Demokratiya ideal hukumat shaklimi? Bu masala musulmonlar tomonidan juda ehtiyotkorlik bilan o'ylab ko'rilishi kerak. Biz zamonaviy hayotimizda demokratiya eng yaxshi, eng adolatli hukumat shakli ekanligini eshitamiz, ammo bu da'vo musulmonlar orasida shubha uyg'otishi mumkin. Nega? Chunki demokratiya Qur'onda ham, Payg'ambar ﷺ sunnatida ham aniq targ'ib qilinmagan.

Is democracy the ideal form of government? This is something that Muslims have to think about very carefully. We hear from our context in the modern day about how democracy is supposed to be the best form of government, the most just form of government, but this claim can create doubt for Muslims. Why? Because democracy is not something that is advocated explicitly within the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Пайғамбар صلى الله عليه وسلم Мадинада вакиллик демократиясини ўрнатмаган. Тўғри йўлдан борган халифалар ҳам ҳукумат тармоқлари ва бошқа жиҳатлари билан демократик тизим ўрнатмаганлар. Шундай экан, агар бу энг яхши ҳукумат шакли бўлса, нега Аллоҳ уни нозил қилмаган? Нега у Илоҳий ҳидоятнинг бир қисми эмас? Инсонлар охирги ваҳий келган Пайғамбар صلى الله عليه وسلم га келган нарсадан яхшироқ ҳукумат шаклини қандай назарий ўйлаб топа олишган? Бундай шубҳаларга қандай жавоб берамиз? Менимча, аввало бир асосий саволни бериш керак: нега баъзилар бугун демократияни энг яхши ҳукумат шакли деб ҳисоблайди? Мактаб ёки университетдаги ҳар қандай давлат бошқаруви дарсида сизга айтиладиган асосий жиҳатлардан бири шуки, демократияларни устун ва адолатли қилувчи асосий хусусиятлардан бири — “текширув ва мувозанат” (checks and balances) тушунчасидир. Текширув ва мувозанат нима? Гап шундаки, ҳокимият давлатнинг турли тармоқлари ўртасида тақсимланади ва бу уч тармоқ бир-бирининг ҳокимиятини назорат қилади, шунда ҳеч бир гуруҳ ёки ҳеч бир шахс ҳокимиятни монополиядан чиқариб, миллатнинг устидан чеклаб бўлмайдиган, тўсиқсиз ҳукмронлик қила олмайди. Масалан, Америка Қўшма Штатларида ижроия, судлов ва қонун чиқарувчи тармоқлар мавжуд — амалда Президент, Конгресс ва Олий суд. Бу уч тармоқ бир-бирининг ҳокимиятини текширади ва битта тармоқ ўзи қайси қонунларга риоя қилиш ёки қайси урушларни олиб бориш ҳақида мустақил қарор қабул қила олмайди. Барча йирик миллий қарорлар уч тармоқнинг ҳаммасини ҳисобга олган ҳолда қабул қилинади, битта тармоқ ҳамма учун қарор чиқармайди. Бу текширув ва мувозанатдир ва назарий жиҳатдан у жуда мантиқли кўринади. Lekin Islomda ham nazorat va muvozanat tushunchasi mavjud. Biroq Islomda topilgan nazorat va muvozanat zamonaviy G'arb demokratiyalarida topiladigan, men soxta yoki yuzaki deb hisoblaydigan nazorat va muvozanatlardan ancha haqiqiy va sezilarli darajadadir. Buni qanday tushunganimni tushuntirib beraman.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not establish a representational democracy in Medina. The rightly guided caliphs did not establish a kind of democratic system with branches of government and so forth. So if this is the best form of government, then why was it not revealed by Allah? Why isn’t it a part of Divine Guidance? How could it be that human beings could theorize and conceive a form of government that is better than what came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the final revelation? How do we address this kind of doubt? Well, we have to, in my opinion, go and ask a very fundamental question: Why do some today consider democracy the best form of government? If you take any kind of government class within grade school or college, what you will hear is that one of the main features of democracies that make them superior and more just is the notion of checks and balances. What are checks and balances? The idea is that power is distributed across different branches within the government and these three branches check each other’s power so that no one group or one individual can monopolize power and exercise unfettered, unhindered authority over the rest of the nation. In the United States, for example, you have the Executive branch, the Judicial branch, and the Legislative branch, basically the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. These three branches check each other’s power and one single branch alone cannot make decisions about what laws the country should follow or what wars should be fought. All of these major national decisions have to be made in light of all three branches, not just one branch making decisions for everyone. This is checks and balances, and theoretically it seems to make a lot of sense. In Islam, however, we also have this notion of checks and balances, but the checks and balances that we find in Islam are much more real and tangible than what I consider to be fake or superficial checks and balances found within Western democracies in the modern day. Let me explain what I mean by this.

