Perhaps Muslim countries need a lesson in history
It seems most of the Muslim majority states are struggling with establishing stable democratic institutions that genuinely allow mandate of the people, work for the benefit of the people and enable peaceful transfer of power. In almost 30% Muslim majority countries there is monarchy while in the other 70% there are either direct or indirect dictatorships. In indirect dictatorships, individuals have total control of political parties in top countries by population like Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. There are some in transition like Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan as war rages in these countries. There have been many explanations provided by political scientists. Some consider it a function of illiteracy; some points towards cultural nuances; some believe it is the result of economic slavery, and some suggest it as a residual of a colonial past. But the situation is prevalent in across so many different cultures, levels of literacy and varying degrees of economic prosperity which negate all these arguments. Although a more scholarly work is needed to ascertain the scientific causes of this dynamic but in my view the root cause for this reliance on autocrats could be in the wrong political interpretation of the second part of the first kalima. Let us try to explore this.
The second part of first kalima requires all Muslims to pledge their allegiance to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). This is wrongly interpreted as an allegiance to the person rather to the social contract and spiritual message conferred on him by the divine authority. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) combined both religious and temporal authority but there is a fine distinction between the two. The religious authority was granted to him by God as a prophet while he worked diligently to acquire the temporal authority of a political leader. He started his life as an orphan child whose uncle was a chief of a minor tribe. It was the personal qualities and political wisdom of the Prophet (PBUH) that made him a prominent member of the tribal society before he declared his prophet hood. When he started preaching his religious message one sacrifice he had to make was losing his political stature in the community and was literally isolated from it. He then gradually worked hard to re-establish his political authority through wars, peace negotiations, drafting of a constitution, and nation building at Medina.
But then he made a decision that had a profound impact on the future course of political events of the Muslim Ummah. He did not designate an heir to his political authority. There has been an extensive debate on this subject among historians and the conclusive consensus is that Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) deliberately did not designate an heir to the state of Medina that he founded. To me, it makes a lot of sense. His religious mandate ended with his departure from this world. If he had designated an heir or laid down a mechanism then it would have been considered a divinely mandated sanction. It would have jeopardised the evolution of Muslim societies as the world is still changing because of new discoveries in science, technology, and political science. It was a deliberate act rather than an omission on the part of the Prophet (PBUH) as some have proposed. The utterance of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RATA) is significant when he announced the departure of the Prophet (PBUH) from this word. He said “And now, he who worships Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Muhammad is dead now. But he who worships Allah, He is Ever Living and He never dies.”
Within hours of Prophet (PBUH), departure discussions started about the heir to his political mandate. When Abu Bakr (RATA) was sworn in as Caliph then questions were raised about the political title that can be assigned to him. He chose to be called “khalīfat rasūl Allāh” (PBUH), meaning successor or deputy of the prophet, in other words, deriving his political authority from the person this is where the wrong political interpretation of second part of the first kalima started. I suggest this because Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) did not expressly appoint him as to assume his political authority rather it was a decision of the shura that was held immediately after Prophet (PBUH) departure. This is a significant difference because suggestions that Caliph derived his political authority directly from the Prophet (PBUH) made him beyond reproach by the community. This is the same concept used in legitimising the mandate of a monarch practiced at that by Byzantine Emperors. As traders, Muslims were aware of that and may have had the influence to adopt that title. Hazrat Abu Bakr (RATA) was aware of this danger and he tried to balance it in his first speech as Caliph:
I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience. Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you. (Al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah 6:305,306)
When Hazrat Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RATA) was sworn in as 2nd Caliph, he assumed the title of “Khalifatu khalīfat rasūl Allāh” meaning deputy of the deputy of the Prophet (PBUH). The tendency among Muslims has been in both Shia and Sunni; to give unquestioned allegiance to the political authority of individuals and in my view the seeds for it were sown in the early years of the Islamic state. Later Kings and Caliph continued in the tradition of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RATA) and considered themselves bearers of a political authority that derived from Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). They used it to the full extent by discouraging any discourse on divulging it to people which are the actual tradition of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). He did not assign an heir because he believed it is the mandate of the people to chose their rulers and allowed his own political authority expire at his departure.
This situation needs to be corrected and a more democratic tradition of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) should be actively promoted. The allegiance is not to a person but to an ideology that allows a healthy accountability and debate about the decision of the person of authority. Allegiance to a person, on the other hand, requires loyalty and unquestioned following which creates personal power which has the potential to be abused and can in many cases result in the rise of autocrats.
The advice of the Prophet (PBUH) in his last Hajj Khutba was that his message has to be interpreted by each generation with a fresh perspective. We have forgotten those instructions and try to follow interpretations that were made by the past generations. This has to rectify as well because only then we can claim Islam to be a religion for all times.