|
... the science of peace |
|
|
Q: If the ruling jurist is considered to be the
person who makes the final and definite decisions with regard to
selecting the administrative body of the state (according to the
theory advocating the rule of the jurists); why then carrying out
elections? For more info check:
A: Because the jurist might find it useful to consult people
about the cases which are tightly connected to their lives. He might
discover in people’s opinions the crucial elements of the cases he
wants to deal with. Indeed, it is natural that people would be asked
for their opinions and proposals with relation to the cases that cut
to the heart of their lives. For this particular reason, Islam regards
consultation as a defining feature of the Islamic society; it also
went to the extent of asking the Prophet (p.), who needs the advice of
no one, to consult people and to judge accordingly. Therefore, the
theory of jurists’ rule does not mean that the jurist acts and
behaves according to his own thoughts and convictions. Actually, the
last word would still remain his after consulting people with respect
to their affairs through polls and elections might turn out to be one
of the ways to.
Q: Can the majority and unanimous vote give
legitimacy to whoever receives it?
A: If the majority expresses what is right and fair, this does
not mean that it represents legitimacy. However, when the purpose is
to discover people’s opinions and public interest lies in taking
people’s decisions into consideration, the majority might prove to
be the best choice in the absence of another alternative.
Q: Do you think that the issue of vote and election resembles the
pledge of allegiance in the Islamic law?
A: It might not be a pledge as to the conventional meaning of
the pledge because pledges were traditionally undertaken in favor of a
certain leader who was about to handle a caliphate, a presidency, an
Imamate, or a prophecy. Indeed, it is not about a person trying to
occupy a position in the legislative body to approve and ratify
people’s laws, pacts and treaties with others. According to the
elector, election resembles a proxy where candidates assume the role
of the agent who represents and manages the affairs of those who
authorize him. Nevertheless, although it is like a proxy, it also
embraces the meaning of a pledge because whoever pledges absolute
allegiance to a person, he would be authorizing him to handle the
absolute rule. So, when the elector authorizes the candidate to manage
the rule unconditionally; he would be then authorizing him to make, on
his behalf, all the decisions he deems necessary and to sign whatever
treaties and agreements related to people’s public life.
Q :There is an Islamic opinion claiming that
elections are illegitimate because they undervalue the right of the
minority which might reach 49%. What do you say about that?
A: Some people regard democracy as the less defective regime
and not as the best of all. Democracy is based on the majority, which
very likely could happen to be ignorant, deviating or backward against
an aware, educated, and honest minority. Consequently, the outcome of
democracy will not be that of establishing justice and pursuing the
best public interest. If some people say they can fix democracy by the
means of democracy; well, this might not lead to the decisive and
desired results in this respect. Hence, as Muslims, we reject
democracy theoretically given that its idea of representing legitimacy
is based upon the concept that the majority endows legitimacy on
lines, beliefs, politics, laws, and so on and so forth. And we do all
know that the Islamic legitimacy in all its perspectives and aspects
sets from the inspiration of God and from the words of his Prophet (p)
and those are what we call the revelation of Allah, the most Exalted,
and the Sunna of his Prophet (p).
On this basis, we do not believe that democracy is the basis of the
Islamic legitimacy with respect to the legal issue of legitimizing it.
However, the majority can play a major role in electing a leader, a
ruling jurist when jurists become numerous, or a president for the
state… etc .Elections could actually make an effective solution
when a problem arises and we could find no practical means but to
resort to identifying the majority. Thus, sometimes, we can turn to
the majority for help in dealing with a problem considering that
majority could be a confirmation of consultation, when it acts under
some specific conditions and within a specific scope, and not that it
represents right and justice.
Democracy is not an Islamic line at the level of making and deciding
on laws and rules. Actually laws and rules must be discussed with the
extollers of God and the religious authorities who have the right to
discretions, to deliver interpretive judgments. Nevertheless, when
it comes to some public affairs related to the election of rulers,
presidents or members of the consultative council, it would be
acceptable to carry out elections not because elections have
legitimacy in this respect but because it would represent the best
feasible means to maintain public order.
Q What is the alternative proposed by those who
reject the principle of elections from a legitimate perspective, in
case those who run for presidency, consultative councils… etc
became numerous?
