirms the democratic process “as the most reliable means for protecting and advancing the good and interests of all the persons subject to collective decisions.”.

A bayyana daga abin da ya gabata cewa masana falsafar Yamma da kansu sun yi nazari a kan ra'ayin Dimokuradiyya, suka soki ta, suna nuna kurakuranta bisa ga fahimtarsu. Duk da haka, matsayarsu ɗaya da suka cimma ita ce cewa Dimokuradiyya ita ce mafi kyawun abin da hankalin ɗan adam ya ƙirƙira wajen mulki, kuma babu wani madadin ta.

It is clear from the above that Western thinkers themselves examined the idea of Democracy and criticized it, pointing out its flaws according to their perceptions. Despite that, their unanimous consensus is that Democracy is the best thing created by the human mind in ruling and that there is no alternative for it.

A zahiri, idan aka duba zurfi cikin hakikanin dimokuradiyya kamar yadda Yammacin duniya ke fahimtarta, za a ga cewa kalmar dimokuradiyya a gare su tana wakiltar girma biyu: girma ta hankali da wayewa, da kuma girma ta siyasa.

In fact, a deep look into the reality of democracy as perceived by the West shows us that the word democracy for them symbolizes two dimensions: an intellectual, civilizational dimension and a political dimension.

Dangane da mataki na farko, shi ne tsarin dabi'u wanda ke tsara dabi'un Yammaci da ra'ayoyinsa game da rayuwa, kamar 'yanci, daidaito, bambancin ra'ayi da sakulanci, da sauransu. Tsari ne na siyasa wanda ya kunshi gungun ra'ayoyin wayewa da Yammacin duniya ya karɓa, waɗanda Turawan yamma ke amincewa da su sosai. A cikin littafinsa, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama ya bayyana cewa: "A ƙarshen tarihi, babu sauran abokan hamayya masu tsanani na akida ga dimokuraɗiyya mai 'yanci. A baya, mutane sun ƙi dimokuraɗiyya mai 'yanci saboda sun yi imani cewa ta fi mulkin sarauta, na masu manyan gidaje, na addini, na fashisanci, ko na mulkin kama-karya na gurguzu ƙasa, ko kuma wata akidar da suka yi imani da ita. Amma yanzu, a wajen duniyar Musulunci, akwai alama ta gaba ɗaya da ke karɓar da'awar dimokuraɗiyya mai 'yanci cewa ita ce mafi hankali cikin tsarin mulki." Haka kuma, a cikin littafinsa, Tsarin Siyasar Yammaci (Faransanci: Les regimes politiques occidentaux), Jean-Louis Quermonne ya bayyana cewa: "A matsayin ka'idar halascin mulki, dimokuraɗiyyar Yammaci ba sabuwar ra'ayi ba ce. Ita gado ce daga wayewar da ta riga ta: birnin Girka da jamhuriyar Roma. Bayan an kwace ta na ƙarnuka da daulolin sarauta, da ubangidanci da sarakuna masu cikakken iko, bayan ta kusan ɓacewa, bayan 'yan shekaru a lokacin Yaƙin Duniya na Biyu, don amfanin gwamnatocin kama-karya, a yau ba a ƙara jayayya da ita ba." (Faransanci: En tant que principe de legitimite, la democratie occidentale n'est pas une idee neuve. Elle est heritiere des civilisations qui l'ont precedee: la cite grecque et la Rome republicaine. Et, apres avoir ete supplantee pendant des siecles par des empires, des seigneuries et des monarchies absolues, apres avoir failli disparaitre, apres quelques decennies de fonctionnement, pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, au profit des regimes totalitaires, elle n'est plus contestee aujourd'hui.) Saboda haka, dole ne a yi nazarin dimokuraɗiyya daga wannan mahanga, a matsayin gungun ra'ayoyi da dabi'u ko babban burin rayuwa. Wannan yana cikin nazarin tushen wayewa da Yammacin duniya ta karɓa, wanda kuma a kansa ne aka kafa tsarin siyasar Dimokuraɗiyya.

As for the first dimension, it is the value system that frames the Western values and its concepts about life such as freedom, equality, pluralism and secularism, amongst others. It is the political framework comprising a group of civilizational concepts adopted by the West, endorsed emphatically by the Westerners. In his book, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama asserted, “At the end of history, there are no serious ideological competitors left to liberal democracy. In the past, people rejected liberal democracy because they believed that it was inferior to monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy, fascism, communist totalitarianism, or whatever ideology they happened to believe in. But now, outside the Islamic world, there appears to be a general consensus that accepts liberal democracy's claims to be the most rational form of government.” Whilst, in his book, The Western Political Systems (French: Les regimes politiques occidentaux) Jean-Louis Quermonne asserted that “As a principle of legitimacy, Western democracy is not a new idea. It is the heir to the civilizations that preceded it: the Greek city and Rome republic. After being supplanted for centuries by empires, lordships and monarchies absolute, after having almost disappeared, after a few decades during the Second World War, for the benefit of totalitarian regimes, it is no longer contested today. (French: En tant que principe de legitimite, la democratie occidentale n’est pas une idee neuve. Elie est heritiere des civilisations qui I’ont precedee: la cite grecque et la Rome republicaine. Et, apres avoir ete supplantee pendant des siecles par des empires, des seigneuries et des monarchies absolues, apres avoir failli disparaftre, apres quelques decennies de fonctionnement, pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, au profit des regimes totalitaires, elle n’est plus contestee aujourd’hui.) Thus, Democracy must be studied from this angle, as a group of concepts and values or the primary ideal about life. This falls within the study of the civilizational foundations adopted by the West and upon which Democracy's political entity is established.

