The Reality of Democracy in Muslim Countries

The character of Islamic teachings as widely understood by people is inclusive and democratic. Therefore, this doctrine requires actualization in concrete life in society. The question then is, what is the reality of democracy in the Islamic world in its history? In the reality of Islamic history there was indeed an authoritarian government wrapped in Islamic clothing, as was the practice of some of the Bani 'Abbasid and Umayyad rulers. But that is no reason to legitimize that Islam is an undemocratic religion. Because before that there were also democratization experiments in Islamic history, namely during the time of the Prophet and Khulafaurrasyidin. It is a social proposition, that in every society there are leaders and those who are led, rulers and people, and different social stratifications emerge. Likewise, in the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah) there emerged an unequal social class, namely the oppressed ruling elite and the lower class. This lower class often becomes an arena for oppression from the elite. In the era of ignorance, power and the concept of truth belonged to the ruler. The concentration of power and truth in the hands of the rulers resulted in value manipulation to strengthen and strengthen their position as well as to oppress the weak. A process like this lasts quite a long time without any significant changes. In such conditions, there are two different social stratifications, namely the hegemonic upper class (elite), both social and economic, even physical violence, and the powerless lower class (subordinate). This was the socio-political setting that occurred in pre-Islamic Arab society (Makkah-Medina).

And as Guillaume13 said, it was the Jewish community that had dominated political and economic power at that time, until then the prophet Muhammad came to overhaul the corrupt structure of society. The Prophet was here to bring an alternative belief system that was egalitarian and liberating. Because the teachings conveyed by the prophet carry the message that all submission and obedience is only given to God, not to humans. Because the truth comes from God, the real power also lies with Him, not the king. Empirically, the Prophet carried out a reform movement by returning power from the hands of the king (elite group) to the power of Allah through a system of deliberation. The presence of the Prophet brought fresh air to the "new society" who yearned for a just and civilized social condition. Because what the Prophet brought was actually a teaching system that upheld social values: equal rights, equality among humans, honesty and justice (akhlaq hasanah). In addition, according to his position as the bearer of mercy, the Prophet continued to struggle to reform the pagan-jahiliyah society into a civilized society, or in the language of the Koran it is called min-'l-Dhulumat ila-'l-Nur (see QS. Al-Baqarah : 257, al-Maidah: 15, al-Hadid: 9, al-Thalaq: 10-11 and al-Ahzab: 41-43). The pre-Islamic Arab society (Jahiliyah) consisted of tribes, each of which developed fanaticism ('asabiyyat) of the tribe, so that among them they were mired in conflict, political and social chaos.

Among them, they do not recognize equality, but compete and mutually favor their groups and there is discrimination. This condition then inspires the Prophet Muhammad to change it and lead to equality and equality between them. Because this equality is in line with the general benefit that guarantees special rights among them, because the principle of equality in Islam is the recognition of equal rights between Muslims and non-Muslims14 For approximately 10 years (in Medina) the Prophet had reformed gradually to upholding Islam, as a religion that has great attention to the ideal society order. And the society that the Prophet built at that time was a pluralistic society consisting of various ethnicities, religions and beliefs. The society as desired in the formulation of the Medina charter is a society that has a collective unity and wants to create a highly civilized Muslim society, both in the context of the relationship between humans and with God. As a leader, the Prophet had high moral strength. His affection for the weak, such as feminists, widows and orphans, shows his moral commitment as a pluralist leader of the ummah.

On the occasion of his last speech in Padang Arafah, for example, he advised his followers to treat women well and be friendly towards them. "Heaven is under the soles of mother's feet," answered the prophet when one of the friends asked about a shortcut to heaven. This sentence was repeated three times. One of the characteristics of the prophet's extraordinary forgiveness and tolerance is seen in the case of Hindun, one of the enemies of Islam who, with a grudge, could eat Hamzah's heart, an uncle of the Prophet himself and a respected war hero. At that time one could almost be certain that the prophet would never forgive such a stubborn Hindun. It turned out that it was unexpected when the city of Mecca was successfully controlled by Muslims and the Hindus who were prisoners of war were finally forgiven. Seeing the prophet's noble attitude, Hindun immediately realized and declared his conversion to Islam while stating that Muhammad was indeed an apostle, not an ordinary human. Not only that, the political attitude of the prophet which is very difficult for a modern leader to imitate is the granting of amnesty to all those who have made big mistakes and have been rude to him. But the prophet's gentle and gentle attitude actually made them interested in Islam, as the religion of rahmatan lil-'alamin.

