Wakati wa kuchunguza dhana ya mamlaka na uhamisho wake kutoka Kanisa kwenda kwa watu, wanafalsafa wa Magharibi walipitisha wazo la kufikirika, la kinadharia ambalo halina msingi wowote katika uhalisia. Badala yake, wazo hilo ni mfumo wa kiakili tu wa Wamagharibi, ambapo inadaiwa kwamba mwanadamu alikuwa akiishi katika hali ya asili ya kipori, kisha akahamia katika hali ya mijini na ustaarabu kupitia mkataba wa kijamii. Ndani ya mkataba wa kijamii, watu binafsi walikubaliana kuacha sehemu ya mapenzi yao, ili kuunda mapenzi ya pamoja, ambayo ni mapenzi ya umma yanayounda mamlaka kuu. Makubaliano ya watu binafsi ya kuacha (sehemu ya) mapenzi yao yanaitwa mkataba wa kijamii, ambao ni msingi wa dola, msingi wa mamlaka na msingi wa uhuru wa umma. Walidhani kwamba mfumo unaojumuisha wazo hili, kama wanavyoona wao, ni mfumo wa kidemokrasia, kama chombo cha kisiasa cha kutekeleza mamlaka kuu ya wananchi. Kwa msingi huo, mfumo wa utawala wa Magharibi umejengwa juu ya Demokrasia. Neno Demokrasia ni neno mchanganyiko lenye asili ya Kigiriki, ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ, demokratia, linalotokana na demos (watu) na kratos (utawala), hivyo maana yake ni “utawala wa watu.” Demokrasia kwa kawaida hufafanuliwa kwa kauli maarufu ya Abraham Lincoln (d 1865), aliyesema, “serikali ya watu, inayoundwa na watu, kwa ajili ya watu” wakati wa Hotuba yake ya 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.

Katika maana yake ya kimataifa na ya kisasa kama inavyoenezwa na Magharibi, Demokrasia haitenganishwi na wazo la uhuru (liberty). Jambo hili si jipya wala halikuibuka kutoka fikra za kisasa za Magharibi, kama inavyodhaniwa. Badala yake, limerithiwa tu kutoka kwa Wagiriki. Aristotle anasema katika kitabu chake Politics, “Kwa maana ikiwa uhuru na usawa, kama wanavyodhani baadhi ya watu, vinapatikana zaidi katika demokrasia, vitapatikana vyema zaidi pale ambapo watu wote kwa pamoja wanashiriki katika serikali kwa kiwango cha juu zaidi. Na kwa kuwa watu ndio wengi, na maoni ya wengi ndiyo yenye uamuzi, serikali kama hiyo lazima iwe demokrasia.” Hata hivyo, dhana ya uhuru ya kisasa inatofautiana na ile ya Wagiriki. Hili ndilo linaloitofautisha Magharibi, kuanzia zama za Mwangaza (Enlightenment) na kuibuka kwa falsafa ya kiliberali ya Magharibi.

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.

Kwa hiyo, Demokrasia inaelezwa kwa neno la kisasa kama demokrasia huria, tofauti na demokrasia nyingine, iwe za kale au za kisasa, kama vile demokrasia ya kijamii. Demokrasia ya kweli kulingana na mtazamo wa Magharibi ni demokrasia inayohusishwa na dhana ya uhuru, ambayo Magharibi iliikubali katika zama zao za Mwangaza. Kwa sababu hiyo, inaelezwa kuwa ni mkusanyiko wa mawazo na kanuni zinazohusiana na uhuru, kama wao wanavyoona. Baadhi ya wanafikra wanaichukulia kama taasisi ya uhuru. Inaweza kusemwa kwamba kuna makubaliano miongoni mwa Wamagharibi wanaounga mkono Demokrasia, kwamba haiwezi kutenganishwa na kundi la mambo yanayochukuliwa kuwa nguzo za Demokrasia, nayo ni: Mamlaka ya watu, mgawanyo wa madaraka, uhuru, haki za binadamu, usawa, uwingi wa mawazo, uchaguzi huru na wa haki unaofuatiwa na makabidhiano ya madaraka kwa amani, utawala wa sheria, na utawala wa wengi huku haki za wachache zikilindwa.

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.