Girma na biyu yana da alaƙa da kimanta dimokuraɗiyya a matsayin tsarin mulki mafi daraja ko mafi kyau ko mafi dacewa da za a iya samu, kamar yadda Turawan Yamma suke iƙirari. Waɗanda suke goyon bayan wannan ra'ayi ba sa duba tsarin wayewar al'umma, watau ra'ayoyinta, dabi'unta ko akidarta, waɗanda ra'ayoyinsu ke fuskantar sauyi ko bambanci ko sabani. Suna duba tsarin dimokuraɗiyya ne kawai, ko ma'anarta ta zahiri, ba tare da duba wasu al'amura ba. Saboda haka, suna kallon dimokuraɗiyya a matsayin tsarin siyasa da ke shirya al'amarin mulki a kowace ƙasa, da kuma daidaita harkokin siyasa na kowace al'umma. Wannan magana, a gaskiya, tana da alaƙa da abin da ake kira "yarjejeniyar zamantakewa" a cikin kalmominsu, wadda ake ɗauka a matsayin asalin al'amuran siyasa. Wannan magana tana bayyana gazawar tunanin Yammacin Duniya a matakin siyasa da na ilimi, da kuskurensa, tun daga lokacin da aka kafa shi.

As for the second dimension, it is related to evaluating democracy as the most superior or optimal or the best possible system, as the Westerners claim. Those who agree with this angle do not look into the civilizational composition i.e. its concepts, values or ideology whose views are subject to change or difference or contradiction. They only look into democracy's composition or the abstract meaning of the idea, without looking into any other matters. Thus, they look into democracy as a political system that organizes the matter of ruling in any state, regulating the political issues of any society. This subject is, in fact, related to the so-called social contract, in their words, which is considered as the origin of political matters. This subject reveals the shortcomings of the Western mind at the political and intellectual level and its errors, right from the moment of its establishment.

Don haka mutum, ta hanyar kasancewarsa ɗan adam ko mutum ɗaya, dangane da rayuwarsa a duniyar nan, shi ɗan siyasa ne wanda yake shiga cikin siyasa kuma siyasa tana shafarsa, domin yana kula da al'amuransa, ko al'amuran waɗanda suke ƙarƙashin kulawarsa, ko al'amuran al'umma. Kula da al'amuran al'umma ko jama'a ko ƙungiyar da wannan mutum na siyasa yake ciki yana wajabta masa yin la'akari da batun mulki.

Thus a man by virtue of being a human or an individual, in terms of living a life in this world, is a politician who both engages in politics and is affected by it, because he takes care of his own affairs, or the affairs of those who are under his responsibility, or the affairs of a nation. Taking care of the affairs of a nation or people or a group in which this political man belongs to obliges him to consider the issue of ruling.

Tsarin kula da harkokin jama'a yana zuwa ne ta hanyar wata hukuma ta siyasa ko kuma ta jiha kawai. Haka lamarin yake ko da an duba ma'anarta da kuma wanda ke kira zuwa kafa ta. Jiha tana kafuwa ne bisa wani tsari wanda ke bayyana sifofinta, na'urorinta, tsarinta da cibiyoyinta, da kuma tunani, ra'ayoyi da ma'aunai na kula da harkoki, tare da dokokin tsarin mulki da za a aiwatar, da sauran al'amuran da ke cikin mulki. Wannan ana kiransa tsarin siyasa ko tsarin mulki.

The process of taking care of the affairs comes through a political entity or a state alone. This is so regardless of looking into its definition and the one who calls for its establishment. The state is founded upon a system that defines its forms, apparatus, structures and institutions, as well as the thoughts, concepts and criteria to take care of the affairs, alongside constitutional laws to be implemented and other matters that fall within ruling. This is called the political system or ruling system.

Tunanin mutum game da tsarin mulki, wanda a aikace yake ba shi damar kula da al'amuran rayuwa, an tsara shi ne cikin tambayoyi uku: Da me za a yi mulki? Wane ne mai mulki? Ta yaya mai mulki yake mulki?

Man’s conception of the ruling system, which practically enables him to take care of the affairs, is actually framed within three questions: With what to be ruled? Who is the ruler? How does the ruler rule?

Game ta yaya ake yin hukunci da shi kuwa, to yanayin da ya dace shi ne hukunci ta hanyar mabiya wata akida da wata jama'a ta karɓa. Saboda haka aikin shugaba ko gwamnati shi ne aiwatar da ko amfani da jerin ra'ayoyi, ma'auni da imani da jama'ar ta amince da su. Ana gabatar da wannan batu ga shugaba da waɗanda ake mulka tun bayan kafuwar ƙasa. Ba a sake duba wannan gabatarwa a duk lokacin zabe ko kuri'ar raba gardama ko zaman majalisa ko duba manufofi. Don haka ba a sake gabatar da ita sai dai a sharadi ɗaya, wato idan tsarin da ya gabata ya rushe kuma akwai niyyar canji. Wannan sharaɗi ɗaya shi ne halin sabuwar kafuwa. Bisa wannan, ƙasar Yamma, duk da sunanta, sigarta da tsarinta, an kafa ta ne bisa wasu takamaiman tunani da ra'ayoyi da ake ɗauka a matsayin tabbatattu, ba tare da la'akari da sauyinsu ba. Haka nan kuma ƙasar Musulunci, Daular Khalifanci, an kafa ta ne bisa wasu takamaiman tunani da ra'ayoyi dabam-dabam, waɗanda ba tunani da ra'ayoyin Yamma ba ne. Don haka, kasancewar tsari ya dogara ne bisa akida, da kuma ƙayyade abin da za a yi hukunci da shi, ba alama ce ta musamman da ke bambanta tsarin mulkin Yamma da sauran tsarin mulki ba.