Agar AQSh hukumatiga yoki har qanday demokratik G'arb davlati hukumatiga nazar tashlasak, katta korrupsiyani ko'ramiz: lobbichilar va turli siyosiy harakat guruhlari hokimiyat tarmoqlarini o'z manfaatlari yo'lida boshqaradi. Masalan, AQSh sharoitida sog'liqni sug'urtalash kompaniyalari Kongress va Prezidentga lobbichilik qiladi, ular pul yordamida hokimiyat tarmoqlariga ta'sir o'tkazib, sug'urta kompaniyalariga moliyaviy foyda keltiradigan qonunlar chiqarishga harakat qiladi. Bu korrupsiyaning bir turi, chunki bu konggressmenlar, prezident, senatorlar va boshqalar xalq manfaatlarini ifodalashi kerak edi, lekin pul tufayli ular o'zlariga lobbichilik qilayotgan va pul to'layotgan korporatsiyalar manfaatlarini ifodalab qo'yadi. AQSh tarixi ko'rsatib turganidek, manfaatdor guruhlar shu tarzda lobbichilik qilib, hokimiyat tarmoqlariga ta'sir o'tkazishi juda oson, va bunning katta salbiy oqibatlari bor. Aynan shuning uchun AQSh tarixida shunchalik ko'p adolatsizlik ko'riladi, masalan, mahalliy amerikaliklarning genotsidi, afro-amerikaliklarning zulmi, Xirosima va Nagasakiga tashlangan bomba kabi dahshatlar va boshqalar. Yaqinroq misollarni olsak, Iroq, Afg'oniston va Liviyaga qilingan bosqinlar. Bu jinoyatlarning barchasi hokimiyat tarmoqlari o'zaro kelishgan holda sodir bo'lgan. Shunday ekan, uch tarmoqli hokimiyat adolatsizlikning oldini oladi yoki kamida uni yumshatadi, degan g'oya tarixning o'zi tomonidan butunlay rad etiladi. Axir, genotsiddan katta adolatsizlik kam uchraydi, shunga qaramay AQSh kabi dunyoviy demokratiyalar bunday jinoyatlarni nazorat qilgan va ularni o'zaro nazorat qiluvchi hokimiyat tarmoqlarining kelishuvi bilan o'z qonun chiqaruvchi zallarida qonuniylashtirgan.

If we look at the US government or the government of any democratic Western nation, we find great corruption, where lobbyists and different political action groups manipulate the branches of government in their favor. For example, in the US context, health insurance companies lobby the Congress and the President as they are trying to influence these branches of government with money to make laws that will benefit the insurance companies financially. This is a type of corruption because these congressmen, the president, senators, et al., are supposed to represent the interests of the people, but because of money, they end up representing the interests of the corporations that are lobbying them and paying them. It is very easy, as we see throughout US history, for interest groups to lobby and influence the different branches of government in this way, and this has a major negative effect. And this is why we see so much injustice in the history of the United States, e.g., the genocide of the Native Americans, the oppression of African Americans, atrocities like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. More recently, consider the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. All of these crimes happened with the branches of government all in agreement. Thus, this idea that having three branches prevents injustice or, at least, mitigates it, is completely undermined by history itself. After all, not many injustices are greater than genocide, yet secular democracies like the US have overseen such crimes and even legislated them in their halls of power, by agreement of mutually checking branches of government.

Endi demokratiya tarafdorlari shunday deyishi mumkin: bu tarixiy misollar demokratiyaning o'zi emas, balki "noto'g'ri yo'lga kirgan demokratiya" uchun ayblanishi kerak. Ular demokratiya ideal holatda ishlaydi, deb ta'kidlaydilar. Ha, turli muammolar paydo bo'lishi mumkin, lekin ular demokratiyaning mohiyatiga aloqador emas. Ularning fikricha, agar ideal vaziyatga erishib, bir nechta qo'shimcha korrupsiyaga qarshi yoki lobbichilikka qarshi qonunlarni joriy qilsak, bunday muammolar bo'lmas edi.

Now democracy enthusiasts could say that these historical examples should not be blamed on democracy itself but rather “democracy gone wrong.” They argue that democracy in the ideal case works, and, yeah, there are all kinds of problems that can crop up, but those are not really essential to what democracy is. They argue that, if we could have an ideal situation and if we just implement a few more anti-corruption laws or maybe anti-lobbying laws, then we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems.

Yo'q, demokratiyada muhim bir muammo bor, chunki biz shuni so'rashimiz kerak: demokratiyaning qonunlari nimaga asoslanadi?

This is a counter argument, so as critical thinkers, we have to anticipate this counter argument and give a response. My response (and maybe you can have a different response if you think about it) is: No, there is a fundamental problem here with democracy because we have to ask: What are the laws of a democracy going to be based on?

Agar ular ommaviy fikrga va Kongressga yoki Prezidentga vakillarni saylayotgan odamlarga, ya'ni ommaviy fikrga asoslanib qonunlarni amalga oshiradigan odamlarga tayansalar, unda ommaviy fikr axloqiy bo'lishini kim aytadi? Ommaviy fikr haqiqatan adolatli bo'lgan narsaga olib kelishini kim aytadi? Nega biz ovoz beradigan ko'pchilik aslida axloqan to'g'ri bo'lgan narsaga ovoz beradi deb taxmin qilishimiz kerak? Odamlar, ehtimol, shaxsiy manfaatdorlikka asoslanib ovoz berishlari ehtimoli ko'proq ko'rinadi. Va bu nega axloq yoki adolatga olib kelishi kerak? Biz aksini kutgan bo'lardik.

If they’re going to be based on popular opinion and people who are voting for representatives in Congress or the President, i.e., people who are going to implement laws based on popular opinion, then who says that popular opinion is going to be moral? Who says that popular opinion is going to arrive at what is truly just? Why would we assume that a mass of people voting would vote for what is actually morally correct? Seems more likely that people would vote based on individual self-interest, perhaps. And why would this lead to morality or justice? We would expect the exact opposite.

Shu savoldan tashqari, biz shuni ham tan olishimiz kerakki, xalqni manipulyatsiya qilish juda oson. Amerika tarixida va bugungi kunda ham buni ko'ramiz. Ommaviy axborot vositalari, ijtimoiy tarmoqlar va ta'lim muassasalari jamiyatni qanday boshqarishiga qarasak, jamoatchilik fikri insonning past instinktlariga qarshi to'siq bo'la olmasligini ko'ramiz. Aksincha, ommaviy fikr millatni adolat va axloq yuzasidan ancha yo'ldan ozdirishi mumkin. Ochiq haqiqat shuki, demokratiya axloqning o'rnini bosa olmaydi va shu yerda din juda muhim bo'ladi. Haqiqat dini va haqiqiy axloqqa ega bo'lgan Islom, Yaratuvchimiz Alloh tomonidan yuborilgan hidoyat, to'g'ri va noto'g'ri hamda haqiqatan adolatli bo'lgan narsalar haqidagi qoidalar bilan juda muhimdir. Aynan shu axloq hukumat ustidan haqiqiy nazorat bo'lishi mumkin. Agar kishida standart, ya'ni obyektiv axloqiy mezon bo'lsa, uni hukumat yoki rahbarning qarorlari yaxshi yoki yomon, adolatli yoki adolatsiz ekanini aniqlash uchun ishlatish mumkin. Bunday mezon zarur. Agar bu mezon bo'lmasa, zamonaviy dunyoviy demokratiyalarda bo'lgani kabi, hech qanday nazorat va muvozanat bo'lmaydi. Bugun AQShda biz ko'rayotgan narsa shuki, hokimiyatning uchala tarmog'i ham o'zlari adolatli va axloqli deb biladigan narsalarda deyarli bir xil fikrda bo'ladi. Bu doim o'sha paytdagi keng jamiyatdagi to'g'ri va noto'g'ri haqidagi ommaviy qarashga borib taqaladi. Bu qarashlarning adolatli yoki adolatsiz, to'g'ri yoki noto'g'ri ekanini baholaydigan mustaqil mezon yo'q, shuning uchun haqiqiy nazorat ham yo'q. Hokimiyat tarmoqlari turli bo'lsa ham, ular bir-biri bilan til biriktirishi mumkin. Ular hammasi bir xil yo'nalishda bo'lishi va ularga qarshi turib, hukm qilish uchun haqiqiy mezon bo'lmasligi mumkin. Shu sababli dunyoviy liberal demokratiyalar tarixida ko'rilgan jinoyatlar va har xil dahshatlarni sodir etish ularga juda oson kechadi. Islam tarixiga nazar solsak, bunday emasligini ko'ramiz, chunki axloqning obyektiv mezoni islomiy huquqdir. Bu huquqning va o'sha obyektiv axloq mezonining qo'riqchilari kim? Ulamolar (islomiy din olimlari). Ulamolar esa sultonlar, amirlar yoki xalifalar bilan aralashmaslikka juda ehtiyot bo'lganlar. Buning sababi shuki, hokimiyat buzishi mumkinligi tan olingan va agar olim sultonga juda yaqin bo'lsa, sulton olimga salbiy ta'sir o'tkazib, uni sultonga foyda keltiradigan diniy hukmlar chiqarishga majbur qilishi mumkin. Shunday qilib, bu juda kuchli nazorat vositasidir. Demokratik tizimlarda uchraydigan sirtdan ko'rinadigan nazoratdan farqli ravishda, bu haqiqiy nazoratdir. Ulamolar bilan sulton o'rtasidagi bu masofa, Payg'ambar ﷺ yuqorida zikr qilingan hadisda aniq bayon qilgan narsadir: "Kim hokim eshigiga borsa, fitnaga uchraydi. Banda hokimga qanchalik yaqinlashsa, Allohdan shunchalik uzoqlashadi."7