Hii ni Demokrasia, kwa ufupi. Inafaa kutaja kwamba ilikuwa na bado ni somo la ukosoaji miongoni mwa wanafikra wa Magharibi wenyewe. Hili ndilo Jacques Ranciere analolirejelea katika kitabu chake, Hatred of Democracy, "Chuki dhidi ya demokrasia hakika si jambo geni." Msingi wa ukosoaji dhidi ya nadharia ya demokrasia, unaotolewa na wakosoaji wengi wa Magharibi, unatokana na neno 'watu.' Linakosolewa kuwa neno lisilo wazi, lenye tofauti katika maana ya ufafanuzi wake. Zaidi ya hapo, mjadala unahamia katika kulenga upande wa kiutaratibu wa kubainisha dhana ya utawala wa watu. Upande huo wa kiutaratibu kwa vitendo unathibitisha wazo lisilo halisi la utawala wa watu. Tukiangalia maana ya kimaneno ya Demokrasia kuhusiana na utawala wa watu, tunaona maana hii haina uhalisia tangu enzi za Wagiriki wenyewe. Wagiriki ndio waliokuwa wa kwanza kujihusisha na wazo hili, ambapo neno 'watu' lilizuiliwa kwa watu huru miongoni mwa Wagiriki, huku wanawake, watumwa na wasio Waathene wakitengwa. Wazo la Demokrasia lilipofufuliwa karne ya kumi na nane Milaadi, baadhi ya wanafikra walitambua, kwa mtazamo wa kinadharia, kutokuwa halisi kwa nadharia hiyo. Hii ni kwa sababu makubaliano ya watu wote juu ya utawala na uendeshaji wa dola hayawezekani. Hivyo walitengeneza upande wake wa kiutaratibu, wakaunda kile kinachoitwa demokrasia ya uwakilishi, yaani demokrasia ya wawakilishi waliochaguliwa.

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.

Mtu anayefuatilia harakati ya kiakili ya Magharibi anaweza kuona kuwepo kwa mwelekeo ulioimarika kwa miongo kadhaa miongoni mwa kundi la wanafikra, wa kupitisha utaratibu wa kitendo (wa vitendo) katika kutawala. Ni mwelekeo wa kukataa dhana ya kinadharia ya Demokrasia, baada ya kubainika kwamba hali ya Demokrasia ya kinadharia haiwezekani kiuhalisia. Mwelekeo huu unaongozwa na kundi la wanafikra, miongoni mwao wakiwemo Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills na wengine. Walipitisha nadharia ya wasomi (elite theory), ambayo inatokana na wazo la kwamba mamlaka hupatikana na wachache miongoni mwa watu katika jamii. Katika kitabu, Misingi ya Nadharia ya Kisasa ya Sosholojia (Kiitaliano: Elementi di scienza politica), katika insha yake, "Tabaka Linalotawala (Kiitaliano: La Classe Politica)", Gaetano Mosca anaeleza ukweli huu kwa kusema, "Wale wanaokuwa sehemu ya tabaka linalotawala wataanza kupata roho ya kikundi. Watazidi kuwa wa pekee na kujifunza zaidi na zaidi sanaa ya kujitwalia kwa manufaa yao sifa na uwezo unaohitajika ili kufikia madaraka na kuyashikilia. Kisha, hatimaye, nguvu ya kihafidhina kabisa inajitokeza—nguvu ya mazoea. Watu wengi hujisalimisha kwa hadhi ya chini, huku wanachama wa familia au tabaka fulani zenye upendeleo wakizidi kuamini kwamba wana haki karibu ya kipekee ya kukalia nafasi ya juu na kuamuru. (Kiitaliano: coloro che fanno parte della classe politica vanno acquistando lo spirito di corpo e di esclusivismo ed imparano l'arte di monopolizzare a loro vantaggio le qualità 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 basso ed i membri di certe famiglie o classi privilegiate acquistano la convinzione che per loro è quasi un diritto assoluto lo stare in alto ed il comandare.)" Katika muktadha huu, mwanasayansi wa siasa na sheria wa Kifaransa Maurice Duverger anapendekeza katika insha yake "Political Parties" (Kifaransa: Les Partis Politiques) kwamba demokrasia haiwezi kuwa "serikali ya watu kwa watu" bali ni "serikali ya watu kwa wasomi wanaojitokeza kutoka miongoni mwa watu." Ukosoaji muhimu zaidi unaotolewa dhidi ya Demokrasia na wanafikra wa Magharibi wenyewe ni:

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. Ukandamizaji wa wengi, pamoja na upotevu wa haki za wachache.

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

2. Hatari ya kupanua nguvu ya maoni ya umma, kwa kuwa chaguzi na maamuzi hutegemea maoni ya umma ambayo yanadhibitiwa na mamlaka fulani, miongoni mwa wadau na wanaharakati wa shinikizo (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. "Sheria ya chuma ya uoligarki" inayoeleza kwamba madaraka na vyama vya kisiasa vinadhibitiwa na kundi dogo la wamiliki wa mitaji.

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

4. Baada ya muda, demokrasia hugeuka kuwa ubeurokrasia. Kadiri muda unavyopita, demokrasia inazidi kuwa ngumu zaidi na zaidi, hadi madaraka yanabaki mikononi mwa wataalamu wa kazi pekee.

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.