As for what to be ruled with, the natural case is that there is ruling by an ideology that is accepted by a group of people. Accordingly, the role of the ruler or the government is to implement or apply the group of concepts, criteria and convictions adopted by the group. This matter is proposed to both the ruler and ruled once the state is established. This proposal is not reviewed upon every election or referendum or parliamentary session or policy consideration. So it is not newly proposed except in one condition, which is when the previous system falls and there exists a will to change. So the one condition is the case of a new establishment. Accordingly, the Western state, regardless of its name, form and model, was established upon specific thoughts and concepts that are deemed to be fixed, with no consideration for their change. This is just like the Islamic state, the Khilafah (Caliphate) State that was established upon differing specific thoughts and concepts, that are not the Western thoughts and concepts. Thus, being established upon an ideology, specifying what to be ruled with, is not in itself a distinguishing characteristic of the Western ruling system, making it distinct from other ruling systems.

Ba za a iya cewa a nan cewa bambancin Yammacin duniya yana cikin yanayin mutumin Yamma ba, wanda ke bayyana ikonsa na kansa ta hanyar yanke shawarinsa kan ra'ayoyi da dabi'un mulki, don haka yake zaɓar abin da za a yi mulki da shi, kuma shi da kansa yake yin dokokinsa. Ba za a iya cewa haka ba, domin maudu'in da ake magana a kai a nan ba ya da alaƙa da tushen mulki. Maimakon haka, maudu'in yana da alaƙa da kasancewar tunane-tunane da ra'ayoyi game da mulki. Don haka kamar yadda Yamma take da akida da take mulki da ita, sauran al'ummomi ma suna da wasu akidun da suke mulki da su, ba tare da la'akari da tushensu ba. Saboda haka babu bambanci a tsakaninsu ta wannan fuska. Bambancin yana bayyana ne kawai idan aka yi nazarin tushen mulki, ta fuskar gaskiya, inganci da kyawun akidar. Wannan batu ba shi da muhimmanci a nan ta fuskar nazari, kodayake mun taɓa duba wani ɓangare nasa a baya, kuma za mu ƙara tattaunawa a kansa a maudu'in Wayewar Yammacin Duniya da ke tafe. Abin da ake nazari a nan shi ne amsar tambaya: da me ake mulkar mutum? Dukkan tsarin siyasa da bil'adama ya sani suna amsa wannan tambaya ba tare da togiya ba. Wannan yana nufin cewa tunanin siyasar Yamma, wanda ya yi imani da tsarin dimokuraɗiyya, ba shi da bambanci daga wannan fuska.

It cannot be said here that the Western distinctiveness lies in the nature of Western man, who expresses his own sovereignty by his own determination of concepts and values of ruling, so he chooses what is to be ruled with and he himself legislates his laws. This cannot be said because the subject here is not related to the source of ruling. Instead, the subject is related to the existence of the thoughts and concepts regarding ruling. So just as the West has an ideology to rule with, others also have other ideologies to rule with, regardless of their sources. So there is no distinction between them from this perspective. Instead, the distinction appears only when studying the source of ruling, in terms of the truthiness, validity and goodness of the ideology. This issue is not relevant here in terms of study, whilst we have looked at some of it before and we discuss further in the subject of Western Civilization to come. The subject of study here is the answer to the question: with what is man to be ruled? All the political systems known by humankind answer this question without exception. This means the Western political thought, believing in the democratic system, is not distinct from this perspective.

Ba za a iya cewa ba tsarin mulkin dimokuraɗiyya na Yamma ya bambanta da cewa yana da ra'ayoyi iri-iri, yana tabbatar da adawa da rashin bin ra'ayin da ya saba da shi, yana ba da damar al'adu da akidu da dama su wanzu. Ba za a iya cewa haka ba, domin dai ra'ayin Yamma na bambancin ra'ayi yana cikin iyakokin akidarsa kawai. Don haka Yamma ba ta karɓar wata fahimta daga wajen akidarta da za ta yi tasiri a cikin al'umma, kuma ba ta karɓar ra'ayoyin da suka saɓa wa akidarta. Saboda haka, Yamma ta yi yaƙi da jam'iyyun gurguzu a baya, kuma tana ci gaba da yaƙi da abin da ake kira siyasar Musulunci, tana siffanta shi da ta'addanci, tsattsauran ra'ayi da fundamentalism. Don haka bambancin ra'ayi ne na zahiri, ba na gaskiya ba cikakke.

It cannot also be said that the Western democratic ruling system is distinguished by pluralism, guaranteeing non-conformity and exclusivity, allowing multiple cultures and ideologies to exist. This cannot be said, because Western pluralism is pluralism within the confines of its ideology alone. So the West neither accepts any idea from outside of its ideology to influence the society, nor does the West accept concepts that are contradictory to its ideology. Accordingly, the West fought with communist parties in the past and is continues to fight the so-called political Islam, depicting it as terrorism, radicalism and fundamentalism. Thus it is a formal pluralism and not actual pluralism in an absolute sense.

Idan abin da ake nufi da pluralism shi ne bambancin ra'ayoyi, fahimta, tsare-tsare da fahimtar hankali da siyasa a cikin iyakokin akida guda, to babu wani keɓantacce a tunanin Yamma daga wannan mahangar. Irin wannan pluralism yana wanzuwa a wasu tsarin kuma, kamar tsarin mulkin Musulunci.

If what is intended by pluralism is the difference in views, perceptions, projects and intellectual and political understandings within the confines of the same ideology, then there is no distinctiveness in the Western thought from this perspective. Such pluralism also exists in other systems, such as the Islamic ruling system.

