By Prof
Ishtiaq Ahmed
(March 10,
Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian) The modern secular-democratic
state must ensure that all individuals as well as majorities and
minorities enjoy freedom of religion and conscience and the political
right to choose their government.
In the
last few weeks the Daily Times(Pakistan) has carried a number of very
interesting articles for and against making Pakistan a secular state.
Babar Ayaz pleaded for amending the Pakistani constitution with a view
to making it a secular state (‘Amendments for a secular constitution’,
Daily Times, February 2, 2010). Dr S M Rahman of the Friends Foundation
took a diametrically opposite stand, debunking the secular state as an
immoral entity, which allegedly focuses entirely on the pursuit of
hedonistic interests and pleasures (‘Is secularism that sacrosanct?’
Daily Times, February 22, 2010). Both authors have advanced seriously
considered arguments in favour of their political and ideological
preferences. I fully sympathise with Babar Ayaz as he has referred to
the hard facts of the brutalisation of society that has taken place in
Pakistan in recent years.
Some further arguments can be adduced
in support of the secular state. The basic flaw in Dr Rahman’s thesis is
that instead of reviewing contemporary views on the secular state, he
eclectically quotes fictional literature and with a broad sweep the
history of 2,000 years of Christendom, the Renaissance, the Reformation
and so on, but does not attempt a review of the development in political
theory and practice with regard to the contemporary secular state.
Not
only Rousseau but some other Western writers have shown admiration for
the state of Medina founded by the Prophet (PBUH) and sustained for a
while by his pious successors (29 years according to the Sunnis and a
mere six years according to the Shias). However, what those writers have
not done but which any serious and honest scholar of today — Muslim or
non-Muslim — cannot escape noticing is that subsequent attempts to
resuscitate the ideal Islamic state have been unmitigated disasters.
I
have shown in my doctoral dissertation (‘The Concept of an Islamic
State: An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan’ published
in 1987 and again in 1992), that the Quran does not provide a general
theory of the state or government; it at most provides a sui generis
idea of a Prophet-in-Authority. The Prophet (PBUH) was a lawgiver, a law
enforcer and a law adjudicator. Upon his death the role of lawgiver was
over. The pious caliphs could at most claim the right to enforce the
law and to adjudicate it when it was violated. With the assassination of
Ali in 661 AD, the ideal Islamic state ceased to exist.
During
the pre-modern period, education, information and knowledge were
restricted to very small elites, pious or corrupt. In such
circumstances, societies were lucky to have a benevolent despot in power
but were mostly ruled by absolute rulers; many were tyrants. One can
argue that at that period in history it was but natural that some gifted
individuals could make a huge difference in the lives of people. Since
the Prophet (PBUH) and his pious successors were in their own time
revolutionaries who tried to establish a more just society than what was
present contemporaneously in the 7th century, their achievements have
admirers not only among Muslims but also others. With the advances in
education, information, law, constitutionalism, moral philosophy and
political theory, there is no need for pinning hope on gifted
individuals. Rather the need is to build institutions that ensure
respect for the rights of citizens.
The modern conception of the
state begins with Machiavelli — an authority that Dr Rahman probably is
referring to with regard to morality. That view of the secular state has
indeed visited great suffering on humanity during the period of
nationalism, and the two World Wars and the Holocaust are examples of
it. However, the state as an entity upholding the rule of law and itself
accepting limits to its power and authority by law has a long pedigree.
It origins are undoubtedly the British Isles. The rule of law meant
recognition of the rights of individuals to certain inalienable
freedoms. Those freedoms included the freedom to conscience and religion
as well.
It is such a secular state that has evolved during the
20th century into a welfare state, and after World War II it has become
truly universal, requiring equal treatment of men and women, protection
of the rights of minorities to their culture and religion, and committed
the state to promote the welfare of its citizens. I do not find such
developments immoral in any sense of the word. On the contrary, the
modern secular state prescribes a very advanced morality — that its
citizens have the right to be liberated from want and hunger, illiteracy
and disempowerment, which has been the lot of the mass of the people
throughout history. Moreover, the modern secular-democratic state must
ensure that all individuals as well as majorities and minorities enjoy
the freedom of religion and conscience and the political right to choose
their government. There are of course many other rights that are now
part of the UN conventions and national constitutions. The whole idea is
that the government cannot arbitrarily repeal the human and civil
rights of citizens.
No doubt the secular-democratic state is no
guarantee that its constitution and laws will never allow abuse of power
— the unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by religious freaks like US
President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair are some indication of
the need to extend the rule of law beyond the state to international
relations. In other words, there is an urgent need to ensure that the
violation of international law that results in the deaths of innocent
people is criminalised even more strongly. The International Criminal
Court (ICC) has been assigned the task of ensuring that leaders who are
guilty of crimes against humanity and acts of genocide are tried and
punished.
It represents a secular morality that is far superior
to all the ‘might-is-right’ conquests that were normal when warrior
nations such as the Romans and Arabs or later the Europeans could embark
upon and subjugate other peoples. Secular political thought, tempered
by the growing realisation that human beings have to be treated as equal
and free without regard to race, nationality or religion, has created
vastly different possibilities for human beings to live in peace and
enjoy a life of dignity under the law. Therefore, the modern secular
state is a moral state.
Ishtiaq Ahmed
is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies
(ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University
of Singapore. He is also Professor Emeritus of Political Science at
Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian
politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a
Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg