When examining the concept of authority and its transfer from the Church to the people, the Western philosophers adopted an imaginary, hypothetical idea that has no basis in reality. Instead, the idea is merely a mental construct of Westerners, in which it is claimed that Man used to live in a natural, feral state, then moved to an urbanized, civil state through a social contract. Within the social contract, individuals agreed to give up part of their will, to form a collective will, which is a public will constituting sovereignty. The agreement of individuals to give up their (part of) will is called social contract, which is the fundamental of the state, the fundamental of authority and the fundamental of public freedom. They viewed that the system that embodies this idea, as they perceive, is the democratic system, as a political entity to exercise the sovereignty of the populous. Accordingly, the ruling system of the West is based on Democracy. The word Democracy is a Greek-origin composite word, SppoKpcma, demokratia, which is from demos (people) and kratos (rule), so it means “rule of the people.” Democracy is usually defined by the famous saying of Abraham Lincoln (d 1865), who said, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” during his Gettysburg Address.

In its global, contemporary concept as promoted by the West, Democracy is inseparable from the idea of freedom (liberty). This matter is not new and has not emerged from modern Western thinking, as is held. Instead it is merely inherited from the Greeks. Aristotle says in his book Politics, “For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. And since the people are the majority, and the opinion of the majority is decisive, such a government must necessarily be a democracy.” However, the concept of modern freedom (liberty) differs from that of the Greeks. This is something that distinguishes the West, starting from the era of Enlightenment and the emergence of the Western liberal philosophy.

Accordingly, Democracy is expressed in a modern term as liberal democracy, distinct from other democracies, whether ancient, or modern, such as social democracy. True democracy according to the Western perception is Democracy connected to the concept of freedom, acknowledged by the West in its era of Enlightenment. Therefore, it is described as a collection of thoughts and principles related to freedom, as they perceive. Some thinkers consider it as an institutionalization of freedom. It can be said that there is a consensus amongst Westerners who support Democracy, that it is inseparable from a group of matters that are considered as the pillars of Democracy, which are: Sovereignty of the people, separation of powers, freedoms, human rights, equality, pluralism, free and fair elections followed by peaceful transition of power, rule of law and majority rule whilst preserving the rights of minorities.

This is Democracy, concisely. It is worth mentioning that it was and is still the subject of criticism amongst the Western thinkers themselves. This is what Jacques Ranciere alludes to in his book, Hatred of Democracy, “Hatred of democracy is certainly nothing new.” The basis of criticism towards the democratic theory levelled, by most of the Western critics, arises over the term ‘people.’ It is criticized as a vague term, differing in the definition of its meaning. Beyond that, disagreement moves on to focus on the procedural aspect to determine the concept of rule of the people. The procedural aspect practically affirms the unrealistic idea of the rule of the people. Upon looking at the linguistic meaning of Democracy with regards to the rule of the people, we find this meaning to be devoid of reality, since the days of the Greeks themselves. The Greeks were the first to indulge in this idea, wherein the word ‘people’ was restricted to the free people amongst the Greeks, whilst excluding women, slaves and those who were non-Athenians. When the idea of Democracy was reinstated in the eighteenth century CE, some thinkers realized the unrealistic nature of the theory, from a theoretical standpoint. This is because consensus of all the people over ruling and administration of the state is impossible. So they developed its procedural aspect, creating the so-called representative democracy, which is democracy of elected deputies.

One who follows the Western intellectual movement can observe the existence of a crystallized trend for decades amongst the group of thinkers, about adopting the realistic procedure for ruling. It is a trend of rejecting the theoretical concept of Democracy, after the unrealistic nature of theoretical Democracy became clear. This trend is led by a group of thinkers, amongst them are, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills and others. They adopted the elite theory which is based on the idea of acquisition of power by a minority of the people in society. In the book, Foundations of Modem Sociological Theory (Italian: Elementi di scienza politica), in his essay, “The Ruling Class (Italian: La Classe Politica)” Gaetano Mosca summarizes this reality by saying, “those who belong to the ruling class will begin to acquire a group spirit. They will become more and more exclusive and learn better and better the art of monopolizing to their advantage the qualities and capacities that are essential to acquiring power and holding it. Then, at last, the force that is essentially conservative appears—the force of habit. Many people become resigned to a lowly station, while the members of certain privileged families or classes grow convinced that they have almost an absolute right to high station and command. (Italian: coloro che fanno parte della classe politica vanno acquistando Io spirito di corpo e di esclusivismo ed imparano I'arte di monopolizzare a loro vantaggio le qualita e le attitudini necessarie per arrivare al potere e per mantenerlo : infine, col tempo, si forma la forza conservatrice per eccellenza, quella dell'abitudine, per la quale molti si rassegnano a stare in bassoA ed i membri di cede famiglie o classi privilegiate acquistano la convinzione che per loro e quasi un diritto assoluto Io stare in alto ed il comandare.)” In this context, the French political and legal scholar Maurice Duverger proposes in his essay “Political Parties” (French: Les Partis Politiques) that democracy cannot be “government of the people by the people” but only “government of the people by an elite rising from the people.” The most important criticism levelled at Democracy by Western thinkers themselves are:

