Imamate and Leadership [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

There are people who think that if government were to originate with the people
themselves, with the members of society choosing
their own leader from among qualified persons, relying in their choice on their own
desires, perceptive capacities and relative knowledge of the strong and weak points of
various individuals, this would be more in accord with freedom and democracy and thus
enable mankind to attain its highest ideal. They imagine further that if the people are
not permitted to have any share in the choice and designation of their leader and if the
office of Imam or caliph is not a fully elected one, the people will see in him simply a
ruler who has been imposed on them.

The error underlying this view is the identification
of the appointed office of the Imam with tyranny. However, we see that in world politics
tyranny comes to prevail as the result of a coup d'etat, a revolution, or a military
intervention, and all that counts in a tyranny is the personal views and decisions of the
ruler.

However, from the point of view of Shi'ism, there
are certain inviolable criteria for the post of Islamic leadership. If someone lacks those
criteria, it is impossible for him to lead Islamic society or to be recognized as its
legitimate ruler. The rationale for the appointed nature of the post of Imam is that the
Lord of the Worlds knows His creation perfectly; He knows the nature of man and his
interaction with the world better than any scholar, and is better aware than people are
themselves of their own interests. Hence it is that He chooses as the leader and guardian
of the Muslims the best and worthiest individual, one who has unique attributes such as
complete immunity from sin and a life utterly free from the pull of instinctual desire.
The one so chosen by God has himself no right to legislate, and since the Islamic concept
of law is based on God's exclusive legislative prerogative, his sole point of reference is
God's laws and commands, as they descended by way of revelation into the pure heart of the
Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. In all his programs and plans,
the divinely chosen leader draws inspiration exclusively from religion, striving always to
implement God's commands as a matter of duty.

When God is the source of all legislation, His laws
necessarily embrace all the true interests of man. They are in full accord with his
primordial and immutable nature; ensure the fulfillment of justice in public life; and
make it possible for man to ascend through the degrees of perfection. It is, of course,
true at the same time that these laws may be opposed to man's personal inclinations and
his self-interest, and that some may experience God's commands as arduous and in conflict
with their temperament When the ruler is selected by God, Who is Himself the sole
possessor of sovereignty, he will necessarily be free of all taint of sinfulness,
disobedience, and oppression, and the only goal he pursues will be the welfare and benefit
of society, the guidance of the ummah, and the construction of a pure and exalted
community based on justice. A government of this type will be utterly incompatible with
arbitrariness, oppression, and the usurpation of rights.

If religion lays down certain conditions for
rulership and restricts people's right to choose, this in no way contradicts their
possession of sovereignty. For society has already given its free consent to a system of
rule based on its beliefs and is in fact inwardly devoted to such a system. The principle
of popular sovereignty is thus limited by certain conditions that are deemed necessary by
the religious beliefs accepted by the people.

Furthermore, in democratic governments, which are
elected by majority vote, the ruler is always concerned with either winning the support of
popular opinion or with following popular wishes, with no criterion available for
measuring the legitimacy of those wishes. For that which determines those desires and
inclinations are the circumstances in which a person grows up and which influence his
attitudes towards the individual and society, towards history and the laws which he
supposes to be the best for his particular society.

What is important for a politician in this system of
government is to align himself with the views of the majority of his constituents,
irrespective of whether or not his performance in social and administrative matters
conforms to the principles of justice. His sole concern is to keep the social and
political privileges he has obtained, and he may sometimes trample on the truth in order
to avoid endangering his position. Rare are those who have no fear of public opinion and
base their decisions solely on the welfare of the society.

A celebrated writer on politics by the name of Frank
Cont (?) remarks: "The necessity of obtaining a majority of the votes represents a
very serious and grave problem, for in striving after that goal no consideration can be
given to ethical matters or to right and wrong."

Nonetheless, this is the mode of government favored
by the adherents of liberty in today's world, a system in which truth, justice and
conscience are treated as mere playthings. If this indeed be the nature of the system, is
it all permissible that the successors to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and
his family, should be chosen and exercise their functions in accordance with it? Can, for
example, a group of Muslims come together, select a certain individual according to their
own criteria, and then trust to him rule over the Muslims?

Can someone who is unacquainted with the culture and
the principles of religion and the detailed injunctions of divine law build a fully
Islamic society if he is appointed ruler? Can he implement God's laws in society with the
necessary care, precision, and trustworthiness? If new, unprecedented circumstances arise,
what knowledge or divinely bestowed insight can he draw on in order to derive a specific
ruling for those circumstances from the general principles of the shari'ah and then to
implement it in the public interest? Furthermore, in systems where the government is
chosen by the majority, the views of the minority are ignored, so that, for example, a
minority consisting of 49% of the people is obliged to submit to the views and preferences
of persons who have come to power against their wishes.

For the opinions of such a large group of people to
be ignored is in no way compatible with the principles of justice. Is there any reason for
them to regard themselves as accountable to a government elected by the majority? Why
should they be deprived of their freedom and their desires be crushed? The argument that
the choice of the majority reflects the overall interests of society is unconvincing and
fails to establish a duty of obedience and accountability on the part of the minority. The
question therefore remains: on what basis is the minority obliged to submit to majority
decision and to obey the views and wishes of others?

The laws approved by the majority and imposed on the
entirety of the people may sometimes be harmful to society and damaging to its true
progress and development.

If truth is indeed truth, it does not become
falsehood merely because its followers are few in number or in the minority; and if
falsehood is indeed falsehood, it does not become transformed into truth through the
support of the majority. It may be that majority opinion is regularly taken as the
principle on which to operate because it is allegedly less prone to error, but no proof
exists for the proposition that the wishes of the majority are inherently better or more
valuable than the inclinations of the minority, nor for the claim that those wishes
possess an intrinsic legitimacy making them the proper source of all legislation and the
basis for human life.

Communist countries which claim to implement
democracy within the framework of Marxism belong in the final analysis to the category of
despotism, since in them the Communist party possesses absolute sovereignty and imposes
its will on the masses.

By contrast, when the selection of the leader is a
matter of divine prerogative, acceptance of that leader is equivalent to submission to
God's sovereignty, a submission eagerly undertaken, for reason confirms the necessity of
obedience to the Creator and man discerns in adherence to divine command the source of
happiness and well being in this world and the hereafter. There is no longer any question
of minority or majority, because the government is the government of God, before Whom all
are supremely responsible as the source of all existence, the origin of man's being and
perfection, and the fount of infinite bounty. It is He alone Who is deserving of obedience
and Whose ordinances and laws command compliance. His laws are promulgated in accordance
with the norms of nature and inspired by a comprehensive awareness of the essence of
social relations with the result that they are intrinsically just and bound to secure the
benefit, well being and happiness of man. The suspicion can never arise that personal
motivation or self-interest on the part of the lawgiver is at work.

A society believing in God has no reason to follow
the majority, a majority which might well choose an incorrect path in various matters and
the judgement of which might prove erroneous. Many people in whom great hopes were placed
and who came to power by overwhelming majority vote swiftly came to inspire despair rather
than hope, and anger and enmity rather than love and affection.

It can thus be concluded that the views and
inclinations of the majority, the result of experiences that are necessarily fallible,
cannot form a basis for solving the problems of humanity or instilling justice into the
life of the individual and society, nor can they guarantee the happiness and welfare of
man.

Notes:

Frank
Cont (?), Sima-ye Shuja'an, p. 35.