Beyond this question, we have to also recognize the fact that it is very easy to manipulate a population and we see this throughout American history and even to this day. If you look at the way that mass media, social media, and educational institutions are able to manipulate society at large, you can see that public opinion is no check on people’s baser instincts. In fact, popular opinion can lead a nation quite astray in terms of justice and morality. The glaring truth here is that democracy cannot be a substitute for morality, and this is where religion is so important, and this is where Islam—as the religion of truth with true morality and God our Creator, Allah, sending guidance, sending rules on right and wrong and what is truly just—is so important. And that morality is what can really be a check on a government. If one has a standard, an objective standard of morality, then that can be used as a check to basically identify whether a government or a leader is making decisions that are good or bad, just or unjust. Such a standard is necessary. If you do not have that standard, as is the case with modern secular democracies, then there can be no check or balance. What we see today in the US, for example, is that all three branches of government will more or less have the same opinions on what they perceive as moral and just. It seems to always boil down to the popular view of right and wrong in wider society at the time. There is no independent standard to judge whether those views of morality are just or unjust, right or wrong, and so there is not really a check. Even though you have different branches of government, they can all collude. They can be all aligned and there is not a true standard to hold against and to judge them by, and that is why it is so easy for secular liberal democracies to commit atrocities and to commit all kinds of crimes that we see throughout their histories. When we look at Islamic history, we see that this is not the case because the objective standard of morality is Islamic law. And who are the guardians of Islamic law and that objective standard of morality? It is the ulama (Islamic religious scholars), and the ulama were very careful not to involve themselves with the sultan, the amir, or the khalifa. This is because there is the recognition that power can corrupt and that if a scholar is too close to the sultan, then the sultan can negatively impact the scholar and corrupt the scholar to make religious rulings that benefit the sultan. So, this is a very strong check. It is a real check unlike the superficial facade of a check that we find within democratic systems. And this distance between the ulama and the sultan is something that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم explicitly mentions in the aforementioned hadith: “Whoever goes to the gates of the ruler will be tried with fitna. A servant does not move closer to the ruler except that he moves further away from Allah.”7

Ushbu hadis va Payg'ambar ﷺ hayotidagi, uning so'zlaridagi ko'plab misollar, shuningdek Rashidun xalifalarining amaliyoti va tarix olimlarining aksariyati asosida ulamolar shunday xulosaga kelganlarki, sulton bilan ulamo o'rtasida juda katta masofa bo'lishi kerak. Bu haqiqiy axloqqa asoslangan, haqiqiy nazorat va muvozanat tizimidir. Sulton yoki xalifa buzilgan bo'lishi, xalqni aldashi yoki iqtisodiyotni o'z moddiy manfaati uchun manipulyatsiya qilishi mumkin, lekin har doim shunday bir olim bo'ladiki, u bunday buzg'unchilikni fosh qiladi va hokimiyatni suiiste'mol qilishga e'tiroz bildiradi.

Based on this hadith and many other examples from the life of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his statements as well as the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the majority of scholars of history, the ulama came to the conclusion that there needs to be a very big distance between the sultan and the ulama. This is a real check and balance based on real morality. While it is the case that the sultan or the khalifa can be corrupt and he can manipulate a population or manipulate an economy for his material gain, there is always the `alim (scholar) who is going to call that out and object to that kind of corruption and abuse of power.

