Islamic Shura, Democracy, and Epistocracy

Some Muslims often attempt to infuse democracy with Islamic principles, drawing parallels with the concept of Shura. However, in Islamic Shura, not just anyone’s advice and consultation are sought, especially on matters related to politics and state affairs. There are specific criteria for someone to qualify as a contributor to Shura, including:[1]

1) Being individuals of Iman and those who refrain from major sins.

2) Possessing exemplary character.

3) Demonstrating tolerance towards valid dissenting opinions.

4) Revering and commending the essential marks (sha’aair) of the Shar‘eeah.

5) Being trustworthy.

6) Being recognized for their knowledge and providing sound advice.

7) Being known for their rationality and wisdom.

8) Being recognized for their independence in expressing opinions without succumbing to pressure.

9) Being acknowledged for their courage in offering honest advice.

If anything, this seems to align more closely with an Islamic-regulated form of epistocracy (or noocracy) than democracy.

Critiques of democracy have roots stretching back thousands of years to the era of Plato.[2] However, in the modern context, Dr. Jason Brennan stands out as one of the most prominent critics of democracy, advocating for epistocracy. His book, “Against Democracy” (Princeton University Press: 2016), presents several compelling criticisms of the democratic concept, drawing on research surveys, studies in political psychology, and straightforward common sense.

In democracies, a significant portion of the population lacks basic knowledge and expertise in the social sciences necessary for evaluating the issues they vote on. Many individuals are uninformed about essential facts, even if those facts pertain to the subjects they are eligible to vote on. Most people find it challenging to dedicate time or effort to becoming well-informed, particularly on complex matters. Even when motivation arises, it may be misdirected, such as acquiring knowledge to conform and engage in conversations with peers under social pressure. Like sports fans, many people passionately support their preferred political groups, tending to selectively emphasize evidence that aligns with their views while downplaying opposing evidence. In addition, some individuals may vote for radical policies simply to express their rebellious inclination rather than out of a genuine and sensible concern for the collective welfare of the people.

Individuals tend to exhibit greater rationality when deciding on matters where mistakes could result in immediate consequences directly to them, such as in street traffic. This contrasts with voting for policies or candidates, where immediate and direct repercussions for errors are less evident.

Furthermore, a predominant pattern in voting behavior involves individuals favoring policies that align with their personal self-interests or subjective opinions rather than giving due consideration to the broader collective interests of the people.

Moreover, ordinary citizens are more susceptible to manipulation and deception by politicians. Children under 18 are ineligible to vote based on the presumption that they would either uncritically emulate their parents or lack sufficient knowledge. Likewise, these very reasons apply to a significant portion of the adult population who, due to ignorance, tend to vote in mere imitation of others.

Considering all these factors, bestowing political authority upon individuals with limited knowledge and potentially misguided voting tendencies is problematic and could be deemed immoral and reckless. The right and entitlement to vote should not be granted solely based on birth or residency. People’s fundamental right to a competent government is at stake, and the indiscriminate extension of the “right to vote” for everyone has the potential to compromise this essential right. Similar to the expectation of expertise in professions like medicine, plumbing, and engineering, those wielding genuine influence over government policies should be held to the same standard of competence.

Epistocracy is not immune to problems and challenges; however, these issues are generally more manageable when compared to the alternative of allowing almost everyone to vote. Enforcing guidelines and establishing preconditions for a smaller group of individuals is significantly different and often more feasible than implementing such measures for the masses.

---

[1] See: Hussain b. Muhammad al-Mahdi, Ash-Shura fil Sharee’ah al-Islamiyyah, pp. 190-220

[2] See Plato’s Objections to Democracy