The recent CSS-2006 Islamiat exam included the question: "’islam-in The Mid Of Contemporary Manangements And Political Systems-possesses Its Own Polittical Management And Political System. discuss"

I, in my answer, had not equalized any form of democracy with Islamic political system. I wrote that Islam has not specifically prescribed any particular form of institutional set-up as its political system. First Caliph of Islam was chosen by the top Muslim leaders after consultation among them. Opinion of general population was not considered or invited in this process. At this stage, some Muslims had shown their disagreement with such a process and they had insisted that there were no need to choose any caliph, as the true 'Imam' i.e. Hazrat Ali (RA) had already been nominated by the Prophet (PBUH)). This difference of opinion however could not get any popularity at this stage and so Hazrat Abu Bakar Saddique (RA) was 'chozen' by the consultancy council of top Muslim leaders, as the first Caliph of Islam.

So originally, two alternative institutional set-ups i.e. first where Caliph was to be chozen by the consultancy council of top or most compitent Muslims and second idea related to the pre-nominated system of Imamat.

The first system continued up to the fourth Caliph of Islam i.e. Hazrat Ali (RA) and the same period is regarded in Islamic history, as the most effective political era.

After it, Caliphate was taken up by bano-Ommayad who turned up the institution of Caliphate into family based dynasty. The same system of family based dynasty was later on also adopted by Bano-Abbas as well as by the Ottoman empire. Contemporary Muslim governments have adopted many other forms of institutional set-ups like monarchy as well as democracy.

Then I argued that since Muslims have practiced different forms of institional set-ups in different phases of history, so we may not consider only one particular form of institutional set-up as 'Islamic' and other forms as 'un-Islamic'. For Example, Bano-Ommayad had brought about important change in the institution of Caliphate by converting it into a family based dynasty. It is also true that many of Ommayad Caliphs are not regarded as true Muslim rulers in the Islamic history. But at the same time, it is also true that at least one of Omayyad Caliphs i.e. Hazrat Umer-bin-Abdul-Aziz (RA) has been regarded as not only true Muslim ruler but he is also coinsidered as Hazrat Umer Sani, in Islamic history. Now see that the existence of a true Muslim government could be possible in such an institutional set-up which was different from the original one. It means that true Islamic government can exist in different forms of institutional set-ups. What is needed is not any particular kind of institutional set-up but true spirite and essence of Islam.

Now come to modern democracy:

Democracy is such form of institutional set-up which subjects the legitimization of the authenticity of government to the approval of general public opinion. Secondly, this form of institutional set-up limits the tenure of every new government to just few years. So under democracy, a government would be considered to be 'legitimate' if it is officially backed up by the approval of general opinion. Secondly, even a publicly popular government would come to an end after the expiray of its tenure. To be remain in office, it again would have to be re-elected by the general public. One of the underlying idea is that under this form of government system, every government would work for the betterment of general public because if it would not do it, then it would not be re-elected by the general public after the expiry of its tenure.

This system is successfully functioning in some countries but in other countries like in Pakistan, this system has been subject to successive failures. My question related to the comparison between 'democracy' and 'good governance'. Under democracy, level of 'good governance' is measured in terms of level of general public approval to the policies and decisions taken by the government. Under dictatorship, level of approval of general public would become irrelevant and more emphasis can be given to the vision, goals and objectives of the government. Such aims, visions, objectives etc. may or may not be in hormany with the desires of general public. Secondly there can be difference in the dictator's perception about the betterment of country and that of general public as a whole. In such case, the dictator may do very sincere efforts for the betterment of country and may even get some achievements also but still may not find any support by the general public.

