Is democracy compatible with Islam? This question has bedevilled Pakistan since its formation. There is still widespread confusion. Pakistan was carved out of the British India as a homeland for Muslims. It is an ‘Islamic Republic’, and as such there is a need for a clear understanding of the Islamic concept of government. But before getting to the Islamic concept of government, it is useful to get a clearer understanding of democracy. The term, as we understand it today, is largely the form given to it by the French Revolution: a government by the entire adult population through its elected representatives on the basis of ‘one person, one vote with the objective of enabling socioeconomic equality for all people. This, however, is not the concept held by the ancient Greeks from whom the term originated. To them democracy-the rule of and by the people-implied a much more oligarchic form of government. In their city states, the ‘people’ were free born citizens of the state. Those were never more than the ten percent of the population. The rest, slaves and serfs, had no civic rights and, of course, were not eligible to vote. The point here is to appreciate that at different times in history, democracy has not always meant the same thing. The general principle has been that those who rule should be elected by the population or some subsection of it. This rules out some forms of government such as monarchy and dictatorships, but at the same time, it does not limit the forms that democracy itself can take. Any discussion of the ‘Islamic’ form of government requires that there be a clear understanding of the sources of the Islamic jurisprudence. The first of these is the Quran. The second is what is referred to as the Sunnah; these are the words (Hadith) and deeds (Aa’mal) of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Unlike the Quran, which was committed to writing at the time it was revealed, the Hadith were largely held as an oral tradition. The process of collecting, collating and transcribing the Hadith started early in the second Hijrah century and continued well into the thrd. This is when scholars such as Bokhari and Muslim completed their groundbreaking Sahihs. Of these two sources of legislation, the Quran and the Sunnah, the absolute authority belongs only to the Quran. From these two sources is derived the Shariah, which is the general legal framework by which Musilms live. The Shariah, given its generality, does not cover the full spectrum of human activity and is not intended to. Like a constitution, it lays down a general framework-guidelines and boundaries-which form the basis for broader legislation. That, collectively known as Fiqh, has been developed by generations of scholars to respond to the needs of their people. Each succeeding generation added or modified the law in response to the needs and circumstances of the age. The Shariah, given its divine origin, is timeless and not subject to change. But the Fiqh clearly must change over time to remain relevant as societies, knowledge, and technology progress. This brings us to the concept known as ‘ijtihaad’. Derived from the Arabic verb ‘ijtahada’ meaning literally to strive or to endeavour, ijtihaad is the deduction of statutory laws, Fiqh, based on and consistent with the overriding principles of the Shariah. Wherever the Shariah is silent, and it is silent on many issues, Fiqh steps in to fill the gap. It is important to appreciate that Fiqh, as a deductive process, is by definition a matter of opinion. One scholar’s opinion may differ from another. This does not mean that one of them is necessarily wrong but rather may reflect a difference of perspective, or timing, or differing geographies, or other economic and social circumstances. One of the areas in which the Shariah is indeed silent is on the specific form of government that Muslims should select for themselves. But it has not left us without guidance on the general parameters of such a government. The overarching general principle on designing a system is contained in the Quran: “Their [the Muslims] communal business [amr] is to be [transacted in] consultation among themselves.”(Verse 38; Surah Ash-Shura) As Muslims, in our increasingly embattled Islamic Republic of Pakistan, we have done well to have a democratic system broadly consistent with the Shariah This verse makes clear that all communal matters, including the manner in which a government must be set up and run, is by consultation amongst Muslims. Consultation then is the fundamental underlying principle in the setting up of any Islamic government. What specific form such consultation takes has been left to Muslims to determine, depending on the time and circumstances in which they live. A general election of the sort held in Pakistan is a form of such consultation but by no means the only possible form. The four rightly guided caliphs were all appointed by some form of consultation. The