Hizi ni baadhi ya ukosoaji unaoelekezwa kwa demokrasia kutoka kwa wanafikra wa Magharibi wenyewe. Hata hivyo, wengi wao hawatoi mbadala. Badala yake, wameichukulia demokrasia kama kanuni isiyobadilika ambayo hata mbadala wake hauwezi kufikiriwa. Mwanasiasa wa Uingereza Anthony Birch alilitambua hili katika kitabu chake, *The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy*. Kwa upande mmoja, Birch alishikilia kwamba wengi hawawezi kutawala, akisema: "Moja ya maoni mengi sahihi ya Dahl kuhusu serikali ya shirikisho ni kwamba, kwa kiasi kikubwa, 'wingi wa namba hauwezi kuchukua hatua yoyote iliyoratibiwa. Ni sehemu mbalimbali za wingi wa namba ndizo zenye njia za kuchukua hatua.'" Lakini kwa upande mwingine, Birch bado anasisitiza: "Ninaamini kwamba demokrasia ya uwakilishi ndiyo mpangilio bora wa kitaasisi wa kutawala ambao umewahi kubuniwa." Hivyo tunawaona wanafikra wengi wanaojaribu kuendeleza taratibu za demokrasia na kufufua dhana na thamani zake wakikubaliana kwamba demokrasia ndiyo bora, licha ya ukosoaji mkali. Katika kitabu chake, *Democracy and Its Critics*, Robert Alan Dahl anaunga mkono demokrasia. Anasema demokrasia huongeza uhuru kwa kukumbatia haki na uhuru wa kisiasa wa msingi, kama uhuru wa kujieleza, na huruhusu "watu kuishi chini ya sheria wanazojichagulia wenyewe." Anadai kwamba ushiriki wa umma katika siasa katika demokrasia hukuza sifa zinazohitajika za "kujitegemea, kujitosheleza, na moyo wa kujali jamii." Robert Dahl anathibitisha tena mchakato wa kidemokrasia "kama njia ya kuaminika zaidi ya kulinda na kuendeleza mema na maslahi ya watu wote wanaotawaliwa na maamuzi ya pamoja."

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.”.

Ni wazi kutokana na yaliyotangulia kwamba wanafikra wa Magharibi wenyewe walichunguza wazo la Demokrasia na kulikosoa, wakionyesha kasoro zake kulingana na mitazamo yao. Licha ya hayo, makubaliano yao ya pamoja ni kwamba Demokrasia ndicho kitu bora zaidi kilichobuniwa na akili ya binadamu katika utawala, na kwamba hakuna mbadala wake.

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.

Kwa kweli, uchunguzi wa kina wa uhalisia wa demokrasia kama inavyofahamika na Magharibi unatuonyesha kwamba neno demokrasia kwao linaashiria vipimo viwili: kipimo cha kifikra na kistaarabu, na kipimo cha kisiasa.

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.

Kama kwa dimension ya kwanza, ni mfumo wa thamani unaounda maadili ya Magharibi na dhana zake kuhusu maisha, kama vile uhuru, usawa, wingi wa mitazamo na usekula, pamoja na mengineyo. Ni mfumo wa kisiasa unaojumuisha kundi la dhana za kistaarabu zilizopitishwa na Magharibi, na zinazoungwa mkono kwa nguvu na Wamagharibi. Katika kitabu chake, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama alisema, "Mwishoni mwa historia, hakuna washindani wa kiitikadi wa kweli waliosalia kwa demokrasia huria. Zamani, watu walikataa demokrasia huria kwa kuamini kwamba ilikuwa duni kuliko utawala wa kifalme, uungwana, utawala wa kidini, ufashisti, udikteta wa kikomunisti, au itikadi yoyote waliyokuwa wakiiamini. Lakini sasa, nje ya ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, inaonekana kuna makubaliano ya jumla yanayokubali madai ya demokrasia huria kuwa aina yenye busara zaidi ya serikali." Wakati huo huo, katika kitabu chake, The Western Political Systems (Kifaransa: Les regimes politiques occidentaux), Jean-Louis Quermonne alisema kuwa "Kama kanuni ya uhalali, demokrasia ya Magharibi si wazo jipya. Ni urithi wa ustaarabu uliotangulia: jiji la Ugiriki na jamhuri ya Roma. Baada ya kuondolewa kwa karne nyingi na falme, tawala za kimwinyi na tawala za kifalme za kidikteta, baada ya kukaribia kutoweka, baada ya miongo michache ya kufanya kazi, wakati wa Vita vya Pili vya Dunia, kwa manufaa ya tawala za kitotalitariani, leo haipingwi tena." Kwa hiyo, demokrasia inapaswa kuchunguzwa kutoka pembe hii, kama kundi la dhana na thamani, au bora ya msingi kuhusu maisha. Hii inaingia katika somo la misingi ya kistaarabu iliyopitishwa na Magharibi, na ambayo juu yake kunasimama muundo wa kisiasa wa Demokrasia.

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.

Dimension ya pili inahusiana na kutathmini demokrasia kuwa mfumo bora zaidi, au wa kiwango cha juu zaidi, au bora kabisa unaowezekana, kama wanavyodai Wamagharibi. Wale wanaokubaliana na mtazamo huu hawachunguzi muundo wa kistaarabu, yaani dhana zake, thamani zake au itikadi yake, ambayo maoni yake yanaweza kubadilika, kutofautiana au kupingana. Wao wanaangalia tu muundo wa demokrasia au maana dhahania ya wazo hilo, bila kuangalia jambo jingine lolote. Hivyo, wanaiangalia demokrasia kama mfumo wa kisiasa unaopanga suala la utawala katika taifa lolote, unaosimamia masuala ya kisiasa ya jamii yoyote. Somo hili, kwa kweli, linahusiana na kile kinachoitwa mkataba wa kijamii, kwa maneno yao, ambao unachukuliwa kuwa chimbuko la masuala ya kisiasa. Somo hili linaonyesha upungufu wa fikra za Kimagharibi katika ngazi ya kisiasa na kifikra, pamoja na makosa yake, tangu wakati wa kuanzishwa kwake.

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.

Hivyo basi, mtu kwa kuwa ni binadamu au mtu binafsi, katika kuishi maisha yake duniani, ni mwanasiasa ambaye hujishughulisha na siasa na pia huathiriwa nayo, kwa kuwa anashughulikia mambo yake mwenyewe, au mambo ya wale walio chini ya uwajibikaji wake, au mambo ya taifa. Kushughulikia mambo ya taifa au watu au kundi ambalo mwanasiasa huyu ni sehemu yake kunamlazimu kuzingatia suala la utawala.

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.

Mchakato wa kusimamia mambo ya watu hufanyika kupitia chombo cha kisiasa au dola peke yake. Hili ni kweli bila kujali ufafanuzi wake na yule anayetoa wito wa kuanzishwa kwake. Dola imejengwa juu ya mfumo unaobainisha aina zake, vyombo vyake, miundo yake na taasisi zake, pamoja na mawazo, dhana na vigezo vya kusimamia mambo, sambamba na sheria za kikatiba zitakazotekelezwa na mambo mengine yanayoingia katika utawala. Hili huitwa mfumo wa kisiasa au mfumo wa utawala.

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.

Mtazamo wa mwanadamu kuhusu mfumo wa utawala, ambao kwa vitendo unamwezesha kusimamia mambo, kwa kweli umejengwa ndani ya maswali matatu: Kwa kitu gani kutawaliwa? Mtawala ni nani? Mtawala anatawala vipi?

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?

Kuhusu kile cha kutawaliwa nacho, hali ya kawaida ni utawala kwa itikadi (mtazamo wa kimsingi) inayokubaliwa na kundi la watu. Kwa hiyo, jukumu la mtawala au serikali ni kutekeleza au kuweka katika vitendo kundi la dhana, vigezo na imani vilivyopitishwa na kundi hilo. Jambo hili huwasilishwa kwa mtawala na kwa watawaliwa mara tu dola inapoanzishwa. Pendekezo hili halipitiwi upya kila uchaguzi, kura ya maoni, kikao cha bunge au wakati wa kupitia sera. Kwa hiyo halipendekezwi upya isipokuwa katika hali moja, ambayo ni pale mfumo uliotangulia unapoanguka na kuwepo nia ya kubadilika. Hivyo, hali hiyo moja ni kesi ya kuanzishwa kwa dola mpya. Kwa msingi huo, dola ya Magharibi, bila kujali jina lake, umbo lake au muundo wake, ilianzishwa juu ya fikra na dhana mahususi zinazochukuliwa kuwa zisizobadilika, bila kuzingatia mabadiliko yake. Hali hii ni sawa na dola ya Kiislamu, Dola ya Khilafah, ambayo ilianzishwa juu ya fikra na dhana mahususi tofauti, ambazo si fikra na dhana za Magharibi. Basi, kuanzishwa juu ya itikadi, pamoja na kubainisha kile cha kutawaliwa nacho, si sifa tofauti ya mfumo wa utawala wa Magharibi unaoutofautisha na mifumo mingine ya utawala.

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.

Haiwezi kusemwa hapa kwamba utofauti wa Magharibi upo katika asili ya mwanadamu wa Magharibi, anayeonyesha enzi yake kwa kuamua mwenyewe dhana na thamani za utawala, hivyo anachagua kwa kile kitakachotawaliwa, na yeye mwenyewe anatunga sheria zake. Hili haliwezi kusemwa kwa sababu mada hapa haihusiani na chanzo cha utawala. Badala yake, mada inahusiana na kuwepo kwa mawazo na dhana kuhusu utawala. Hivyo kama vile Magharibi ina itikadi ya kutawala nayo, wengine pia wana itikadi nyingine za kutawalia, bila kujali vyanzo vyake. Kwa hiyo hakuna tofauti kati yao kwa mtazamo huu. Badala yake, tofauti huonekana tu wakati wa kuchunguza chanzo cha utawala, kwa upande wa ukweli, usahihi na wema wa itikadi hiyo. Suala hili halihusiani hapa kwa upande wa utafiti, ingawa tumelizungumzia baadhi yake hapo awali, na tutalijadili zaidi katika mada ya Ustaarabu wa Magharibi itakayokuja. Lengo la utafiti hapa ni kujibu swali: kwa kipi mwanadamu anatakiwa kutawaliwa? Mifumo yote ya kisiasa inayojulikana na binadamu inajibu swali hili bila ubaguzi. Hii ina maana kwamba fikra ya kisiasa ya Magharibi, inayoamini mfumo wa kidemokrasia, haitofautiani nayo kwa mtazamo huu.