1. Oppression by the majority, with loss of minority rights.

2. The danger of expanding the power of public opinion, since elections and decisions are subject to public opinion that is controlled by certain powers, from amongst the stakeholders and lobbyists.

3. The "iron law of oligarchy" that stipulates the monopoly of power and political parties, in the hands of a few groupings of capitalists.

4. Over time, democracy turns into bureaucracy. As time goes by, democracy becomes more and more complex so that the power transpires in the hands of career professionals alone.

These are some of the criticisms directed towards democracy from Western thinkers themselves. However, most of them do not present an alternative. Instead, they deemed democracy as a fixed principle for which one cannot even conceive of an alternative. The British politician Anthony Birch recognized this in his book, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. So on the one hand Birch maintained that the majority is incapable of ruling by saying, One of Dahl’s many accurate comments on the federal government was that, to a large extent, ‘the numerical majority is incapable of undertaking any co­ ordinated action. It is the various components of the numerical majority that have the means for action.’ However, on the other hand Birch still insists “I believe that representative democracy is the best institutional arrangement for government yet devised.” Thus we find many of the thinkers who attempt to develop the procedures of democracy and revive its concepts and values, agreeing that democracy is the best despite strong criticism. In his book, Democracy and Its Critics, Robert Alan Dahl endorses Democracy. He asserts Democracy maximizes freedom by embracing basic political rights and liberties, such as free expression, and allows “persons to live under laws of their own choosing.” He claims that political participation by the public in a democracy fosters the desirable qualities of “independence, self-reliance, and public-spiritedness.” Robert Dahl reaffirms the democratic process “as the most reliable means for protecting and advancing the good and interests of all the persons subject to collective decisions.”.

It is clear from the above that Western thinkers themselves examined the idea of Democracy and criticized it, pointing out its flaws according to their perceptions. Despite that, their unanimous consensus is that Democracy is the best thing created by the human mind in ruling and that there is no alternative for it.

In fact, a deep look into the reality of democracy as perceived by the West shows us that the word democracy for them symbolizes two dimensions: an intellectual, civilizational dimension and a political dimension.

As for the first dimension, it is the value system that frames the Western values and its concepts about life such as freedom, equality, pluralism and secularism, amongst others. It is the political framework comprising a group of civilizational concepts adopted by the West, endorsed emphatically by the Westerners. In his book, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama asserted, “At the end of history, there are no serious ideological competitors left to liberal democracy. In the past, people rejected liberal democracy because they believed that it was inferior to monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy, fascism, communist totalitarianism, or whatever ideology they happened to believe in. But now, outside the Islamic world, there appears to be a general consensus that accepts liberal democracy's claims to be the most rational form of government.” Whilst, in his book, The Western Political Systems (French: Les regimes politiques occidentaux) Jean-Louis Quermonne asserted that “As a principle of legitimacy, Western democracy is not a new idea. It is the heir to the civilizations that preceded it: the Greek city and Rome republic. After being supplanted for centuries by empires, lordships and monarchies absolute, after having almost disappeared, after a few decades during the Second World War, for the benefit of totalitarian regimes, it is no longer contested today. (French: En tant que principe de legitimite, la democratie occidentale n’est pas une idee neuve. Elie est heritiere des civilisations qui I’ont precedee: la cite grecque et la Rome republicaine. Et, apres avoir ete supplantee pendant des siecles par des empires, des seigneuries et des monarchies absolues, apres avoir failli disparaftre, apres quelques decennies de fonctionnement, pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, au profit des regimes totalitaires, elle n’est plus contestee aujourd’hui.) Thus, Democracy must be studied from this angle, as a group of concepts and values or the primary ideal about life. This falls within the study of the civilizational foundations adopted by the West and upon which Democracy's political entity is established.