first Caliph Abu Bakr(RA) was elected by the tribal chiefs of both the Muhajirs and Ansar present in Medina at the time of the prophet’s demise. On his deathbed, Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) nominated Hazrat Umar (RA) as the next caliph. That was subsequently ratified by the community, what in today’s terminology would be termed an election. Hazrat Umar (RA) did not nominate a successor. Instead, he proposed an ‘electorate’ of six of the prophet’s closest companions who were to select the next caliph. They agreed on Hazrat Uthman (RA) as the third caliph. Following Hazrat Uthman’s (RA) demise, Hazrat Ali (RA) was proclaimed the caliph by the congregation at the prophet’s mosque in Medina. Following that, the majority of the population pledged their loyalty to Hazrat Ali (RA). It becomes clear that in the early stages of Islam there was no prescribed single way to appoint a ruler. In fact, the method of each appointment differed from that which came before. Yet all the methods were in conformance with the Quranic injunctio. Perhaps the divine wisdom intended to show Muslims that they were not limited to a single method. It also becomes clear that, at least in the appointment of the first four caliphs, consultation did not extend to all people; rather, it was limited to a relatively small group of community leaders. While the overarching principle of amru hum shura baina hum does not impose such a limit, the exigency of the moment, and the need to have a leader in place promptly, may well have been on the minds of community leaders. There is another factor that may also have influenced the leaders to seek a limited consultation. Let’s understand that these were people who were companions of the prophet. They knew him well. At the same time, they were bearers of the Quran. Many of them had memorised the entire revelation. Others had been assigned by the prophet to transcribe verses as they were revealed to him. They had an understanding of the Quran and the Sunnah that would be hard if not impossible to replicate today. And so they knew the multiple references that the Quran makes about the importance of wisdom, knowledge and reason. The term ulu al-albab, meaning owners or possessors of wisdom, appears in no less than sixteen verses. And then there is verse nineteen of the Surah Faatir: “Those who are blind are not as those who see.” And the blindness here is not that of the eyes, rather that of hearts and minds. Consider also the verse nine of the Surah Az-Zumar that poses the rhetorical question: “Are those who have knowledge the same as those who do not?” These references could not have been lost on community leaders whenever they sought to appoint a new leader for the Islamic state. And so they thought it imperative that consultation be limited to those who did have knowledge and wisdom-theulu albab, and to those who could ‘see’. From the foregoing, it becomes clear that ‘democracy’, defined as a process of consultation, is the central principle of an Islamic system of government. And that there is no defined or preferred way to conduct this consultation. Rather, the matter has been left to Muslims to determine what is fit for the circumstances of the age in which they live. As Muslims, in our increasingly embattled Islamic Republic of Pakistan, we have done well to have a democratic system broadly consistent with the Shariah. However, where perhaps we have erred is to extend the consultation to the entire population. In doing so we have, one, not taken into consideration ground realities such as illiteracy, feudalism, and pir fakiri, elements that take away the freedom of vast swathes of the population to vote as they would like. And two, we have declined to take advantage of the flexibility offered by the Shariah to tailor our ‘consultancy’ process to our needs. This is how we must now modify our democracy to make it work: the misconceived one person, one vote principle must go. In its place, the vote should only be given to those who have knowledge and are free to vote as they choose. This could, for example, be all those who have passed matriculation. Or, a higher standard could be applied, such as all those who are college graduates. Such a change need not be permanent. It can be kept in place as long as needed to bring widespread literacy and to end feudalism and pir fakiri. By choosing to exercise this flexibility given to us by the Shariah in designing our system of government we will finally rid ourselves of the curse of the usual culprits-thosewho compel, coerce and fighten the illiterate and underprivileged to vote them into the assemblies. We have seen their corruption and supreme incompetence in bringing Pakistan to its knees. It is now time to send them home. And in doing so, we will achieve one of the central objectives of the Shariah, which is to put the best of our people in charge of our affairs. The writer is chairman of Mustaqbil Pakistan