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.

Haiwezi pia kusemwa kwamba mfumo wa utawala wa kidemokrasia wa Magharibi unajulikana kwa wingi wa mitazamo unaohakikisha kutokukubaliana na upekee, unaoruhusu tamaduni na itikadi nyingi kuwepo. Hili haliwezi kusemwa, kwa sababu wingi wa Magharibi ni wingi ndani ya mipaka ya itikadi yake yenyewe tu. Kwa hiyo Magharibi haikubali wazo lolote kutoka nje ya itikadi yake lipate kuathiri jamii, wala haikubali dhana zinazopingana na itikadi yake. Kwa msingi huo, Magharibi ilipigana na vyama vya kikomunisti zamani, na inaendelea kupigana na kile kinachoitwa Uislamu wa kisiasa, ikiuonyesha kama ugaidi, msimamo mkali na msimamo wa kiitikadi uliokithiri. Hivyo ni wingi wa kimfumo na si wingi halisi kwa maana kamili.

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.

Ikiwa lengo la wingi wa mitazamo (pluralism) ni tofauti za maoni, mitazamo, miradi na uelewa wa kiakili na kisiasa ndani ya mipaka ya itikadi moja, basi kwa mtazamo huu hakuna upekee wowote katika fikra za Magharibi. Wingi wa namna hii upo pia katika mifumo mingine, kama mfumo wa utawala wa Kiislamu.

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.

Kisha kuna suala la kuzingatia wingi wa mitazamo kwa kuangalia kinachoitwa wachache, haki zao na wajibu wao, ndani ya nyanja mbili za kijamii, ya faragha na ya umma, uainishaji unaotajwa katika sayansi ya siasa na jamii ya Magharibi. Inadaiwa kwamba demokrasia ya kisasa inajulikana kwa kuruhusu faragha na utofauti katika nyanja ya faragha, wakati katika nyanja ya umma inadhibitiwa na kanuni za jumla ambazo kila mtu anazifuata. Ikiwa hivi ndivyo inavyokusudiwa kwa wingi wa mitazamo kuwa sifa ya kipekee, basi hilo nalo si sahihi, kwa sababu mbili. Sababu ya kwanza ni ya kiutendaji. Dola ya Magharibi ya leo inayalazimisha mawazo na thamani zake hata katika nyanja ya faragha. Inawafuatilia Waislamu, vijana kwa wazee, ikiwahesabu kwa kila fikra, ikiwahoji kwa mujibu wa utamaduni na ustaarabu wake na kuwalazimisha kujiunganisha na ustaarabu wake. Hili liko mbali sana na kile kinachodaiwa kuwa wingi wa mitazamo. Sababu ya pili ni ya kinadharia, kutoka katika mtazamo wa wazo lenyewe: tofauti kati ya kutii kanuni za jumla katika nyanja ya umma, huku mtu akiishi kwa mujibu wa dini na imani tofauti katika nyanja ya faragha. Utofauti huu pia unapatikana katika mfumo wa Kiislamu. Kwa hiyo hakuna kipya cha pekee kuhusu demokrasia katika jambo hili. Zaidi ya hayo, dhana ya Dhimma (kuwalinda raia wasio Waislamu) iliyoagizwa na Uislamu ni fikra na utaratibu ulio bora zaidi, wa haki zaidi na wenye kulinda haki vizuri zaidi kuliko dhana ya Magharibi ya wachache.

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.

Kuhusu suala la nani anatawala na anatawalaje, wanafikra wa kisiasa na wanasosholojia wa Magharibi waliozungumzia suala la utawala na mfumo wake, waliangalia historia ya kisiasa ya binadamu na uhalisia wake, wakazihesabu aina za utawala na miundo ya uongozi. Hivyo basi wakazigawa mifumo ya utawala inayojulikana na binadamu, kwa mtazamo wao, katika makundi mbalimbali, kulingana na vigezo vilivyochukuliwa katika utawala. Mengi kati ya hayo yalirithiwa kutoka kwa Wagiriki. Kwa ufupi, mfumo unaweza kukubali watu kuwa na sifa za kutawala au kutokubali.

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.

Kati ya mifumo ambayo haikubali watu kuwa na sifa ya kutawala ni pamoja, miongoni mwa mingine, na: utawala wa sifa (meritocracy) - utawala wa watu wenye kipaji, juhudi na mafanikio; utawala wa wachache (oligarchy) - kutawaliwa na idadi ndogo ya watu kwa ajili ya manufaa yao; utawala wa kiungwana (aristocracy) - kutawaliwa na tabaka dogo lenye upendeleo, yaani waungwana; utawala wa mtu mmoja (autocracy) - utawala wa mtu mmoja tu; na utawala wa kidini (theocracy) - utawala wa wasomi wa kidini wenye idhini ya Mungu. Kuhusu mfumo unaotegemea haki ya watu kutawala, au unaotegemea itikadi ya mamlaka ya watu, ukithibitisha kwamba watu wana sifa ya kuamua utawala, huo ni mfumo wa kidemokrasia. Kwa mtazamo wa Mzungu, demokrasia ndiyo mfumo pekee ndani ya uainishaji huu unaopaswa kuchukuliwa kuwa bora zaidi na wa hali ya juu kabisa.