Har ila yau, akwai batun duba batun bambancin ra'ayi ta hanyar duba abin da ake kira marasa rinjaye, haqqoqinsu da wajibansu, a cikin fannoni biyu na zamantakewa, na sirri da na jama'a, wanda aka ambata a cikin ilimin siyasa da zamantakewa na Yamma. Ana ikirarin cewa dimokuraxiyya ta zamani ta bambanta da barin sirri da bambancin ra'ayi a fagen sirri, yayin da a fagen jama'a ana tafiya da ƙa'idoji na gama-gari wanda kowa yake bi. Idan wannan shi ne abin da ake nufi da cewa bambancin ra'ayi siffa ce ta musamman, to wannan ma kuskure ne saboda dalilai biyu. Dalili na farko yana daga mahangar aiki. Ƙasar Yamma a yau tana sanya ra'ayoyinta da dabi'unta har a fagen sirri. Tana sa ido kan Musulmai, matasa da tsofaffi, tana riqe su da alhakin kowane tunani, tana yi musu tambayoyi bisa al'adunta da wayewarta, kuma tana tilasta musu shiga cikin wayewarta. Wannan yana nesa da abin da ake ikirarin cewa bambancin ra'ayi ne. Dalili na biyu kuwa yana daga mahangar ka'idar wannan ra'ayi, wato bambanci tsakanin biyayya a fagen jama'a ga ƙa'idoji na gama-gari, da rayuwa bisa addinai da akidu daban-daban a fagen sirri. Wannan bambancin yana nan a tsarin Musulunci ma. Don haka babu wani abu na musamman game da dimokuraxiyya a wannan fanni. Haka kuma, ra'ayin Dhimma (kare 'yan ƙasa waɗanda ba Musulmai ba) wanda Musulunci ya wajabta, tunani ne da tsari wanda ya fi girma, ya fi adalci, kuma ya fi kyau wajen tabbatar da haqqoqi, fiye da ra'ayin Yamma na marasa rinjaye.

Then there is the matter of considering pluralism by looking at so-called minorities, their rights and their duties, within two societal domains, the private and the public, a classification mentioned in Western political and social sciences. It is claimed that modern democracy is distinguished by allowing privacy and diversity in the private domain, whilst in public domain, it is controlled by general principles that everyone adheres to. If this is what is intended by pluralism being a distinguishing feature, then this is also is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is from a practical perspective. The Western state today is imposing its concepts and values even in the private domain. It monitors Muslims both young and old, holding them accountable for every thought, interrogating according to its culture and civilization and forcing them to integrate into its civilization. This is far from what is claimed to be pluralism. As for the second reason, it is from the theoretical perspective of the idea, the difference between submission within the public domain to general principles, whilst living according to differing religions and convictions in the private domain. This distinctiveness is also found in the Islamic system. So there is nothing unique about Democracy in this regard. Moreover, the concept of Dhimma (protecting the non-Muslim citizens) mandated by Islam is a thought and procedure which is superior, fairer and better in securing rights than the Western concept of minorities.

Game da wanda ke mulki da yadda yake mulki, masana falsafar siyasa da masana zamantakewa a Yamma, waɗanda suka yi bincike kan batun mulki da tsarinsa, sun duba tarihin siyasar ɗan Adam da gaskiyarsa, suka ƙidaya nau'o'in mulki da samfuran shugabanci. Don haka suka raba tsarin mulkin da ɗan Adam ya sani, bisa ra'ayinsu, zuwa rarrabuwa daban-daban, bisa ga ƙa'idodin da aka ɗauka wajen mulki. Yawancinsu an gāda su ne daga Helenawa. Taƙaitawa dai shi ne: tsarin ko dai yana karɓar mutane a matsayin cancanta su yi mulki, ko kuma bai karɓa ba.

As for the matter of who rules and how he rules, the political thinkers and sociologists in the West who addressed the issue of ruling and its system, looked into human political history and its reality, enumerating the forms of ruling and the models of leadership. So they divided the ruling systems known by man, according to their view, into various classifications, according to the criteria taken in the ruling. Most of them were inherited from the Greeks. The summary is, the system either accepts people as eligible to rule or not.

Dangane da tsarin da ba sa amincewa da cancantar mutane wajen mulki, sun haɗa da, a cikin wasu: meritocracy - mulkin masu basira, ƙoƙari da nasara; oligarchy - mulkin ƙaramin adadin mutane saboda amfanin kansu; aristocracy - mulkin ƙaramin ajin masu gata, wato masu sarauta da manyan mutane; autocracy - mulkin mutum ɗaya; theocracy - mulkin manyan malamai na addini bisa izinin Allah. Amma tsarin da ya dogara da haƙƙin mutane na yin mulki, ko kuma bisa akidar ikon jama'a, yana tabbatar da cancantar jama'a wajen tantance mulki, shi ne tsarin dimokuraɗiyya. A cewar Bature, dimokuraɗiyya ita ce kaɗai tsarin da ke cikin wannan rarrabuwa wanda ya kamata a ɗauka mafi kyau da mafi dacewa.

As for the systems that do not accept people as eligible to rule, they include, amongst others; meritocracy - rule of those of talent, effort, and achievement, oligarchy - ruling by a small number of people for the sake of their benefit, aristocracy - ruling by a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats and the autocracy- rule of a single individual, theocracy - the rule of religious elites with divine sanction. As for the system based on the right of ruling for the people or based on the ideology of the sovereignty of the people, asserting the eligibility of the people to determine the ruling, it is the democratic system. According to the Westerner, democracy is the only system within the classification, that is to be considered the best and optimal.