As for the second dimension, it is related to evaluating democracy as the most superior or optimal or the best possible system, as the Westerners claim. Those who agree with this angle do not look into the civilizational composition i.e. its concepts, values or ideology whose views are subject to change or difference or contradiction. They only look into democracy's composition or the abstract meaning of the idea, without looking into any other matters. Thus, they look into democracy as a political system that organizes the matter of ruling in any state, regulating the political issues of any society. This subject is, in fact, related to the so-called social contract, in their words, which is considered as the origin of political matters. This subject reveals the shortcomings of the Western mind at the political and intellectual level and its errors, right from the moment of its establishment.

Thus a man by virtue of being a human or an individual, in terms of living a life in this world, is a politician who both engages in politics and is affected by it, because he takes care of his own affairs, or the affairs of those who are under his responsibility, or the affairs of a nation. Taking care of the affairs of a nation or people or a group in which this political man belongs to obliges him to consider the issue of ruling.

The process of taking care of the affairs comes through a political entity or a state alone. This is so regardless of looking into its definition and the one who calls for its establishment. The state is founded upon a system that defines its forms, apparatus, structures and institutions, as well as the thoughts, concepts and criteria to take care of the affairs, alongside constitutional laws to be implemented and other matters that fall within ruling. This is called the political system or ruling system.

Man’s conception of the ruling system, which practically enables him to take care of the affairs, is actually framed within three questions: With what to be ruled? Who is the ruler? How does the ruler rule?

As for what to be ruled with, the natural case is that there is ruling by an ideology that is accepted by a group of people. Accordingly, the role of the ruler or the government is to implement or apply the group of concepts, criteria and convictions adopted by the group. This matter is proposed to both the ruler and ruled once the state is established. This proposal is not reviewed upon every election or referendum or parliamentary session or policy consideration. So it is not newly proposed except in one condition, which is when the previous system falls and there exists a will to change. So the one condition is the case of a new establishment. Accordingly, the Western state, regardless of its name, form and model, was established upon specific thoughts and concepts that are deemed to be fixed, with no consideration for their change. This is just like the Islamic state, the Khilafah (Caliphate) State that was established upon differing specific thoughts and concepts, that are not the Western thoughts and concepts. Thus, being established upon an ideology, specifying what to be ruled with, is not in itself a distinguishing characteristic of the Western ruling system, making it distinct from other ruling systems.

It cannot be said here that the Western distinctiveness lies in the nature of Western man, who expresses his own sovereignty by his own determination of concepts and values of ruling, so he chooses what is to be ruled with and he himself legislates his laws. This cannot be said because the subject here is not related to the source of ruling. Instead, the subject is related to the existence of the thoughts and concepts regarding ruling. So just as the West has an ideology to rule with, others also have other ideologies to rule with, regardless of their sources. So there is no distinction between them from this perspective. Instead, the distinction appears only when studying the source of ruling, in terms of the truthiness, validity and goodness of the ideology. This issue is not relevant here in terms of study, whilst we have looked at some of it before and we discuss further in the subject of Western Civilization to come. The subject of study here is the answer to the question: with what is man to be ruled? All the political systems known by humankind answer this question without exception. This means the Western political thought, believing in the democratic system, is not distinct from this perspective.

It cannot also be said that the Western democratic ruling system is distinguished by pluralism, guaranteeing non-conformity and exclusivity, allowing multiple cultures and ideologies to exist. This cannot be said, because Western pluralism is pluralism within the confines of its ideology alone. So the West neither accepts any idea from outside of its ideology to influence the society, nor does the West accept concepts that are contradictory to its ideology. Accordingly, the West fought with communist parties in the past and is continues to fight the so-called political Islam, depicting it as terrorism, radicalism and fundamentalism. Thus it is a formal pluralism and not actual pluralism in an absolute sense.

If what is intended by pluralism is the difference in views, perceptions, projects and intellectual and political understandings within the confines of the same ideology, then there is no distinctiveness in the Western thought from this perspective. Such pluralism also exists in other systems, such as the Islamic ruling system.

Then there is the matter of considering pluralism by looking at so-called minorities, their rights and their duties, within two societal domains, the private and the public, a classification mentioned in Western political and social sciences. It is claimed that modern democracy is distinguished by allowing privacy and diversity in the private domain, whilst in public domain, it is controlled by general principles that everyone adheres to. If this is what is intended by pluralism being a distinguishing feature, then this is also is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is from a practical perspective. The Western state today is imposing its concepts and values even in the private domain. It monitors Muslims both young and old, holding them accountable for every thought, interrogating according to its culture and civilization and forcing them to integrate into its civilization. This is far from what is claimed to be pluralism. As for the second reason, it is from the theoretical perspective of the idea, the difference between submission within the public domain to general principles, whilst living according to differing religions and convictions in the private domain. This distinctiveness is also found in the Islamic system. So there is nothing unique about Democracy in this regard. Moreover, the concept of Dhimma (protecting the non-Muslim citizens) mandated by Islam is a thought and procedure which is superior, fairer and better in securing rights than the Western concept of minorities.

