Edited by Mudasir Al-Majdey
Sovereignty is a very complex and misleading concept. With reference to man or state, it is a simple hallucination or a complicated abstraction. The records of the known history exhibit the fact that the ultimate and absolute power or sovereignty has always remained cyclic or has been shifting from one person to another, from one group to another, from one society to another or from one power to another, that may be military, economic, religious or political. In the present history, democracy and freedom are controlled by the USA and other world forums.They are the controlling authorities and agencies, thereby challenge the sovereignty and autonomy of the other states. But it is not the only part of the truth. The fact is that the American might itself is controlled by the Jewish capitalists and policy makers.
Sovereignty can be defined and is defined in terms of power. The word power is quite bewildering and conflicting and is capsuled with multiple, multivocal, multidimensional meanings and applications. It is not very easy to delineate it and its theoretico-practical horizons. The concept is central to various diametrically opposed world views and in their theoretico-applicational formats. Sovereignty’s exploration and illustration enables us not only to understand the cardinal doctrines of these world-views but also their varying applications and relationship of the man and universe with its creation and localizes their activities and responsibilities in shaping life. It deepens and broadens our insight and knowledge and understanding of the concept. It is the power that shapes politics, economies, ethics, laws, cultures and civilizations. We cannot ignore its centrality in the systematization of life and its multiple meanings that profoundly shape and model these varying systems. In the field of politics and international relations it is the determining factor that conceptualizes or gives meaning to the word ‘power’. Hence it is usually defined in terms of interests on ‘the immediate aims’ of the states or political agencies. But we cannot ignore the fact that the concept of power is embedded in its pertinent theoretical framework. The theoretical framework shapes the various shades of power in its theory and practice.
In the realm of metaphysics, ethics and religion, the power emerges not as an ‘interest’ or ‘behavior’ but as a ‘meta-theoretical’ structure that defines all the meanings and applications of that philosophy or world-view. It shapes not only the politico-ethico-social theory but its applicational formats and the behavioral structures and becomes the basic foundation or the postulate of a philosophy or world-view.
Power is the fundamental problematique of the Holy Quran. God is the only necessary existence, the master and the source of everything. It is He who has bestowed power to man as His vicegerent. Thus viceregency is the attribute that determines the status of man. The dichotomy of the power as such as seen in the various religious and philosophical themes or man as the authority of power is not accepted in the doctrinal system of the Quran. God is not God because of this power but of His being God. And, as God He is the master of power and not the vice versa. It is not power that makes Him God. He is God and as God is the master of everything and has control over everything. His authority is absolute and beyond all limits.God needs no consultation or qualification or qualifying agency or agencies to decide or to will. His Will like His other attributes is absolute and beyond any limit. It is the will of man or society which is limited and qualified by other forces or agencies.
In the present political systems, the slogan of public will is given high importance for the change in the system of governance, economy and law. But in reality there is no public voice or will. It is actually the idea, concept or the will of a person or a group that has been tactfully named as ‘public will’. Public has no role in policy making and administration. It is the group of some powerful persons who control the state or the state machinery in the name of people or democracy or religion. These persons or groups are the real rulers of a society. The policy makers are always behind the scene. The rulers, in name, are actually their active agents or slaves. They actually dominate the political machinery. In the Marxian sense it is the capitalist society, and in the western democratic phrase, it is the ‘proletariat’ or ‘the public’. The lucid reality is that the prevailed or prevailing systems are nothing but an instrument of class or force domination. It is only the prophetic state that is neither controlled by capitalists, nor proletariat, nor public but by the real viceregent of the sovereign ‘God’, the Prophet.
In the non prophetic systems or states , power is always in transition. The Marxists claim that economic power is always primary in capitalistic society and the political power is both its off-spring and its subservient, is a part truth, for economic power is multi-centered and the realization of various socio-political forces and vice-versa. The economic, social and political powers are relative and interdependent and interconnected. “The existence of rival pressures, whether political or economic, seems as an escapable fact in modern society, with the result that the concept of sovereignty seems on close examination to disintegrate”. Laski argues indeed, that, “politically there is no such thing as sovereign at all”. There has never been, he says, a state in which an actual identity of interests between rulers and subjects can be admitted”. There are only “different wills, some of which, from their strength, have more importance than others”.
—The editor of this essay can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org