A: We said that this question involves two points. First of
all, we have the question of legislation; that is, the promulgation of
laws and such matter cannot be settled by making allowance for the
majority who has no experience in jurisprudential issues. The question
must rather be handled by experts in this regard. In case such experts
were numerous, a person or a group of people must be appointed to deal
with this task by means of consultation which, in order to decide on
the issue, adopts either election or designation. If a dispute emerges
between the people of consultation; the answer would be carrying out
elections. While if the best interest requires designation; the
results of consultations turn to be proceeding by designation. Thus,
this question must be submitted to people of expertise.
As for the executive or procedural aspect of the question, we can
approve the recourse to the majority - which must be furnished with
some elements that confer on it the attribute of consultation - in
order to decide on the state’s ruling body or person or the people
who assume the function of implementing the different paragraphs and
clauses of the executive legal matters and others.
Q: It is known that in democratic regimes the
Parliament has a legislative role, which might not abide by the laws
that God revealed. How does this conform to the Islamic regime? And
what is the role of the parliament in an Islamic state?
A: The role of the parliament in an Islamic state could be that
of investigating the factual information that might be needed to carry
out the codification of laws and rules wherever gaps are occurring.
This is what the martyr Sayyid al-Sadr said when he spoke about those
who entrust the people of expertise, the Extollers of God, or the
jurists to manage their affairs. The parliament could, furthermore,
enjoy the role of finding out the appropriate law that applies to this
or that case as well as working toward reaching the ground rules and
regulations. Therefore, there must be a kind of interaction between
the consultative council, the council of experts, and the council in
charge of protecting and preserving the constitution. Indeed, this is
what has been implemented in the Islamic Republic of Iran where the
“Majlis “ a single-chamber parliament - enacts certain
legislations which might be rejected by the Assembly of Experts if
those legislations prove to be incompatible with the constitution that
is based on Islamic jurisprudential principles.
Q: If a Muslim wants to join the parliament of a
secular state that does not comply with Islam in its ruling system;
can we justify this legally?
A: In such case, the Muslim must find out if his presence in
the said parliament could redound to the supreme Islamic interest. He
must learn if the Muslims who live in that region need someone to
represent them, to look after their affairs, to pursue their cases and
to make sure not to allow the enactment of any legislation that could
constitute an element that thrust persecution upon them, etc So, if
there is a supreme Islamic interest in having a person or more in that
parliament, his participation would be justified.
Nonetheless, when the Muslim becomes a member of such parliament, he
must observe God’s law in all the laws he is approving and voting
for or the laws he opposes and endeavors to preclude. Being a member
in a non-Islamic parliament does not justify the fact that a Muslim
votes for and supports a rule that God does not deem legitimate. So,
according to the general binding interest governing his behavior in
that parliament, he could renounce a certain law, he could refuse to
vote, and so on and so forth. And it ought to be mentioned that he
won’t be held responsible for the non-Islamic legislations that are
enacted by that parliament without him voting for it.
Q: Are candidates authorized to prompt voters to
elect them through material and seductive means such as offering
services? And how would the electors of those people be legally
regarded?
A: The people who face such temptation should never give in to
it if they do not believe in this person. If a candidate has strong
faith in himself, this does not mean that others should believe in him
too. Each voter must be seriously aware of his responsibility and
examine the issue away from any tempting material or spiritual
benefits offered to him. He must be concerned with whether or not the
said candidate possesses the enough competence that enables him to
acquire the legitimacy of occupying such position. If the elector
concludes that this candidate meets the required competence; then,
there would be no problem in accepting the offerings and services
presented to him although we do not prefer that. Actually, taking into
account some considerations and regards; sometimes, this act would be
forbidden. As for when the voter finds the elector incompetent for the
position in question; he must not choose him under the influence of
temptation, neither should he take any money given to him; especially
if he knew that the candidate is spending money on him with the
purpose of gaining his vote while, inwardly, he had already made up
his mind not to elect him; verily, in such case he would be collecting
money illicitly.
As for the candidate who wants people to elect him; we advise him to
stay away from such tempting means given that they involve immoral
aspects and forms in order to attain the desired objective, even if in
his opinion those means were honest and noble. Any candidate should
nominate himself rightly; that is, by announcing his political
program, and revealing his goals and principles through which he could
make people believe in him and his program. As for having recourse to
offering money and services; those are not rightful means. However, we
do not see that offering money, helping people, especially poor and
needy people, and satisfying needs and demands could be legally
prevented, even if all of these actions redounded to the benefit of
the candidate. In fact, what we hope for is that this candidate would
keep on helping people out after elections regardless of whether he
wins or loses. Then again, we would not have a case here if the
candidate does not find in himself the legal competence and the
capability of pleasing God as he occupies this position.