Islam tarixida olimlarning sultonga qarshi chiqqani uchun qiynalgani, qamalgani va hatto o‘ldirilgani ko‘plab misollarda uchraydi. Bu Islam tarixi va Islam boshqaruviga xos juda o‘ziga xos jihat bo‘lib, Islom tafakkurida “cherkov va davlatning ajratilishi” degan tushuncha yo‘q, degani. Kutilgan narsa shuki, xalifa yoki sulton Islom huquqini joriy etadi va Islom axloqi hamda fiqh asosida hukm yuritadi. Butun boshqaruv tizimi shunga asoslangan. Ammo ob’ektiv axloq mezonining egalari bevosita sultonga bog‘liq bo‘lmagan, mustaqil bo‘lib qoladigan kishilar, ya’ni ulamolardir. Ular hokimiyat va pulning buzuvchi ta’siridan xoli bo‘ladilar. Bu hokimiyat ustidan haqiqiy nazorat va korruptsiyaga haqiqiy to‘siqdir. Bunday narsani esa dunyoviy demokratiyalarda ko‘rmaymiz.

And we see many examples of this within Islamic history where scholars were tortured, imprisoned, and sometimes even killed because they opposed the sultan. This is something that is very unique about Islamic history and Islamic governance, and it means that there is not this notion of “separation of church and state” within Islamic thought. The expectation was that the khalifa or the sultan is going to implement Islamic law, and he is going to rule according to Islamic ethics and jurisprudence. The entire system of governance is based on that, but the bearers of the objective standard of morality are people who remain separate and independent ,i.e., the ulama who are not involved directly with the sultan and, therefore, are shielded from the corrupting influence of power and money. That is a real check on power. That is a real check on corruption. And that is something that we do not see within secular democracies.

Sekülyar demokratiyalarda jiddiy kamchilik bor, chunki xalq fikri to'g'ri ekanligini kim aytadi? Ko'p hollarda ommaviy hukmronlik juda noto'g'ri. Ommaviy hukmronlik juda adolatsiz, va hatto konstitutsiya ichida Huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun kabi chegaralar qo'yilsa ham, bu hali ham axloqning juda mo'rt va ishonchsiz tizimi bo'lib, uning ustiga davlat boshqaruvini qurish mumkin emas. Aynan shuning uchun G'arb tarixida nima to'g'ri va nima noto'g'ri deb hisoblanishi shunchalik ko'p o'zgarishini ko'ramiz. Axloq haqidagi qarashlar doimiy ravishda o'zgarib turadi, chunki ommaviy qarashlar ham doimiy ravishda o'zgarib turadi. Bugun adolatli va oqilona ko'rinadigan narsa ertaga dahshatli jinoyat deb topilishi mumkin, va aksincha.

There is a fundamental flaw in secular democracies because who says that popular opinion is going to be right? In most cases, mob rule is very wrong. Mob rule is very unjust and even if you put limits on what the mob can do with, for example, a Bill of Rights within your constitution, that is still a very tenuous and unreliable system of morality to base governance on. And that is why we see so many changes in what is considered right and wrong within Western history. Opinion about morality is constantly shifting because popular views are constantly shifting. What might appear to be just and reasonable today might turn out to be considered an atrocity tomorrow, and vice versa.

Biz musulmonlar buni to'g'ri anglashimiz kerak. Bizning an'anamizda yaxshiroq tizim borligini tan olishimiz lozim. Ha, tariximizda urushlar bo'lgan, korrupsiyaga botgan rahbarlar bo'lgan, hatto dahshatli zulmlar ham sodir bo'lgan. Ammo bizda izchil axloq ham bor — ya'ni Shariat, u bizni Ummat sifatida To'g'ri yo'lda ushlab turadigan va adolat nima ekanligini anglashimizga yordam beradigan langar vazifasini o'taydi. Bu Allohning haqiqiy hidoyati, biz e'tirof etishimiz kerak bo'lgan katta ne'mat. Dunyoning boshqa xalqlari, ularning u yoki bu qismidan chiqqan faylasuflari adolat, axloq va davlat boshqaruvini Allohdan, Qur'ondan va Payg'ambar ﷺ dan yaxshiroq tushunganiga ishonib, o'zimizni past his qilishimiz shart emas.

As Muslims, we need to recognize this for what it is. We need to recognize that we have a better system within our tradition. Yes, we have wars in our history, we have corrupt leaders, and even atrocities. But we also have consistent morality, i.e., the Sharia, that provides that anchor that keeps us as an Ummah on the Straight Path while understanding what is justice. And that is true guidance from Allah—a big blessing that we have to recognize while not having an inferiority complex in thinking that other people, other nations and their philosophers from a particular part of the world have understood justice and morality and government better than Allah, the Quran, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.