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.

Kisha kuna wanafikra wa Magharibi wanaozigawanya mifumo kwa kutumia viwango vya kisheria kama vile utawala, njia ya kupata madaraka, mfumo wa utawala uliopo, na aina ya nguvu inayotumika na inayoweza kujadiliwa. Kwa mujibu wa viwango hivyo, mifumo hugawanywa katika makundi makuu matatu: ya kiimla (totalitarian), ya kimabavu (authoritarian) na ya kidemokrasia. Kwa mujibu wa wanafikra wa Magharibi, demokrasia daima na milele huwekwa kama bora kabisa, ikipingana na mifumo ya kimabavu yenye kutisha.

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.

Baada ya kumpa mwanadamu haki ya utawala wa mamlaka kuu, ili yeye mwenyewe aamue mfumo wake na sheria zake, ulimwengu wa Magharibi usio wa kidini unampa pia haki ya mamlaka ya utekelezaji, hivyo unampa nafasi ya kuchagua mtawala kupitia chaguzi. Hivyo Wamagharibi wamechanganya vipengele vyote vya hukumu, bila kutofautisha kati ya mamlaka kuu, mamlaka ya utekelezaji na nguvu. Wamepunguza utafiti kuzunguka ajenda moja tu, kama wao wanavyoliona. Wameshindwa kuona uwezekano wa kutofautisha na kutenganisha, wala uwepo wa mifumo tofauti na yenye sifa zao. Badala yake wamefanya demokrasia kuwa kipimo cha wema kwa mifumo yote ya kisiasa. Mtazamo huu ni wa kibinafsi, kama wao wenyewe wanavyokiri. Kwa hiyo pia si wa lengo, ni wa upande mmoja na wa juu juu, usio na kina cha kifikra wala uelewa sahihi wa uhalisia wa utawala.

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.

Ukuu, kwa mujibu wao, hutumika kwa maana kwamba mtu anamiliki matakwa yake na kuyatekeleza, hivyo yeye ndiye huchagua nani atakuwa mtawala na kwa kile anachotawala. Binadamu ndiye anayepaswa kuamua sheria na mifumo yake, kutunga sheria hizo, na kuchagua anayezitekeleza. Ikiwa neno "Binadamu" linamaanisha binadamu kwa ujumla au jamii yake, yaani ubinadamu wote, basi ukuu huo kwa vitendo ni wa binadamu, kwa mujibu wao. Anayetunga sheria na kuchagua mtawala huko Magharibi ni sehemu ya wanadamu. Hata hivyo, linapomaanisha mtu kwa sifa yake ya kuwa mtu binafsi, ambayo ndiyo maana yao halisi, kwamba kila mtu ni bwana wa nafsi yake, basi ukuu huo haupo kabisa Magharibi. Hii ni kwa sababu mifumo na sheria za Magharibi huwekwa mbele na kikundi au wachache miongoni mwa wanadamu, si kwa watu wote binafsi kwa pamoja. Hali halisi ya Magharibi ya kidemokrasia ni kwamba sheria huwekwa na serikali, bodi au baraza la watu wachache, kisha hutangazwa kuwa sheria zenye nguvu ya lazima ambazo watu wote wanapaswa kuzitii.

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.

Kwa hiyo dhana ya mamlaka kama wanavyoifikiria hailingani na uhalisia wa utawala miongoni mwao, ingawa wao wanasisitiza uelewa huu. Uhalisia wa utawala wote duniani ni kwamba kuna mtawala na anayetawaliwa. Utawala uko mikononi mwa mtu mmoja au kundi la watu. Watu wote hawawezi kuwa watawala na watawaliwa kwa wakati mmoja. Kwa msingi huo, hakuna kitu kinachoitwa mamlaka ya watu kwa maana ya mamlaka ya kila mtu binafsi. Mamlaka yanaweza kuwa ya mtu maalum au kundi maalum la watu, ambao hutekeleza mapenzi yao kwa kuamua sheria na kanuni za watawaliwa, au yanaweza kuwa ya Muumba, Mwenye Nguvu Zote, ili sheria na kanuni zitokane na Wahyi wa Mungu peke yake, bila chaguo lolote jingine. Hata hivyo, Magharibi ya kidunia, pamoja na mgogoro wake wa kihistoria na Kanisa la Kikristo, na majaribio yake ya mifumo ya utawala wa kitheokrasia iliyowadhibiti watu kwa dhana ya haki ya kimungu, ilipofusha maarifa ya Magharibi. Kwa hiyo Magharibi ilikataa utumwa wa mwanadamu kwa Muumba wake, ikakubali utumwa wa wanadamu kwa wanadamu wengine, ikiuita mamlaka.