Sannan akwai waɗansu masana na Yamma waɗanda suke rarraba tsarin mulki bisa ka'idojin shari'a, kamar yadda ake gudanar da mulki, hanyar da ake bi wajen samun iko, gwamnatin da take tafiyar da mulki, da kuma irin tsarin iko da ake aiwatarwa wanda ake iya tattaunawa a kansa. Bisa wannan, ana raba tsarin mulki zuwa manyan rukuni uku: na kama-karya (totalitarian), na mulkin kama-karya-na-wani-iyaka (authoritarian) da kuma na dimokuraɗiyya. A cewar masana na Yamma, dimokuraɗiyya koyaushe kuma har abada ana sanya ta a matsayin abin koyi, sabanin nau'o'in mulkin kama-karya masu muni.

Then there are those Western thinkers who classify the systems according to legal standards such as, governance, the method of achieving the power, the ruling administration and model of power that is exercised and subject to negotiation. Accordingly, the systems are then classified into three main groups, the totalitarian, the authoritarian regime and the democratic. According to the Western thinkers, democracy is always and forever placed as an ideal, against awful authoritarian models.

Bayan an ba mutum ikon mallakar hukunci, domin ya tsara tsarinsa da dokokinsa da kansa, sai duniyar Yammacin da ba ta yarda da addini ba ta ba shi haƙƙin iko, don haka ta ba shi zaɓi na zaɓen shugaba ta hanyar zaɓe. Ta haka Turawan Yamma sun haɗa dukkan sassan hukunce-hukunce tare, ba tare da bambance tsakanin mallakar hukunci, iko da mulki ba. Sun takaita nazari yana zagaye da abu guda ɗaya kawai, kamar yadda suke ganinsa. Sun yi sakaci da duba yiwuwar bambance-bambance da rabuwa, ko kasancewar tsare-tsare daban-daban kuma mabambanta. Maimakon haka, sun maida dimokuraɗiyya ma'auni na nagarta ga dukkan tsarin siyasa. Wannan ra'ayi na son zuciya ne, kamar yadda su kansu suka yarda. Saboda haka ba shi da tushe na gaskiya, yana da son kai, na sama-sama ne, kuma ba shi da zurfin tunani da fahimta madaidaiciya game da hakikanin mulki.

After conferring the right of sovereignty to man, so as to determine his system and legislation himself, the secular West confers the right of authority upon him, so it gives him a choice to choose the ruler through elections. Thus the Westerners intertwined all the components of rulings, without differentiating between sovereignty, authority and power. They limited the study to revolving around a single agenda point, as they perceive it. They neglected to notice either the possibility of differentiation and separation, or the existence of systems that are different and distinct. Instead they made democracy a criteria of goodness for all political systems. This view is subjective, as they themselves admit. It is also therefore not objective, partial and superficial, lacking intellectual depth and the correct understanding of the reality of ruling.

A cewar su, ana amfani da kalmar sarauta (sovereignty) da ma'anar cewa mutum yana da radin kansa yana kuma amfani da shi, don haka shi ne yake zaɓar wanda zai mulke shi da kuma abin da zai yi mulki da shi. Mutum ne zai ƙayyade dokokinsa da tsarinsa, ya kafa waɗannan dokoki, kuma ya zaɓi wanda zai aiwatar da su. Idan ma'anar "mutum" a nan ita ce mutum gabaɗaya ko jinsinsa, wato dukan ɗan Adam, to irin wannan sarauta a zahiri tana ga mutum, a cewarsu. Wanda ke kafa doka kuma ya zaɓi shugaba a Yamma shi ne ɗan Adam. Sai dai idan ma'anar "mutum" ita ce mutum a matsayinsa na ɗaya-ɗaya, wato ma'anar da suke nufi a zahiri, ta yadda kowane mutum ya zama shugaban kansa, to irin wannan sarautar ba ta wanzuwa a Yamma. Wannan saboda tsarin Yamma da dokokinsu ana gabatar da su ne ta hannun wata ƙungiya ko wasu mutane kaɗan cikin ɗan Adam, ba ta hannun dukkan daidaikun mutane tare ba. Hakikanin abin da ake gani a Yammacin duniya mai bin dimokuraɗiyya shi ne cewa gwamnati, ko wata hukuma, ko majalisa ta ƙananan mutane ce ke tsara dokoki. Daga nan sai a kafa su a matsayin dokoki masu ɗaurewa da duk daidaikun mutane ke biyayya a kansu.

Sovereignty, according to them, is used in the sense that man possesses his will and exercises it, so he chooses who the ruler is and what he rules with. Man is to determine his laws and systems, legislate those laws and choose the one who implements them. If the meaning of Man is to mean Man generally or his kind, the whole of humanity, then such sovereignty does practically belong to Man, according to them. The one who legislates and chooses the ruler in the West is of humankind. However, as for meaning man with his characterization of being an individual, which is their actual intended meaning, such that each man is a master of himself, then such sovereignty is non-existence in the West. This is because Western systems and legislations are put forward by a grouping or few within humankind. They are not put forward by all individuals collectively. The practical reality of the democratic West is that the legislations are set by a government, a body or a council of a few individuals. Then they are enacted as binding laws to which all the individuals submit.

Saboda haka, ra'ayin ikon mulki (sovereignty) kamar yadda suke tunaninsa bai dace da ainihin yadda mulki ke gudana a tsakaninsu ba, duk da cewa suna nace wa wannan fahimta. Ainihin abin da ke faruwa a dukkan mulkin duniya shi ne akwai mai mulki da kuma wanda ake mulka. Mulki yana hannun mutum guda ko kuma wata ƙungiya ta mutane. Ba zai yiwu dukkan mutane su zama masu mulki da masu mulkuwa a lokaci guda ba. Saboda haka, babu wani abu da ake kira ikon mulkin jama'a bisa ma'anar ikon mulkin kowane mutum daban-daban. Ikon mulki zai iya kasancewa ga wani takamaiman mutum ko kuma ga wata ƙungiyar mutane, waɗanda ke aiwatar da nufinsu ta hanyar tsara dokoki da doka ga waɗanda ake mulka. Ko kuma ikon mulki zai iya kasancewa ga Mahalicci, Maɗaukaki, ta yadda dokoki da tsare-tsare za su samu asali daga Wahayin Allah kaɗai, ba tare da wani zaɓi ba. Sai dai, Yammacin duniya na zamani, saboda tsohuwar rikicinsa da Cocin Kirista, da kuma gwajin da ya yi da tsarin mulkin tiyokuraɗiyya wanda ya yi amfani da ra'ayin haƙƙin Allah wajen sarrafa mutane, ya makantar da hangen Yammacin duniya. Saboda haka Yammacin duniya ya ƙi bautar mutum ga Mahaliccinsa, ya kuma karɓi bautar mutane ga wasu mutane, yana kiran hakan ikon mulki.

Thus the concept of sovereignty as they conceive does not match the reality of ruling amongst them, even though they insist upon this understanding. The reality of all the ruling in this world is that there is both the ruler and the ruled. Ruling is in the hand of an individual or a group of people. All the people cannot be both the ruler and the ruled simultaneously. Accordingly, there is no such thing as sovereignty of the people by the meaning of sovereignty of all individuals. Sovereignty can either belong to a specific individual or a group of individuals, who exercise their will by determining legislation and laws for the ruled, or it can belong to the Creator, the Almighty so that the laws and legislations are derived from the Divine Revelation alone, without any other choice. However, the secular West, with its historical conflict with the Christian Church, and its experimentation with theocratic ruling systems that controlled people by the conception of divine right, blinded the insight of the West. So the West refused the servitude of man to his Creator and accepted the servitude of men to other men, calling sovereignty.

Da zarar mutum ya tabbatar da tsarin da ke mulkin dangantakarsa, tushen tsarin da kuma doka, wato abin da za a yi mulki da shi, sai ya kai ga batun nazari kan wanda zai aiwatar da shi. Wannan shi ne batun wanda ke mulki a cikinsa. Tunda al'umma ba za ta iya aiwatar da wannan ba tare da hadin kai, sai a damka aikin ga wasu mutane a madadin jama'a, domin su aiwatar da shi, bisa zabinsu da yardarsu. Wannan ita ce ma'anar iko ko mulki da yake na al'umma ko kasa. Haka kuma, wannan ma'ana ba ta keebanta ga dimokuradiyya ko ta sa ta zama ta musamman ba. Maimakon haka, irin wannan fahimtar iko tana nan a wasu tsare-tsare kuma. Hakika, ita ce ginshikin tsarin mulki na Musulunci, domin an bayyana Khilafah a matsayin yarjejeniya ta yarda da zabi. Wannan saboda Khilafah tana kasancewa ne bisa Bay'ah (mubaya'a) ta biyayya da ake bai wa wanda yake da hakkin a yi masa biyayya, daga cikin wadanda aka dora wa mulki. Dole ne a samu yarjejeniya a kan wanda ake ba wa Bay'ah domin ya karbi mulki, da kuma kan wadanda ke ba da Bay'ah. Ko da yake Yamma tana ba al'umma iko daga fannin ka'ida, ta hanyar cewa mutane ne ke zaben shugabansu ta hanyar zabe mai 'yanci da adalci, kamar yadda suke fadi, hakikanin abin da ke faruwa a zahiri ya nuna cewa zaben shugaba da al'umma ke yi a Yamma zabi ne na suna kawai, ba na hakika ba. Wannan saboda a zahiri masu dukiya mai yawa, attajirai da masu karfi, su ne ainihin masu yanke shawarar wanda zai zama shugaba. Su kadai ne suke tsara da jagorantar tsarin zabe da hanyoyinsa masu sarkakiya. Su kadai ne suke iya yin tasiri a ra'ayin jama'a, suna karkatar da shi zuwa ga zaben wanda suke so. Su kadai ne suke iya daukar nauyin yakin neman zabe mafi tsada. Lamari ne da kowa ya sani kuma yake gani. Don haka Yamma ba ta ba al'umma iko ba daga fannin hakika. Maimakon haka, iko yana hannun wasu 'yan tsiraru masu tasiri da suke bautar da al'umma. Haka kuma Yammacin duniya ba ta tabbatar da cewa iko yana hannun jama'a ba. Maimakon haka, iko yana hannun wasu ƙananan ƙungiyoyi na mutane masu tasiri. Don haka, a bayyane yake cewa mutanen Yammacin duniya bayi ne, domin ba su zama shugabanni na kansu ba a matsayin daidaikun mutane, kuma ba su mallaki iko na gaskiya ba. Duk da haka, masu tasiri sun iya yaudarar jama'a, suna ruɗar da su ta hanyar shawo kansu cewa su ne shugabanni kuma masu iko! Dangane da yadda mai mulki yake mulki, wannan tambaya tana da alaƙa da abubuwa biyu. Abu na farko shi ne yadda yake samun iko ko mulki, na biyu kuma shi ne yadda yake tafiyar da al'amuran mulki.

