This text represents the third contribution of Hassan Hanafi in his dialogue with Andrew Arato, published by the magazine Reset in its September-October 2007 issue (no.103).

To be haunted by one model of democracy or another, an Israeli model Herrenvolk democracy of liberal democracy without being able to imagine alternative democracies is a certain kind of blind, unilateral, egoistic and Eurocentric ideological stand which prevents from an open dialogue, recognizing the existence of the other, the right to differ and the possibility of pluralism, perspectivism and multiculturalism. Ethnocracy is a contradiction in terms because democracy is a universal value while ethnocracy is a partial one. Ethnocracy may be for one ethny not for others. Democracy for equal citizenship is a universal claim. No one can denounce liberal democracy but some one can only show that liberal democracy is only one kind of democratic forms, not all kinds. Insisting that some one, which is usually the other partner in dialogue, is against liberal democracy is characterizing an imaginative self-created adversary. In this case, it is no more a dialogue but a dialectic which proves that the self is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong. Dialogue is against monopoly of truth. In dialogue there is no right and wrong, but there are only perspectives. Dialectic is dogmatism and absolutism while dialogue is criticism and relativism. Dialectic is an ideological stand while dialogue is a scientific one. Dialectic is argumentation, while Dialogue is an art of demonstration.

Liberal Democracy is not a magic-key which opens all the secrets of the world. There is no one solution for one problem or many. It is not a magic flute of Mozart or a magic lamp of Alaaddin. It is only an ideal type of one historical experience, the western one. The methodological reductionism in western social science is generalizing the particular and then applying this generalization on other particulars. In a more sound methodology, the generalized particular moderates itself to fit other particulars discovered in the process of application to make the general more capable of englobing other particulars. Liberal democracy compared to authoritarianism, autocracy, dictatorship and oligarchy surely is most desirable. We in the Arab world, especially in Egypt during its liberal age in the first half of the twentieth century, liberal democracy came to an end by the Army revolution in July 1952. At the same time it was the colonial era. We enjoyed freedom of press, multi-party system, election, a government responsible in front of the Parliament, independence of the Judiciary…etc. But, it did not prevent corruption, election fraud, tax evasions, the intervention of the king and the colonial power, namely Great Britain, feudalism, the persecution of the opposition and the physical liquidation of its leaders (Hassan al-Banna, the founder of Muslim Brotherhood). Liberal Democracy requires certain cultural pre-requisites which some societies did not fulfill yet such as: the respect of the other, the right of differ, political pluralism, the respect of the individual, legetimation and transfer of power, the rule of the law, human rights…etc. Our democracy was without democrats like our Socialism afterwards was without socialists. In the first experience we did not have yet a democratic culture, in the second one we did not have yet a socialist culture. In the first experience we began by Pachas not citizens. In the second one, we began by free officers not free thinkers.

One day, which is not faraway, a healthy north south dialogue, an Euro-Arab dialogue or even an Islam-West dialogue is done on equal partenaria without the western epistemological arrogance and away from western unilateralism. The West is not the whole world, West-East, North-South, past, present and future. The world is more multi-cultural, multi phase and multi facets because it is a historical, dynamic, interactive and intercultural history. A sound and sane dialogue is between two equal partners. Now between the two shores of the Mediterranean there is a double fear, hegemony of the North on the South: cultural, economic and political emigration from the South to the North connected to violence, alienation of cultural identity of the West and its Islamization. Real fears or illusory ones? Both cases are from the legacy of the past. Hopes of the future may one day prevail on the fears of the past.