As for the matter of who rules and how he rules, the political thinkers and sociologists in the West who addressed the issue of ruling and its system, looked into human political history and its reality, enumerating the forms of ruling and the models of leadership. So they divided the ruling systems known by man, according to their view, into various classifications, according to the criteria taken in the ruling. Most of them were inherited from the Greeks. The summary is, the system either accepts people as eligible to rule or not.

As for the systems that do not accept people as eligible to rule, they include, amongst others; meritocracy - rule of those of talent, effort, and achievement, oligarchy - ruling by a small number of people for the sake of their benefit, aristocracy - ruling by a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats and the autocracy- rule of a single individual, theocracy - the rule of religious elites with divine sanction. As for the system based on the right of ruling for the people or based on the ideology of the sovereignty of the people, asserting the eligibility of the people to determine the ruling, it is the democratic system. According to the Westerner, democracy is the only system within the classification, that is to be considered the best and optimal.

Then there are those Western thinkers who classify the systems according to legal standards such as, governance, the method of achieving the power, the ruling administration and model of power that is exercised and subject to negotiation. Accordingly, the systems are then classified into three main groups, the totalitarian, the authoritarian regime and the democratic. According to the Western thinkers, democracy is always and forever placed as an ideal, against awful authoritarian models.

After conferring the right of sovereignty to man, so as to determine his system and legislation himself, the secular West confers the right of authority upon him, so it gives him a choice to choose the ruler through elections. Thus the Westerners intertwined all the components of rulings, without differentiating between sovereignty, authority and power. They limited the study to revolving around a single agenda point, as they perceive it. They neglected to notice either the possibility of differentiation and separation, or the existence of systems that are different and distinct. Instead they made democracy a criteria of goodness for all political systems. This view is subjective, as they themselves admit. It is also therefore not objective, partial and superficial, lacking intellectual depth and the correct understanding of the reality of ruling.

Sovereignty, according to them, is used in the sense that man possesses his will and exercises it, so he chooses who the ruler is and what he rules with. Man is to determine his laws and systems, legislate those laws and choose the one who implements them. If the meaning of Man is to mean Man generally or his kind, the whole of humanity, then such sovereignty does practically belong to Man, according to them. The one who legislates and chooses the ruler in the West is of humankind. However, as for meaning man with his characterization of being an individual, which is their actual intended meaning, such that each man is a master of himself, then such sovereignty is non-existence in the West. This is because Western systems and legislations are put forward by a grouping or few within humankind. They are not put forward by all individuals collectively. The practical reality of the democratic West is that the legislations are set by a government, a body or a council of a few individuals. Then they are enacted as binding laws to which all the individuals submit.

Thus the concept of sovereignty as they conceive does not match the reality of ruling amongst them, even though they insist upon this understanding. The reality of all the ruling in this world is that there is both the ruler and the ruled. Ruling is in the hand of an individual or a group of people. All the people cannot be both the ruler and the ruled simultaneously. Accordingly, there is no such thing as sovereignty of the people by the meaning of sovereignty of all individuals. Sovereignty can either belong to a specific individual or a group of individuals, who exercise their will by determining legislation and laws for the ruled, or it can belong to the Creator, the Almighty so that the laws and legislations are derived from the Divine Revelation alone, without any other choice. However, the secular West, with its historical conflict with the Christian Church, and its experimentation with theocratic ruling systems that controlled people by the conception of divine right, blinded the insight of the West. So the West refused the servitude of man to his Creator and accepted the servitude of men to other men, calling sovereignty.