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.

Mara mtu anapokubali mfumo unaotawala uhusiano wake, chanzo cha mfumo huo na sheria, akifafanua ni nini cha kutawaliwa nacho, ndipo kwa kawaida atahamia kwenye mada ya utafiti kuhusu nani anayeutekeleza. Hiyo ndiyo mada ya nani anatawala ndani yake. Kwa kuwa watu hawawezi kwa pamoja kutekeleza utekelezaji huu, unakabidhiwa kwa watu fulani kwa niaba ya jamii, ili wauchukue utekelezaji, kwa uchaguzi wao na ridhaa yao. Hii ndiyo maana ya mamlaka au madaraka kuwa ya watu au taifa. Tena, maana hii si ya kipekee kwa demokrasia wala haiifanyi kuwa tofauti. Badala yake, dhana kama hiyo ya mamlaka pia inapatikana katika mifumo mingine. Hakika, ndiyo kiini cha mfumo wa utawala wa Kiislamu, kwani Khilafah imefafanuliwa kuwa ni mkataba wa ridhaa na uchaguzi. Hii ni kwa sababu Khilafah inasimama juu ya Bay'ah (kiapo cha utii) kinachotolewa kwa yule mwenye haki ya kutiiwa, miongoni mwa wale waliopewa dhamana ya mamlaka. Lazima kuwepo na makubaliano kuhusu yule ambaye Bay'ah ya kuchukua madaraka inatolewa kwake, pamoja na makubaliano kuhusu wale wanaotoa Bay'ah. Ingawa Magharibi inawapa watu mamlaka kinadharia, kwa kuwa watu ndio wanaomchagua mtawala wao kupitia chaguzi huru na za haki, kama wanavyosema, hali halisi ya kivitendo inaonyesha kwamba uchaguzi wa mtawala na watu huko Magharibi ni uchaguzi kwa jina tu, na si kwa uhalisia. Hiyo ni kwa sababu kwa uhalisia wamiliki wa mitaji mikubwa, matajiri na wenye nguvu, ndio hasa wanaoamua nani atakuwa mtawala. Wao peke yao ndio huamua na kuongoza mifumo na taratibu tata za uchaguzi. Wao peke yao wanaweza kuathiri maoni ya umma, wakiyaelekeza kumchagua yeyote wanayemtaka. Wao peke yao wanaweza kufadhili kampeni za uchaguzi za gharama kubwa zaidi. Hili ni jambo linalojulikana na kushuhudiwa na kila mtu. Kwa hiyo Magharibi haikuwapa watu mamlaka kwa mtazamo wa kiutendaji. Badala yake, mamlaka ni ya kundi dogo la wenye ushawishi ambao wanawatumikisha watu. Vivyo hivyo, Magharibi haikuhakikisha kwamba mamlaka ni ya watu. Badala yake, mamlaka yapo mikononi mwa kundi dogo la watu wenye ushawishi. Kwa hiyo, ni wazi kwamba watu wa Magharibi ni watumwa, kwa sababu hawajitawali wenyewe kwa mtu mmoja mmoja, wala hawana mamlaka halisi. Hata hivyo, watu wenye ushawishi waliweza kuwadanganya watu, wakiwashawishi kwamba wao ndio wenye mamlaka na wenye hatamu! Kuhusu jinsi mtawala anavyotawala, swali hili linahusiana na mambo mawili: suala la jinsi anavyopata mamlaka au utawala, na jinsi anavyosimamia mambo ya utawala.

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.

Kuhusu namna ya kupata madaraka, zipo njia nyingi kama vile kupiga kura, kuteuliwa, kurithi, kunyakua madaraka kwa nguvu na nyinginezo. Leo hii, desturi za watu zimekubaliana kuona kwamba uchaguzi ndio njia bora zaidi. Ni njia inayofuatwa Magharibi. Licha ya upotoshaji uliojitokeza katika mfumo wa utawala wa Kiislamu katika kipindi cha historia, njia ya uchaguzi ni miongoni mwa njia zinazokubaliana na Uislamu. Njia hii ilitekelezwa kivitendo katika kuwachagua Khulafaa' (makhalifa) kulingana na taratibu zilizowezekana wakati huo. Kwa hiyo, demokrasia si ya kipekee wala tofauti katika njia ya uchaguzi wa kumchagua mtawala. Badala yake, njia ya uchaguzi ni ya kawaida kati ya mifumo mingine ya utawala. Upekee na utofauti wa demokrasia upo katika mtazamo wake wa jinsi ya kuendesha mambo ya utawala, kupitia dhana yake kuhusu uongozi.

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.