As noted by Akbar S. Ahmed 15, a well-known Islamic chronicler from Pakistan, that the conquest of Mecca by the prophet, which only claimed less than 30 human lives, was a war victory that claimed the least number of lives in the world compared to the victories of several other major revolutions. like France, Russia, China and so on. This is understandable because war in an Islamic perspective is not synonymous with oppression, murder and pillage, as some orientalists have alleged so far, but rather is self-defensive. Therefore the prophet explicitly stated: "The spoils of war are no better than the flesh of a carcass." Likewise the prohibition against killing women, children and those who surrendered. Islamic values that are reflected in the figure of the prophet who transcend the boundary of primordialism and sectarianism provide a sense of security and protection for a pluralistic society. The prophet's marriage to a wife from outside the family family, his love for Bilal, a black slave who became the first muazzin of Islam and his speech at the hajj wada 'at Arafah against tribal and caste strife have proved his wise and wise leadership. The Prophet practiced democracy in leading the people of Medina. In the matter of adhering to the rule of law, for example, the people of Medina, led by the Prophet, have provided the best example. It is in line with Allah's command to anyone to fulfill the mandate received and carry out human laws and regulations with a very high degree of certainty. Where legal certainty creates a sense of security in the community, so that each citizen can carry out his duties calmly and steadily. Because as stated by Nurcholis Majid16, legal certainty is the root of a very firm understanding, that all people are the same (sawasiyyat) in their obligations and rights in the court, and justice is upheld because the law is carried out without distinguishing who the convicted person is, one from the other. The Prophet's policies in leading the people in Medina were contained in the Medina Charter, which regulated the life of society and nation.

The Medina Charter is the basis of social life which regulates various problems of the Ummah, including: unity and brotherhood, relations between religious communities, peace, equality, tolerance, freedom and so on. These principles have been implemented by the Prophet and succeeded well, so as to create an atmosphere of life in society, nation and state in a safe and peaceful manner in a developed society, whether in terms of aspects, religion, ethnicity and culture. Until the time of Khulafaurrasyidin, the practice of democracy was still going well, although there were some shortcomings. This fact shows that democratization has been manifested in Islamic governance. It must be admitted, after the Prophet and Khulafaurrasyidin - because of his interests and to perpetuate the status quo of Islamic kings - democracy was often used as a sacrifice. As Mahasin's observation17, that in some parts of Arab countries for example, Islam seems to impress corrupt and authoritarian kings. But this reality is also experienced by followers of other religions. The Catholic Church, for example, was indifferent when the French revolution occurred. Because of this attitude, then Catholicism is called undemocratic. The same thing was also experienced by Protestant Christianity, where at the beginning, with Martin Luther's reformation, Christianity sided with the economic elite, thus detrimental to the position of the peasants and workers. It is not surprising that Christianity is also called undemocratic. Seeing the historical reality experienced by the religious elites above, Huntington and Fukuyama's thesis which says, "that the empirical reality of Islamic society is not compatible with democracy" is not entirely true. Even Huntington identifies democracy with The Western Christian Connection

18 Following the perspective of Akbar S. Ahmed19, using the typological paradigm, in Islamic history there are two types: ideal and non-ideal. The ideal type stems from the scriptures and the life of the Prophet (sirah Nabawiyah, sunnah). The ideal type is the type that is most enduring and obedient azaz (consistent). The history of Islam (the social community of Muslims) contains a lot of evidence that shows the dynamic relationship between society and the efforts of Muslim scholars and intellectuals to achieve the ideal model. These insights and ideal types open up opportunities for dynamics in Muslim societies. When it is in the process of this historical struggle, the Muslims face tough challenges and are often far from the ideal area. That is why there are terms of ideal Islam and historical Islam. Thus, how difficult it is to uphold democracy, which includes issues of: equal rights, granting freedom of speech, enforcement of deliberation, justice, trust and responsibility.

The difficulty of enforcing the practice of democratization in a country by the rulers above, is in line with the complexity of the problems and challenges it faces, and more than that it concerns the commitment and morality of the ruler himself. Thus, paying attention to the relationship between religion and democracy in a social community involves many variables, including non-religious independent variables. Meanwhile Bahtiar Effendy20 emphasized that the lack of democratic experience in most Islamic countries has nothing to do with the “interior” dimension of Islamic teachings. Theologically, according to Effendy, the failure of many Islamic countries to develop democratic political mechanisms is partly due to the existence of legalistic and formalistic views in seeing the relationship between Islam and politics. Therefore according to Effendy, a substantialistic approach to Islamic teachings is needed in order to encourage the creation of a possible synthesis between Islam and democracy.

Conclusion

From the above description it can be concluded that normatively doctrinaire, in Islamic teachings there are principles and elements in democracy, although generically, globally. The principles and elements of democracy in Islamic teachings are: as-shura, al-'adalah, al-amanah, al-masuliyyah and al-hurriyyah. The reality of democracy in a country was applied during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and Khulafaurrasyidin. But after that, in most Islamic countries did not inherit these democratic values. This reality does not only occur in Islamic countries, but also non-Islamic (Western) countries. This is a problem faced by many countries. In general, religious values have not been widely practiced in contributing to many countries, let alone secular countries. Therefore, the statements of Fukuyama and Huntington, which say that empirically Islam is not compatible with democracy is not entirely correct. This is because even in non-Muslim countries democracy is not fully implemented.