Once man affirms the system that governs his relationship, the source of the system and legislation, defining what to be ruled with, he will then naturally move to the subject of study as to who implements it. That is the subject of who rules within it. Since the people are not able to collectively perform this implementation, it is delegated to some individuals on behalf of the collective, to undertake implementation, with their choice and consent. This is the meaning of power or authority belonging to a people or a nation. Again, this meaning is not unique to democracy or makes it distinct. Instead, such a conception of authority is also found in other systems. Indeed, it is the core of the Islamic ruling system, as the Khilafah is defined as a contract of consent and choice. This is because the Khilafah is upon the Bay’ah (pledge) of obedience given to the one who has the right to be obeyed, from amongst those charged with authority. There must be consensus both over the one to whom Bay’ah to assume power is given, as well as over those who give the Bay’ah. Although the West confers authority to the people from a theoretical perspective, as people are the ones who choose their ruler through free and fair elections, as they say, the practical reality indicates that the choice of the ruler by the people in the West is a choice, nominally and not in reality. That is because in reality the owners of immense capital wealth, the rich and the powerful, are the ones who really decide who the ruler is. They alone determine and direct complex electoral systems and procedures. They alone are capable of influencing public opinion, directing it to elect whoever they want. They alone are capable of funding the costliest electoral campaigns. It is a matter known and witnessed by everyone. So the West did not give sovereignty to people from a practical perspective. Instead, sovereignty belongs to a few grouping of the influential who enslave the people. Similarly, the West did not ensure authority belongs to the people. Instead, authority is in the hands of few grouping of the influential. So, it is clear that people in the West are enslaved, as they neither are masters for themselves on an individual basis, nor do they possess actual authority. However, the influential were able to manipulate the people, deceiving them by convincing them that they are the masters and people of authority! As for how the ruler rules, this question is related to two matters. The matter of how he arrives at authority or ruling and how he manages the affairs of ruling.

In relation to how the power is arrived at, it has many styles such as voting, appointment, inheritance, usurpation of power and others. Today, people’s customs have settled to consider that the election is the best style. It is the style followed in the West. Regardless of the misimplementation witnessed by the Islamic ruling system over a period of history, the election style is amongst the styles that accords with Islam. The style had been practically implemented to choose Khulafaa’ (caliphs) according to the possible procedures of that time. Accordingly, democracy is neither unique nor distinct in style of election to choose the ruler. Instead, the style of elections is common with other ruling systems. The uniqueness and distinctiveness of democracy lies in its view of how to manage the affairs of rulings, through its perception about the concept of leadership.

Leadership in the Western view is classified into three models. Firstly, democratic leadership that encourages and allows the participation of a group in all the decisions. Secondly, authoritarian leadership or autocratic leadership in which decisions are made by an individual tyrant. Thirdly, anarchic leadership that allows members of the group to manage their affairs and take decisions by themselves. Based on these divisions, they say that democratic leadership, the collective leadership, is the best model of leadership. This concept is wrong for two reasons.

It is firstly wrong from the realistic, practical perspective. So-called collective leadership does not exist. The reality of ruling is that it is ultimately in the hands of a single person, which the Westerners know and witness even in the West itself, whether one is the president of the republic or the prime minister of the parliamentary democracy. When he assumes ruling, he imposes authority himself individually, such that all authority comes under the hands of the prime minister or president, whilst the remaining people of authority become assistants, employees or consultants.

For instance, the ruling is practically in the hands of the president in America, just as it is in the hands of prime ministers in England and Germany. Even the collective leadership brought by Lenin to the communists of the previous Soviet Union was only a nominal collective leadership, on paper and nothing more. In reality, leadership is always individualistic. This matter is natural because ruling or presidency or leadership is an expression of administration resulting from the concept. The origin of its concepts and realization of facts are related to the brain in terms of sensation, linkage, weakness and strength, in terms of information whether it is true or abundant. This differs from one brain to another. It is impossible for two brains or more to agree to proceed in all matters, to judge upon things in order to manage them. Here the difference occurs. So it becomes mandatory for one to compromise with the other, in such a case the leadership becomes individualistic, even amongst two. Thus there can never be a collective leadership. Instead, it is only possible to ever have singular, individual leadership.

As for the second reason for being long, they confused in the two matters related to the organization of ruling, opinion and decision, between which Islam differentiated precisely, making Islam distinct and unique in this regard. Ruling passes through two phases, the phase of opinion and the phase of decision-making. In the first phase, the opinion is sought for treating the problem, so there will be multiple views which will be subject to deliberations and research. This is in addition to details about when the views are mandatorily binding and when they are informative. This falls within the realm of what is known in the Islamic ruling system as Shura (consultation). Allah (swt) says,

“who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.” [TMQ Surah Ash-Shura 42:38]. The second phase is the decision making phase. It is an individual matter in which decisions are made by a single authorized person, so decisions are not made collectively. Allah (swt) says,

“And consult them on the matter. When you have decided, then rely upon Allah.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran 3:156]. Thus the ruling in Islam is neither autocratic nor democratic. Instead, the ruling system of Islam is a unique model, which is realistic and not nominal and idealistic.

In conclusion, Democracy as a ruling system has no primacy in itself in terms of either theoretical or procedural forms. This is particularly so when Democracy is compared with the Islamic ruling system. In fact, Democracy’s sanctity and preference originates within its people through its components, namely its concepts and values it represents, such as freedom. We will refute this too shortly.