Khilafat Centenary Souvenir 1908-2008 — Page 53
Comparison of th e Concepts of Dem ocracy and Kh i lafat Most individuals rarely, if ever, reflect on the form of government under whose rule they reside. Rather, discussions about political ideology are dispassionately and hastily studied at the secondary education level or are referred to the theatrics of the political arena for elaboration and analysis. This disconnection from personal reflection on whether or not the system of government within which one resides is actually meeting its stated objectives is largely due to the seemingly wildfire spread of democrac y around the world and the hegemonic perception that democrac y is the apex of political governance. Before one surrenders to this belief, it is imperative to understand this ideology's generally accepted definitions, analy ze its major goals and evaluate the desirability and attainability of these objectives. This discourse intends to fully examine the concept of democrac y alongside an ideology of spiritual background , that is, the concept of khilafat in Islam. Since Islam, too, claims to offer guidelines toward the establishment of a universal order for mankind as does democrac y, the comparison becomes highly significant and deeply relevant to the future of mankind. Democracy The concept of democrac y has been practiced in one form or the other in the world since the evolution of communal life among people. Yet it has been almost impossible to define it. Is it a purely political ideology? Or , does it also imply a certain social or economic structure? Obviously, without specifying a definitive base and some reasonable boundaries, it will not be possible to make a meaningful comparison of democrac y with khilafat. However, inspite of the extensive use of the slogan, democrac y has hitherto defied any universally acceptable definition. In fact, as Gyorgy and Blackwood point out, it is incapable of definition "because it has almost as man y definitions as the socio-political contexts in which the term is used. Ironically, the apparent foe of democracy, Rabia Chaudhry communism, has often borrowed the term "democratic" in self-describing their membership nations. As Gyorgy and Blackwood state: "Marxists, for instance, frequently speak of Communist countries as 'People's Democracies' and suggest that Western countries that use the term in a different context are actually not democratic at all. . . In fact, Democratic Socialism. . . is not only viable but thriving in some parts of the world. " Among the various contexts of the term "democracy" are the political, social and economic ones. While political democracy may indicate a type of governing system, the socio-economic aspects pre-suppose equality of various kinds. In a definition of social and economic democracy, for example, equality is considered as one of the necessary ingredients. But, what is equality? It can have a variety of dimensions. It can mean, for example, political eq uality in the sense of equality at the ballot box through each person's access to the place of voting, freedom to cast his or her vote as he or she wishes and that each vote is given equal weight. On the other hand, political equality could also mean equality in the ability to be elected to public office. Other perceptions of equality may include equality before the law, equality of opportunity, economic equality, social equality and equality of respect. Even this rather broad classification cannot cover various aspects comprehensively. In addition, there are several informal avenues of inequality. Racial and sexual discrimination may perhaps be considered the most common. It may also be noted that economic and social inequality can consequently impair and limit political equality as well. For example, a poorer person cannot usually enjoy the same facilities to participate in the selection of candidates. Conversel y, substantial financial support by the wealthy to a candidate's campaign can often effectively reverse the outcomes