Islamic, Western views of sovereignty different
By Tom Nichols
Definitions of political processes are temporary and some must change as events evolve. Thus I stand by the following words, but know I may change definitions as my understanding of politics grows deeper.
Sovereign power is the ability of a sovereign king, queen or emperor to govern inside his or her realm. Sovereignty has two aspects, positive and negative. Positive sovereignty is a concept that is difficult to accept because it can be abused. This says that within a country's borders, the government can do anything to its citizens that it wants.
Thus if Hitler or Stalin wanted to murder countless numbers of their own subjects, they could. Or in today's world, if a state wishes to have the death penalty and put prisoners to death for certain crimes, it can.
Positive sovereignty can be limited in two ways. First are the protections in the basic constitution of the country that might set certain human rights restrictions on governmental power. A second limitation is to be found in any treaty signed by a government that provides stated human rights for persons within the territory of that government.
Negative sovereignty is the ability of a country to reject any foreign dictation or regulation, unless such regulation is accepted by that state in a specific treaty. Recent difficulties with North Korea and Iran have involved the negative sovereignty of those two states.
Where does sovereign power originate? Under the theory of divine right of kings to rule, some sovereigns can say that they rule with authority granted from God. Christians have Christ's comment: "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Almighty God (or Nature) thus ordains that kings should rule and bring order to a people in the name of God.
King James I was a proponent of the divine right of kings to rule. I am not certain, but I think Queen Elizabeth II probably has the same philosophy (as do other monarchs, even though modern day monarchs are mostly ceremonial and do not really govern).
Almost all Western states had monarchs at their head until the American and French Revolutions established republics that had no king.
Many philosophers thought that the American revolt against King George III would fail because in a kingless government, the citizens could not rally around a flag like they could a human monarch. When the French revolted, they beheaded their monarch. Blood ran in the streets of Paris as countless others were beheaded. Then came Napoleon who brought order but was a dictator. Today, France has both a president and a prime minister.
A second source of sovereignty arises after a revolt when people take power into their own hands. They may create a representative form of government in which the people vote to elect members who form a parliament (French word for power to say the law) and those members govern with the consent of the voters whom they represent.
At the end of the American Revolution, the British representatives of King George III surrendered and transferred sovereign power to each of the 13 former colonies. Our first government established by the Articles of Confederation did not work well because the states retained their sovereignty and the confederate central government had little enforcement power.
Our Constitution replaced the earlier articles and gave us popular sovereignty because We the People put governmental officials into office by elections and we hold them responsible for their exercise of power on our behalf.
Western concepts of popular sovereignty are not well understood in Islam. On the other hand, we in the West do not well understand Islamic law.
Islamic law is called Sharia, a word that means way or path. The Quran provides basic law, and subsequent man-made laws must not conflict with the Quran. Sharia covers two main areas: acts of worship, and acts of interaction with others such as marriage, judicial matters, and war and peace.
Islam has different schools of legal thought, including the Hanafi school followed by many Sunnis, and the Jaafari school followed by many Shiites.
Perhaps the greatest difference between Islam and the western world is our concept of law, its limits, the source of sovereignty and the restrictions on the execution of power by elected representatives, whereas the Muslims believe in the necessity of obedience to the will of Allah in all things.
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamic, Western views of sovereignty different
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment