Validity of the Majority Vote in Government

Line 12:

==Introduction==

Managing the society based on the people's vote and considering the opinion of the majority in the management of public and governmental affairs is one of the newly emerging issues in the Islamic world, the history of which, especially in Iran, goes back to the victory of the constitutional revolution.<ref>Khān Muhammadī, Jāyegāh Aktharīyyat dar Qur’ān bā Ta’kīd bar Ārāye Āyatullāh Mousavī Ardabīlī, p. 59-60.</ref> The legitimacy and validity of the majority vote in government issues has been accepted by some jurists as a theory in contemporary jurisprudence.

The jurists who believe in the validity of the majority vote consider the acceptability and legitimacy of the government, ruler and government laws, and even the actualization of the ruler's sovereignty to be dependent on the consent and the vote of the majority.<ref>Montazerī, Hukūmat e Dīnī wa Huqūq e Insān, 1429, p. 37-38.</ref> Imam Khomeini, one of the contemporary jurists, in response to a jurisprudential question regarding how the jurist who fulfills all of the necessary conditions of being a jurist should take charge of the affairs of the Islamic society, said that the actualization of the appointment of the jurist vis-à-vis managing the affairs of the Muslims and the formation of the government is dependent on the votes of the majority of Muslims, which is mentioned in the constitution and which was referred to as “[[~~Paying allegiance|~~paying allegiance]] to the leader of the Muslims” at the advent of Islam.<ref>Imām Khomeini, Sahīfeye Imām (An Anthology of Imām Khomeini’s Speeches, Messages, Interviews, Decrees, Religious Permissions, and Letters), 1385, Vol. 20, p. 459.</ref>

The jurists who believe in the validity of the majority vote consider the acceptability and legitimacy of the government, ruler and government laws, and even the actualization of the ruler's sovereignty to be dependent on the consent and the vote of the majority.<ref>Montazerī, Hukūmat e Dīnī wa Huqūq e Insān, 1429, p. 37-38.</ref> Imam Khomeini, one of the contemporary jurists, in response to a jurisprudential question regarding how the jurist who fulfills all of the necessary conditions of being a jurist should take charge of the affairs of the Islamic society, said that the actualization of the appointment of the jurist vis-à-vis managing the affairs of the Muslims and the formation of the government is dependent on the votes of the majority of Muslims, which is mentioned in the constitution and which was referred to as “[[paying allegiance]] to the leader of the Muslims” at the advent of Islam.<ref>Imām Khomeini, Sahīfeye Imām (An Anthology of Imām Khomeini’s Speeches, Messages, Interviews, Decrees, Religious Permissions, and Letters), 1385, Vol. 20, p. 459.</ref>

In determining the scope of the validity of the majority vote in political issues, the jurists have consensus that the definite matters of the sharī'ah ranging from beliefs, acts of worship, and transactions, the ruling of which has been determined by the sharī'ah and reached man through revelation, are not included in the realm of legislation or determination by the majority vote.<ref>‘Allāmah Tabātabā’ī, Al-Mīzān, Vol. 4, p. 56-57; Qardhāwī, Fiqh e Siyāsī, p. 183</ref> The emphasis on consultation in Islam and asking people's opinion is related to the field of social and executive affairs and matters that are entrusted to the people by the sharī'ah.<ref>Rostamī, Negāhī Tatbīqī bi Kārkard Aktharīyyat dar Democracy va Kitāb o Sunnat, p. 115 -116; Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat dar Partov e Kitāb o Sunnat, p. 54.</ref> It is for this reason that Mīrzā Nā’īnī, by diving the laws into “written rules” and “unwritten rules”, believes that the sharī'ah in the field of non-written matters has allowed people to fulfill their duties by passing executive laws and regulations depending on the requirements of time and place.<ref>Nā’īnī, Tanbīh al-Ummah, p. 134 – 135.</ref> [[Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr]] referred to this domain as the “domain of Firāgh”.<ref>Sadr, Iqtisādunā (Our Economics), p. 380.</ref>

According to Masoud Emami, one of the researchers of religious issues, those who say that the majority vote is valid in collective decision-making areas, consider it valid only on the basis of the right to self-determination. However, based on other bases such as discovery of the truth, expediency, religious legitimacy and acceptability, the majority vote is either invalid or its validity can only be proven in a limited area.<ref>. Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat dar Mabnāye Kashf Haqīqat o Sāyir Mabānī, p. 73.</ref> Based on this perspective, the legitimacy of the majority vote on the basis of the right to determine one’s future has been considered to be on the same footing as man’s ontological freedom (including all optional actions in individual or collective form);<ref>Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat bar Mabnāye Haqqe Ta’yīn Sarnevesht.</ref> in the sense that the ontological freedom of human beings in collective life depends on their implementation to the obligatory tasks dictated by human reason and the sharī'ah. Therefore, the establishment and maintenance of any government, even the government of the infallibles, without the will and consent of the people will lack rational and religious legitimacy, and the consent of the people is considered one of the reasons for the legitimacy of the government.<ref>Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat dar Partov e Kitāb o Sunnat, p. 54.</ref> According to this opinion, if the right of free choice of individuals in collective life leads to conflict of desires and the disruption of social order, then there is a need for a solution that preserves the two ideals of human beings, i.e. freedom of choice and order in social life. In times of conflict between these two, the aim is to give up the first principle of ontological freedom for all human beings due to the necessities of social life, and by preferring the vote of the majority to the minority, only this minority is forced to comply with laws or to accept a government that it does not believe in and thus, there is less damage incurred to the freedom of the people.<ref>Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat bar Mabnāye Haqqe Ta’yīn Sarnevesht.</ref>

==Alternative theories==

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ==Introduction==
 Managing the society based on the people's vote and considering the opinion of the majority in the management of public and governmental affairs is one of the newly emerging issues in the Islamic world, the history of which, especially in Iran, goes back to the victory of the constitutional revolution.<ref>Khān Muhammadī, Jāyegāh Aktharīyyat dar Qur’ān bā Ta’kīd bar Ārāye Āyatullāh Mousavī Ardabīlī, p. 59-60.</ref> The legitimacy and validity of the majority vote in government issues has been accepted by some jurists as a theory in contemporary jurisprudence.
-The jurists who believe in the validity of the majority vote consider the acceptability and legitimacy of the government, ruler and government laws, and even the actualization of the ruler's sovereignty to be dependent on the consent and the vote of the majority.<ref>Montazerī, Hukūmat e Dīnī wa Huqūq e Insān, 1429, p. 37-38.</ref> Imam Khomeini, one of the contemporary jurists, in response to a jurisprudential question regarding how the jurist who fulfills all of the necessary conditions of being a jurist should take charge of the affairs of the Islamic society, said that the actualization of the appointment of the jurist vis-à-vis managing the affairs of the Muslims and the formation of the government is dependent on the votes of the majority of Muslims, which is mentioned in the constitution and which was referred to as “[[Paying allegiance|paying allegiance]] to the leader of the Muslims” at the advent of Islam.<ref>Imām Khomeini, Sahīfeye Imām (An Anthology of Imām Khomeini’s Speeches, Messages, Interviews, Decrees, Religious Permissions, and Letters), 1385, Vol. 20, p. 459.</ref>
+The jurists who believe in the validity of the majority vote consider the acceptability and legitimacy of the government, ruler and government laws, and even the actualization of the ruler's sovereignty to be dependent on the consent and the vote of the majority.<ref>Montazerī, Hukūmat e Dīnī wa Huqūq e Insān, 1429, p. 37-38.</ref> Imam Khomeini, one of the contemporary jurists, in response to a jurisprudential question regarding how the jurist who fulfills all of the necessary conditions of being a jurist should take charge of the affairs of the Islamic society, said that the actualization of the appointment of the jurist vis-à-vis managing the affairs of the Muslims and the formation of the government is dependent on the votes of the majority of Muslims, which is mentioned in the constitution and which was referred to as “[[paying allegiance]] to the leader of the Muslims” at the advent of Islam.<ref>Imām Khomeini, Sahīfeye Imām (An Anthology of Imām Khomeini’s Speeches, Messages, Interviews, Decrees, Religious Permissions, and Letters), 1385, Vol. 20, p. 459.</ref>
 In determining the scope of the validity of the majority vote in political issues, the jurists have consensus that the definite matters of the sharī'ah ranging from beliefs, acts of worship, and transactions, the ruling of which has been determined by the sharī'ah and reached man through revelation, are not included in the realm of legislation or determination by the majority vote.<ref>‘Allāmah Tabātabā’ī, Al-Mīzān, Vol. 4, p. 56-57; Qardhāwī, Fiqh e Siyāsī, p. 183</ref> The emphasis on consultation in Islam and asking people's opinion is related to the field of social and executive affairs and matters that are entrusted to the people by the sharī'ah.<ref>Rostamī, Negāhī Tatbīqī bi Kārkard Aktharīyyat dar Democracy va Kitāb o Sunnat, p. 115 -116; Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat dar Partov e Kitāb o Sunnat, p. 54.</ref> It is for this reason that Mīrzā Nā’īnī, by diving the laws into “written rules” and “unwritten rules”, believes that the sharī'ah in the field of non-written matters has allowed people to fulfill their duties by passing executive laws and regulations depending on the requirements of time and place.<ref>Nā’īnī, Tanbīh al-Ummah, p. 134 – 135.</ref> [[Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr]] referred to this domain as the “domain of Firāgh”.<ref>Sadr, Iqtisādunā (Our Economics), p. 380.</ref>
 According to Masoud Emami, one of the researchers of religious issues, those who say that the majority vote is valid in collective decision-making areas, consider it valid only on the basis of the right to self-determination. However, based on other bases such as discovery of the truth, expediency, religious legitimacy and acceptability, the majority vote is either invalid or its validity can only be proven in a limited area.<ref>. Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat dar Mabnāye Kashf Haqīqat o Sāyir Mabānī, p. 73.</ref> Based on this perspective, the legitimacy of the majority vote on the basis of the right to determine one’s future has been considered to be on the same footing as man’s ontological freedom (including all optional actions in individual or collective form);<ref>Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat bar Mabnāye Haqqe Ta’yīn Sarnevesht.</ref> in the sense that the ontological freedom of human beings in collective life depends on their implementation to the obligatory tasks dictated by human reason and the sharī'ah. Therefore, the establishment and maintenance of any government, even the government of the infallibles, without the will and consent of the people will lack rational and religious legitimacy, and the consent of the people is considered one of the reasons for the legitimacy of the government.<ref>Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat dar Partov e Kitāb o Sunnat, p. 54.</ref> According to this opinion, if the right of free choice of individuals in collective life leads to conflict of desires and the disruption of social order, then there is a need for a solution that preserves the two ideals of human beings, i.e. freedom of choice and order in social life. In times of conflict between these two, the aim is to give up the first principle of ontological freedom for all human beings due to the necessities of social life, and by preferring the vote of the majority to the minority, only this minority is forced to comply with laws or to accept a government that it does not believe in and thus, there is less damage incurred to the freedom of the people.<ref>Imāmī, I’tibār Ra’y Aktharīyyat bar Mabnāye Haqqe Ta’yīn Sarnevesht.</ref>
 ==Alternative theories==

Validity of the Majority Vote in Government: Difference between revisions