Once man affirms the system that governs his relationship, the source of the system and legislation, defining what to be ruled with, he will then naturally move to the subject of study as to who implements it. That is the subject of who rules within it. Since the people are not able to collectively perform this implementation, it is delegated to some individuals on behalf of the collective, to undertake implementation, with their choice and consent. This is the meaning of power or authority belonging to a people or a nation. Again, this meaning is not unique to democracy or makes it distinct. Instead, such a conception of authority is also found in other systems. Indeed, it is the core of the Islamic ruling system, as the Khilafah is defined as a contract of consent and choice. This is because the Khilafah is upon the Bay’ah (pledge) of obedience given to the one who has the right to be obeyed, from amongst those charged with authority. There must be consensus both over the one to whom Bay’ah to assume power is given, as well as over those who give the Bay’ah. Although the West confers authority to the people from a theoretical perspective, as people are the ones who choose their ruler through free and fair elections, as they say, the practical reality indicates that the choice of the ruler by the people in the West is a choice, nominally and not in reality. That is because in reality the owners of immense capital wealth, the rich and the powerful, are the ones who really decide who the ruler is. They alone determine and direct complex electoral systems and procedures. They alone are capable of influencing public opinion, directing it to elect whoever they want. They alone are capable of funding the costliest electoral campaigns. It is a matter known and witnessed by everyone. So the West did not give sovereignty to people from a practical perspective. Instead, sovereignty belongs to a few grouping of the influential who enslave the people. Similarly, the West did not ensure authority belongs to the people. Instead, authority is in the hands of few grouping of the influential. So, it is clear that people in the West are enslaved, as they neither are masters for themselves on an individual basis, nor do they possess actual authority. However, the influential were able to manipulate the people, deceiving them by convincing them that they are the masters and people of authority! As for how the ruler rules, this question is related to two matters. The matter of how he arrives at authority or ruling and how he manages the affairs of ruling.

Dangane da hanyar da ake samun mulki, akwai salo iri-iri, kamar zabe, nadi, gado, kwace mulki ta karfi, da sauransu. A yau, al'adun mutane sun daidaita kan ganin cewa zabe shi ne salo mafi kyau. Shi ne salon da ake bi a Yamma. Duk da kuskuren aiwatarwa da tsarin mulkin Musulunci ya fuskanta a tsawon tarihi, salon zabe yana cikin salon da ya dace da Musulunci. An aiwatar da salon a aikace wajen zaben Khulafaa' (halifofi) bisa ga hanyoyin da suka yiwu a lokacin. Saboda haka, dimokuradiyya ba ta da wani salo na zabe na musamman ko banbanci wajen zaben shugaba. Maimakon haka, salon zabe yana tare da sauran tsarin mulki. Kebantacce da banbancin dimokuradiyya yana cikin ra'ayinta kan yadda ake tafiyar da al'amuran mulki, ta hanyar fahimtarta game da ma'anar shugabanci.

In relation to how the power is arrived at, it has many styles such as voting, appointment, inheritance, usurpation of power and others. Today, people’s customs have settled to consider that the election is the best style. It is the style followed in the West. Regardless of the misimplementation witnessed by the Islamic ruling system over a period of history, the election style is amongst the styles that accords with Islam. The style had been practically implemented to choose Khulafaa’ (caliphs) according to the possible procedures of that time. Accordingly, democracy is neither unique nor distinct in style of election to choose the ruler. Instead, the style of elections is common with other ruling systems. The uniqueness and distinctiveness of democracy lies in its view of how to manage the affairs of rulings, through its perception about the concept of leadership.

A cikin ra'ayin Yammaci, shugabanci an raba shi zuwa tsare-tsare uku. Na farko, shugabancin dimokuradiyya wanda ke karfafa tare da barin kungiya ta shiga cikin dukkan yanke shawara. Na biyu, shugabancin kama-karya ko mulkin kama-karya wanda ake yanke shawara ta hannun wani azzalumi guda daya. Na uku, shugabancin rashin hukuma wanda ke barin mambobin kungiya su tafiyar da al'amuransu su kuma yanke shawarwari da kansu. Bisa wadannan rarrabuwa, sun ce shugabancin dimokuradiyya, shugabancin gama-gari, shi ne mafi kyawun tsarin shugabanci. Wannan ra'ayi ba daidai ba ne saboda dalilai guda biyu.

Leadership in the Western view is classified into three models. Firstly, democratic leadership that encourages and allows the participation of a group in all the decisions. Secondly, authoritarian leadership or autocratic leadership in which decisions are made by an individual tyrant. Thirdly, anarchic leadership that allows members of the group to manage their affairs and take decisions by themselves. Based on these divisions, they say that democratic leadership, the collective leadership, is the best model of leadership. This concept is wrong for two reasons.

Da farko, yana da kuskure daga mahangar gaskiya da aiki. Abin da ake kira jagoranci na gama-gari ba ya wanzuwa. Gaskiyar mulki shi ne cewa a ƙarshe yana hannun mutum ɗaya, abin da Turawan Yamma ma suka sani kuma suke gani a cikin ƙasashensu, ko mutum shugaban jamhuriya ne ko firaministan dimokuradiyyar majalisa. Idan ya karɓi mulki, yana ɗora iko da kansa daidaiku, har dukkan iko ya koma hannun firaminista ko shugaban ƙasa, yayin da sauran mutanen iko suka zama mataimaka, ma'aikata ko masu ba da shawara.

It is firstly wrong from the realistic, practical perspective. So-called collective leadership does not exist. The reality of ruling is that it is ultimately in the hands of a single person, which the Westerners know and witness even in the West itself, whether one is the president of the republic or the prime minister of the parliamentary democracy. When he assumes ruling, he imposes authority himself individually, such that all authority comes under the hands of the prime minister or president, whilst the remaining people of authority become assistants, employees or consultants.

