THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CHALLENGE OF PLURALISM - 6
|
[Abstaract / Preamble ] [ Conception and Legitimisation of Power ] [ Source, Nature and Scope of Law] [ Law and Morality ] [ Secularism the Solution? ] [ Option of Pluralism ] [ Challenge of Pluralism / Conclusion ] The Option of
Pluralism There is hardly any other option than to accept the
plural nature of our society and work out an arrangement that accommodates it.
The more so, now that isolationism and xenophobia of yesteryears cannot work in
a globe that is ever shrinking under breath-taking advances in transport and
communication technology. As peoples come closer old prejudices which had been
fuelled by distances and ignorance tend to dissolve giving room for
understanding, co-operation and growing levels of social integration. The
spread of civic education, largely promoted by the ever increasing NGOs, is
raising societal awareness of freedom and rights, making the suppressions and
oppressions of yesteryears not longer easy. All these factors, which gain
prominence as we go in to the 21st century, have made the globe and its
integral parts thereof necessarily plural, and all social, political as well as
economic institutions are having to adjust accordingly. The rule of law, in
both its conception and application, is certainly no exception. But what
exactly is the basis of pluralism and in which way is it a better option than
secularism? 1. Pluralism accepts religions for what they claim
to be, without challenging or vetting their veracity. It appreciates the
indisputable fact that man is intrinsically religious. More than that, it
appreciates that religion can and indeed plays a positive role not only in
restraining the greed and evil tendency in man but also in propelling him to do
good. That religion does not complicate or diminish life, rather it compliments
and enriches it. In other words, unlike secularism, pluralism does not have a
negative perception of religion, rather it has a sober and realistic attitude
and is willing to make the best out of it. 2. Pluralism also recognises the right of man to
chose what to believe in. This freedom of belief under pluralism, to be sure,
is different from the one under secularism. For under secularism, which despite
its contrariety to, has not quite purged itself of Christianity, this freedom
is informed (or is it tainted) by Christian prejudices and it nurses deep, if
subtle, reservations for some religions, particularly Islam. Under pluralism
this freedom is unreserved and emanates from a God-given (i.e. inalienable)
right of man to believe or not to believe, for ultimately man takes
responsibility for his actions. 3. Pluralism accommodates religions not so much out
of tolerance as out of mutual respect. This difference, admittedly subtle, is
of fundamental consequences. Respect, unlike tolerance, is not only positive
but also, and more importantly, invokes reciprocal obligation which is
essential for a healthy coexistence and co-operation. Furthermore, mutual
respect provides a more enduring basis for coexistence than tolerance. 4. Diversity in religions, cultures and world-views
is the essence of pluralism. This diversity is not seen as a problem that has
to be solved, rather it is seen as natural, harmless and in fact, desirable. In
the natural world monocultures are neither the norm nor the best, diversity
enriches. In ecology, the greater the diversity in ecosystem, the greater its
stability and resilience, for it is the diversity that gives a habitat the
strength and capacity to maintain itself into the future. (28) As with
ecosystems so with social-systems, the natural dynamics will eventually
determine the balance, the religion and culture that offers more is the one
that is likely to prevail eventually. 5. Pluralism, it must be added, is not necessarily a
passive concept which only accommodates and contains diversities but could, and
perhaps ought to, be proactive and aimed at providing a common base for interaction
and coexistence. There is an inexhaustible room for this, since there is a
range of issues that touch on humanity and cuts across cultures and religions;
issues like the sanctity of human life, the alleviation of human suffering, the
respect for and supremacy of the rule of law, etc. In providing a common
ecumenical base around which cultures and religions could rally round,
pluralism not only provides a forum for this diversity but may also open
channels of communication and build bridges across these islands of human
cultures. Thus Pluralism presents a more natural, mature and
above all honest frame of reference within which to accommodate and manage the
diversity of religions and cultures that make up this little chunk of the
global village called Nigeria. It saves us the pretences of secularism, which
purports to be neutral on issues where neutrality is not possible. The world
may be slow in coming to terms with the demands of pluralism but it is becoming
increasingly difficult to evade the challenge. Pluralism, to be sure, is
neither modern nor novel. For way back in the 7th century, when the Prophet of
Islam moved to Yathrib, as Madina was then known, to start the nascent Muslim
community, the first thing he did was to draw up an agreement between the
different religious and ethnic groups that made up that territory. This
document, often known as the Madinan constitution, believed to be the first
written constitution, dictated by the Prophet, in consultation with the various
parties, recognised all the communities for what they claim to be, provided the
basis for their co-operation and stipulated the obligations of all the parties
involved. It is worth catching a glimpse of this document: “The Jews are an ummah (a
nation) alongside the believers. The Jews have their religion and the Muslims
theirs. Both enjoy the security of their own populace and clients except the
unjust and the criminals among them. (The Muslims and Jews) shall each assist
the other against any violation of this covenant. Their relationship shall be
one of mutual advice and consultation, and mutual assistance and charity rather
than harm and aggression.” “Assistance is due to the
party suffering injustice, not to one perpetrating it. The (city-sate of)
Yathrib shall constitute a sanctuary for the parties of this covenant. Their
neighbours (or foreigners) shall be treated as themselves as long as they
perpetrate no crime and commit no harm.... To every smaller group belongs the
share which is their due as members of the larger group which is party to this
covenant. Charity and goodness are clearly distinguishable from crime and
injury, and there is no responsibility except for ones own deeds. This covenant
shall constitute no protection for the unjust or the criminal.” (29) Thus from its very beginning, the Muslim community
as well as its law, the Sharia, was founded on principles of pluralism.
Admittedly the Muslim states that developed around the Arabian peninsular,
Iraq, Iran and North Africa did not have ample opportunity to demonstrate and
develop this plural principle well as the non-Muslim groups soon converted to
Islam. It was in Islamic Spain (al-Andalus) and at the boarders of Europe
during the Ottoman period that this plural system was developed and polished.
The Millat system, as it came to be known, lasted until early this century when
the Ottoman state fell and was replaced by the secular regime of Attartuk. The
Millat system provided recognition to all the religious groups in the Ottoman
Empire and defined the rights and obligations of each group, based on mutual
respect and common human bonds. |