On the other hand there can be such a democratic political rular who may all the time think about getting more and more popularity among general public and even at the cost of larger interests of his country. Here I want to give the example of Nawaz Sharif's tenures of governments which were fully characterized by media campaigns and propagandas about any real or even ficticious sincerity of the personality of Nawaz Sharif for the general public. He, in his tenures, had initiated such projects and policies whose aims were not more than just to inspire general public about the sincerity of Mr. Nawaz Sharif for them. He launched Yellow Cab scheme with not any such motive as to provide any strength to the economy of the country. The underlying motive was very superficial whose aim was to just inspire general public that it were the desires of a common man which were being addressed by Mr. Nawaz Sharif. People could see many many yellow cabs here and there around the country and thus could 'see' that their prime minister was so much sincere about the welfare of common man. In addition, he constructed many recreationary parks with not any such purpose to provide some facities to the citizens but with such motives as general people could see here and there many "Nawaz Sharif Parks". Electronic media, in his tenures, had been busy in broadcasting very impressive National Anthems which included video clips of Mr. Nawaz Sharif helping out the general public with his own hands etc. His motor-way project also had such ulterior motives behind it. General public had no interest in knowing about the facts and realities of the economy of country as a whole. But they were crazy of being able to have a journey over such a beautiful and vast road in their own country. So Mr. Nawaz Sharif undertook this types of projects in his tenures and he did not take any proper care of the state of economy of the country as a whole. When he was dismissed and Mr. Mueen Qureshi took the charge of undertaking prime minister, the new prime minister revealed that how the economy of the country had been 'plagued' by yellow color by such projects as yellow cab scheme as well as by the motor-way project. General public however did not take any proper notice of these crucial facts and realities of the economy of country as a whole. Actually there can be nothing inspiring for the general public in the boring and complicated facts and figures of the economy. They can 'see' only 'visible' aspects of the performance of country. Thus if a government successfully reduces the burden of foreign debt up to a considerable extent and then also improves the level of forign exchange reserves in the country but ... does not provide yellow cabs to common man .... general public would consider such a government as non-sincere, non-friendly and even failed or flop.

Due to such reasons, I am not in favour of democracy. General public, in my opinion, should have no direct concern with the affairs of government. But intellectuals and experts of national/international affairs and experts of Economy etc. should have direct concern with the affairs of government. This would be the true Islamic system because this system most closly resembles to the original caliphate system of Islam where Caliph used to take decisions after taking advices from the consultation council. Only intellectuals of a country can better guide the governments and only they can better measure the performance of government. Also I can see no logic in fixing the pre-determined tenure for every government. If a government is performing well then it should continue to remain in office even after the expiry of tenure because otherwise the momentum of the performance would just uselessly be disturbed. A government should remain in office not subject to the approval of general public but subject to the approval of the class of intellectuals of country. There is no need to elect so many useless MNAs and MPAs and to provide them so many lucrative facilities. Better policy should be to select lets say at least 1000 top compitent individuals who should be thoroughly aware about the internal and external challanges faced by the country. These people should act like a 'think tank' for the country. They must be able to evaluate and analyze the policies adopted by the government. They must all the time monitor the performance of the government. Only they people should have right to vote but they should not have right to be elected in elections. Only proven compitent, experienced and internationally recognized personalities of the country should have right to become candidate for elections. Those 1000 intellectuals of the country should elect only 10 or 20 most compitent personalities of the country as members of government. Then those 1000 intellectuals and those 20 elected personalities should jointly elect the president from among the 20 elected personalities. These 20 elected persons should act like the Cabinate of country. President should have right to nominate any other person from the country as a new member of Cabinate. But president should do it after consulting the other cabinate members. Cabinate members and members of think tank jointly should have right to change the president with majority vote. There should be no fixed tenure for government but government must be changed as and when majority vote of cabinate and 'think tank' members favours so. 'Think Tank' members must not be offered any lucrative facilities but they must be provided with sufficient salaries. These 'think tank' members must face stiff competition for both joining and than to remain in the 'think tank'. And it is also important that all the provinces should be represented in that 'think tank'. There should be a commity comprising of top officials of the country who should monitor the performance of members of 'think tank'...


The above is just a skech of what in my opinion should be the solution to our political problems..

But since we are a lazy nation ... so we shall wait for the time when any new system shall be adopted by the western countries ... Then we shall just copy that new system...


Thanks!

Regards!

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????