Q: But can’t we consider this way of giving
money a bribe disrupting public order?
A: We do not want people to get used to be receiving money in
order to choose the moral and rightful thing to do because whomsoever
gets used to expect money in exchange for saying what is right, he
would be easily dragged into supporting what is wrong. However, from a
jurisprudential angle, we face no problem of legitimacy if the
candidate has competence and wants to protect people from undergoing
the pressure or the temptation of other people. In this case, he
won’t be forbidden from bestowing money on his advocators in order
to strengthen his relationship with them; and the money as well as his
election would be considered licit.
Q: Is it permissible to participate in an illegitimate election under
an unjust government or an oppressive rule, if refusing to participate
endangers the human being for it is regarded as a contravention?
A: It is permitted if elections was carried out through the ballot
voting system, and the human being should cast a blank ballot as much
as this proves to be feasible.
Q: Do these elections and polls that we are
witnessing today give their elected presidents the legitimacy to be in
their ruling positions?
A: They would be legitimate rulers if they meet all the
required conditions; and amongst these conditions we have Islam,
experience and faith. In other words, the simple acquirement of the
majority of votes is not enough to give legitimacy. Some legitimate
standards must be found in the ruler with regard to the human
qualities that qualify him for such position, because there is no
legitimacy but for the one that God had furnished with legitimacy.
Q: When electors consent to support a particular candidate and decide
to proceed with a campaign in his favor; does this give rise to a
legitimate problem or negatively affect the legitimacy of elections?
A: If the candidate fulfills the requirements of a legitimate ruler;
it is allowed to elect him even through cooperating or working
together according to a specific plan. Actually, the nature of
elections follows this pattern of deliberations and consensus between
voting parties on a particular candidate leading consequently to his
election.
Q: What usually happens during elections is that
most of electors have no clear and sufficient idea about candidates;
they rather embark on electing urged by their relatives and
acquaintances. Does voting in such case fulfill legitimacy?
A: When we look into the question of elections, we find that when
electors vote for candidates, they grant them an absolute
authorization with no binding conditions. On this basis, electors must
carry out careful and thorough investigation with regard to the
ideological line adopted by the candidate, the legitimate commitment
to him, and the political approach both interiorly and exteriorly.
Likewise, the elector would be held accountable for all the actions,
negative or positive, carried out by the candidate if the latter had
won due to his vote. Hence, we deduce that people should not vote for
a person that they do not really know. They must accurately verify the
legitimacy of his intellectual, jurisprudential, political and
economic line embraced by this candidate. People, moreover, must not
elect a person or a council that can legitimize a rule contrary to the
elector’s abidance by Islam in its rules, policies, economy, social
standards, and so on and so forth. So, the human being must
meticulously and comprehensively examine all the aspects of the issue
and consequently opens up to whomsoever devoted to God; and with
regard to the enemy of God, he must save himself the effort when he
stands before Allah, the most Exalted ; the Day when {every
soul will come up struggling for itself} when, appearing before
the Lord of the Worlds, people will be called to make out an account
of all their deeds and their choices between good and evil.
Electoral lists
Q: Electoral lists might involve some kinds of
forgery or deception because they might lead to the victory of some
persons who wouldn’t have won if not being included in this list
while causing the defeat of other persons, who might be a lot more
competent, just because they were not on
that list. What do you think about this?
A: We must shed light on a very important point with relation
to this issue. When people embark on elections; they are actually, as
a Nation, playing an important role. Therefore, votes given for this
person or that and the nature of the vote’s movement are essential
matters that must be considered carefully. Electors must know that
they have to take responsibility with regard to the choices they make
in this respect. They must be able to chose; and when they do, they
must define the basis upon which they made their choice. Furthermore,
they must realize that the coalition between their party and another
one does not justify their support for the other party if they had no
legitimate standards that allow them to support it. Hence, the fact
that candidates establish blocs between each others is one thing; and
the fact that people elect candidates is another. People must not
elect but the person who proves to be representing the best interest
of the Nation and who adheres to the line he believes in. On that
account, we find that the issue is mainly related to the elector; his
assessment of his vote’s legitimacy, his attitude, and his position
with regard to all of this.
| with Christians and Jews |