Uongozi kwa mtazamo wa Magharibi umegawanywa katika mifumo mitatu. Kwanza, uongozi wa kidemokrasia unaohimiza na kuruhusu ushiriki wa kundi katika maamuzi yote. Pili, uongozi wa kimabavu au wa kiimla ambao maamuzi hufanywa na dhalimu mmoja. Tatu, uongozi wa kianarkia unaowaruhusu wanachama wa kundi kusimamia mambo yao wenyewe na kufanya maamuzi wao wenyewe. Kwa msingi wa mgawanyo huu, wanasema kwamba uongozi wa kidemokrasia, yaani uongozi wa pamoja, ndio mfumo bora wa uongozi. Dhana hii si sahihi kwa sababu mbili.

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.

Kwanza, hilo ni kosa kutoka mtazamo wa kiuhalisia na wa kiutendaji. Uongozi wa pamoja unaodaiwa hauko. Hali halisi ya utawala ni kwamba hatimaye mamlaka yake yako mikononi mwa mtu mmoja, jambo ambalo hata Wamagharibi wanalijua na kulishuhudia katika nchi zao wenyewe, iwe mtu huyo ni rais wa jamhuri au waziri mkuu wa demokrasia ya kibunge. Anapochukua utawala, yeye mwenyewe hujiwekea mamlaka kwa mtu mmoja mmoja, kiasi kwamba mamlaka yote yanakuwa mikononi mwa waziri mkuu au rais, wakati watu wengine wenye mamlaka wanabaki kuwa wasaidizi, watumishi au washauri.

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.

Kwa mfano, utawala kwa kweli uko mikononi mwa rais nchini Marekani, kama ulivyo mikononi mwa mawaziri wakuu nchini Uingereza na Ujerumani. Hata uongozi wa pamoja aliouleta Lenin kwa wakomunisti wa Umoja wa Kisovieti uliokuwepo awali ulikuwa uongozi wa pamoja wa jina tu, wa karatasini na si zaidi. Kwa kweli, uongozi daima ni wa kimtu mmoja mmoja. Jambo hili ni la kawaida, kwani utawala au urais au uongozi ni udhihirisho wa usimamizi unaotokana na dhana. Asili ya dhana hizi na utambuzi wa ukweli huhusiana na ubongo, kwa upande wa hisia, mnyambuliko, udhaifu na nguvu, na kwa upande wa taarifa, kama ni sahihi au nyingi. Hili hutofautiana kutoka ubongo mmoja hadi mwingine. Haiwezekani kwa akili mbili au zaidi kukubaliana kuendelea katika mambo yote, kuhukumu mambo ili kuyasimamia. Hapa ndipo tofauti hutokea. Kwa hiyo inakuwa lazima kwa mmoja kuafikiana na mwingine, na katika hali kama hiyo uongozi huwa wa kimtu mmoja mmoja, hata miongoni mwa wawili. Hivyo basi, haiwezekani kamwe kuwa na uongozi wa pamoja. Badala yake, daima inawezekana tu kuwa na uongozi wa mtu mmoja mmoja.

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.

Kuhusu sababu ya pili ya urefu huo, watu walichanganya mambo mawili yanayohusiana na mpangilio wa utawala, yaani maoni na uamuzi, ambayo Uislamu ulitofautisha kwa usahihi, na hivyo kuufanya Uislamu kuwa wa pekee na wa kipekee katika jambo hili. Utawala hupitia hatua mbili, hatua ya maoni na hatua ya kufanya uamuzi. Katika hatua ya kwanza, maoni hutafutwa ili kushughulikia tatizo, hivyo kutakuwa na mitazamo mingi itakayofanyiwa majadiliano na utafiti. Hili ni pamoja na maelezo kuhusu wakati maoni yanapokuwa ya lazima na wakati yanapokuwa ya kutoa taarifa tu. Hili linaingia katika kile kinachojulikana katika mfumo wa utawala wa Kiislamu kama Shura (kushauriana). Allah (SWT) anasema,

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,

“wanaoendesha mambo yao kwa kushauriana baina yao.” [TMQ Surah Ash-Shura 42:38]. Awamu ya pili ni awamu ya kufanya maamuzi. Ni jambo la mtu mmoja, ambapo maamuzi yanafanywa na mtu mmoja aliyeidhinishwa, hivyo maamuzi hayafanywi kwa pamoja. Allah (SWT) anasema,

“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,

"Na shauriana nao katika jambo hilo. Utakapoamua, basi mtegemee Allah." [TMQ Surah Aali Imran 3:156]. Hivyo basi, utawala katika Uislamu si wa kidikteta wala wa kidemokrasia. Badala yake, mfumo wa utawala wa Uislamu ni mfano wa kipekee, ambao ni wa kihalisia na si wa kinadharia wala wa kibunifu.

“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.

Kwa kumalizia, Demokrasia kama mfumo wa kutawala haina ubora wowote yenyewe, kinadharia wala kiutaratibu. Hili ni wazi hasa pale Demokrasia inapolinganishwa na mfumo wa kutawala wa Kiislamu. Kwa kweli, utakatifu na upendeleo wa Demokrasia unatokana ndani ya watu wake kupitia vipengele vyake, yaani dhana zake na thamani inazowakilisha, kama uhuru. Tutalikanusha hili hivi karibuni.

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.