Islam and Democracy

The Islamic concept of democracy is something else. It is not a quantitative concept, majority-minority, power and opposition but a qualitative concept based on the right of every person to express himself freely. No one has the right to monopolize the truth and imposes his view on others. The right to differ is a legitimate right, a religious duty. The good advice, to order the good to be done and the evil not to be done, is a religious duty surmounting to an article of faith. The truth is the outcome of consensus Ijma’. Every one has to spell himself out. Silence is devilish, fear and lack of commitment. Diversity of opinions is similar to diversity in nature, a creative diversity. All opinions are right once they express good intentions and public welfare. Truth is multiple as theoretical frameworks for reasoning. Practical truth is one because it fulfils the public welfare and the common interest. Islamic political regime is not a theocracy. God rules neither in person nor through his so-called representative. No one on earth has the right to represent God. The Ruler in Islam, the Imam, is freely elected by the people. Sovereignty is the outcome of a social contract between the ruler and the ruled. The ruler orders and the ruled obeys provided that the order is according to the terms of the contract. If the Ruler does fail in implementing the clauses of the contract from his side, the ruled have to advice him privately and publicly. If the Ruler continues the disobedience of the contract, warnings have to come publicly in Mosques preachings. If the Ruler does not listen to these warnings, the people or their speakers, the Ulemas, have to bring him to court. If the high judge does rule against him and he does not obey, a popular revolt led by the high judge is launched against him. The Ruler fails his commitment if he is unjust inside and weak outside, if he fails to implement justice and if he fails to defend the national borders.

The real ruler is not the executive power but the legislative power. Some would call this type of the rule of the law “Nomocracy”. The Ruler is a person linked to his appreciation, passion and will. Law is impersonal, more objective and more just. The Ruler is only an executive power, not a legislative or a judiciary power. Law is impartial. It does express the public welfare. It gives the general guidelines, leaving the particle cases to the work of the scholars such as democracy, Shura, as a political theory, social justice, ‘Adl, as a social theory, peace, Salam, as a theory in international relations. The judiciary which is completely independent from the Executive rules in case of conflict of interpretations and decisions by the Executive. The objective of democracy is to implement the universal intentions of the law, based essentially Ibtida’ on the public welfare called “public reason” which are five: Life Nafs against death, disease, hunger, drought and all threats for survival; Reason ‘Aql against ignorance, fanaticism, dogmatism, unilateralism and imitation; Universal norms called Truth Din which means the consensus of mankind on major norms of behavior and a universal code of ethics against relativism, skepticism, agnosticism and nihilism; Honor ‘Ird and human dignity against humiliation and violations of human rights; and finally public wealth Mal against waste, usurpation, exploitation and monopoly. These are the major intentions of Islamic law which has to be understood, since the law is the outcome of human understanding Afham, then assimilated since the law has to be called for, not imposed Imtithal, and finally realized by human action Taklif as a personal self-commitment. The authentic religious life is the compatibility between the universal intentions of the law and the particular intentions of the believer. Revelation would become the ideal structure of the world. In contemporary words, these five intentions of revelation are a real and genuine combination of universal declaration of human rights in the West in 1948 and universal declaration of peoples rights formulated in the Third world, in Algiers 1977.

The question is: who is setting the agenda? Democracy, globalization, end of history, clash of civilizations, information revolution, new technologies of communication, the world as one village, governance, human rights, civil society, minorities, gender …etc is a Western agenda. Decolonization, freedom, social justice, unity, self-reliant development, identity, mass-mobilization …etc is another agenda. Conflict of agendas is a conflict of power. As far as the actual imbalance of power between center and periphery exists, between Cultural in capital ‘C’ and cultures in small ‘c’s, the future of democracy will be always a one-way track, from the center to the periphery, from big ‘C’ to small ‘c’s, a monolithic model based on unilateralism which is a negation of the other, the very basis of Western culture, namely pluralism. It would be taken as another practice and a new evidence of the double standard, the stumbling block in Western culture.
Why saying goodbye? Why not saying Au-Revoir, bis nachher or ila al-liqa’?

Hassan Hanafi is a professor of philosophy at the University of Cairo, where he has been head of the Philosophy Dept. since 1988. Over the course of his career his interests have been focused on analyses of Islamic and Western philosophical traditions and on the relationships which have bound them.