Misali, hukuncin a zahiri yana hannun shugaban ƙasa a Amurka, kamar yadda yake hannun firayim ministoci a Ingila da Jamus. Ko da shugabancin gama-gari da Lenin ya kawo wa gurguzawa a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, shugabanci ne na gama-gari a takarda kawai, ba komai ba. A zahiri, shugabanci koyaushe yana zama na mutum ɗaya. Wannan al'amari yana cikin dabi'a, domin mulki ko shugabanci ko jagoranci bayyanar gudanarwa ce da ke fitowa daga tunani. Asalin tunaninsa da tabbatar da gaskiyar al'amura suna da alaƙa da ƙwaƙwalwa ta fuskar fahimta, haɗin kai, rauni da ƙarfi, da kuma bayanai ko gaskiyarsu da yalwarsu. Wannan yana bambanta daga ƙwaƙwalwa zuwa wata. Ba zai yiwu kwakwalwa biyu ko fiye su amince su ci gaba a dukkan al'amura ba, su yanke hukunci a kan abubuwa domin su tafiyar da su. Nan ne bambanci ke faruwa. Don haka sai ɗaya ya yi sulhu da ɗayan, a irin wannan hali shugabanci yana zama na mutum ɗaya, har ma tsakanin mutum biyu. Saboda haka ba za a taɓa samun shugabanci na gama-gari ba. Maimakon haka, shugabanci na mutum ɗaya, guda ɗaya kaɗai ne zai yiwu.

For instance, the ruling is practically in the hands of the president in America, just as it is in the hands of prime ministers in England and Germany. Even the collective leadership brought by Lenin to the communists of the previous Soviet Union was only a nominal collective leadership, on paper and nothing more. In reality, leadership is always individualistic. This matter is natural because ruling or presidency or leadership is an expression of administration resulting from the concept. The origin of its concepts and realization of facts are related to the brain in terms of sensation, linkage, weakness and strength, in terms of information whether it is true or abundant. This differs from one brain to another. It is impossible for two brains or more to agree to proceed in all matters, to judge upon things in order to manage them. Here the difference occurs. So it becomes mandatory for one to compromise with the other, in such a case the leadership becomes individualistic, even amongst two. Thus there can never be a collective leadership. Instead, it is only possible to ever have singular, individual leadership.

Sashe na biyu da ya sa ta yi tsayi shi ne cewa sun rikitar da al'amura biyu da suka shafi tsara mulki, ra'ayi da yanke hukunci, waɗanda Musulunci ya bambance a tsakaninsu sosai, wanda hakan ya sa Musulunci ya zama daban kuma na musamman a wannan fanni. Mulki yana wucewa ta matakai biyu: matakin ra'ayi da matakin yanke hukunci. A mataki na farko, ana neman ra'ayi domin magance matsala, don haka za a samu ra'ayoyi da yawa waɗanda za a yi musu tattaunawa da bincike a kansu. Wannan ban da bayanai game da lokacin da ra'ayoyin suke ɗaure wa mutum wajibi da lokacin da suke na sanarwa kawai. Wannan yana cikin abin da aka sani a tsarin mulkin Musulunci da sunan Shura (shawara). Allah (SWT) ya ce,

As for the second reason for being long, they confused in the two matters related to the organization of ruling, opinion and decision, between which Islam differentiated precisely, making Islam distinct and unique in this regard. Ruling passes through two phases, the phase of opinion and the phase of decision-making. In the first phase, the opinion is sought for treating the problem, so there will be multiple views which will be subject to deliberations and research. This is in addition to details about when the views are mandatorily binding and when they are informative. This falls within the realm of what is known in the Islamic ruling system as Shura (consultation). Allah (swt) says,

"waɗanda al'amuransu suke tafiya ta hanyar shawara tsakaninsu." [TMQ Surah Ash-Shura 42:38]. Mataki na biyu shi ne mataki na yanke shawara. Al'amari ne na mutum ɗaya inda shawara take fitowa daga hannun mutum ɗaya mai izini, don haka ba a yanke shawara gaba ɗaya ba. Allah (SWT) yana cewa,

“who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.” [TMQ Surah Ash-Shura 42:38]. The second phase is the decision making phase. It is an individual matter in which decisions are made by a single authorized person, so decisions are not made collectively. Allah (swt) says,

"Kuma ka tuntuɓe su a cikin al'amarin. Idan ka yanke shawara, to ka dogara ga Allah." [TMQ Surah Aali Imran 3:156]. Don haka hukuma a Musulunci ba ta mulkin kama-karya ba ce, kuma ba ta dimokuraɗiyya ba ce. Maimakon haka, tsarin mulki na Musulunci tsari ne na musamman, wanda yake na gaskiya ne ba na suna ba, kuma ba na tunani mai kyau kawai ba.

“And consult them on the matter. When you have decided, then rely upon Allah.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran 3:156]. Thus the ruling in Islam is neither autocratic nor democratic. Instead, the ruling system of Islam is a unique model, which is realistic and not nominal and idealistic.

A ƙarshe, Dimokuraɗiyya a matsayin tsarin mulki ba ta da wani fifiko a cikinta kanta, ta fuskar tsarin ka'ida ko tsarin aiki. Wannan ya fi bayyana idan aka kwatanta Dimokuraɗiyya da tsarin mulkin Musulunci. A zahiri, tsarkaka da fifikon Dimokuraɗiyya suna samo asali ne daga mutanenta ta hanyar abubuwan da ta ƙunsa, wato ra'ayoyinta da dabi'un da take wakilta, kamar 'yanci. Za mu karyata wannan nan ba da jimawa ba.

In conclusion, Democracy as a ruling system has no primacy in itself in terms of either theoretical or procedural forms. This is particularly so when Democracy is compared with the Islamic ruling system. In fact, Democracy’s sanctity and preference originates within its people through its components, namely its concepts and values it represents, such as freedom. We will refute this too shortly.