This is why there has never been an effective way to eliminate bureaucracy in Islam. It can be shown clearly that, when there are struggles in Islamic societies against individualism and bureaucracy, they would result only in the substitution of some lower-rank bureaucrats with those of higher rank. By studying Islamic societies a little, we will notice that, in their forceful history, there are still the traces of individual rather than public leadership in carrying out internal and external affairs of society, and also, where there are no scientific applications to social problems, there exists bureaucracy within the structure of the system. It is self-evident that bureaucracy leaves its mark in every aspect of social life. Compared with capitalist systems, there is more bureaucracy in Islamic states. The reason for this is that, in capitalist states, bureaucracy is not entirely in control of social life, but in Islamic states, the bureaucratic system has infiltrated into every aspect of the country’s affair, that is, from production tools to transportation, from hospitals and schools to nurseries, and virtually every single aspect of life is governed by bureaucrats. Even if they are not in complete control of the means of production and ownership of all aspects of life, bureaucrats in Islamic states ensure that they are at least in unconditional control of such aspects. In reality, the greatest of contradictions within Islamic states is the contradiction between economic affairs and administrative bureaucracy. It can rightfully be questioned whether, within Islamic society, the ruling bureaucrats are in fact the same people disguised as capitalists in government? Some may argue that within Islamic states the ruling bureaucrats are not in absolute control of the wealth of the country; in other words, the ruling bureaucrats are also subject to the government, and therefore, they are not known as the “owning class.” Perhaps there is a connection between the bureaucrats’ ownership and their leadership? Maybe the phrase “ownership” should not be used to refer to Islamic bureaucrats, but whatever it means, even if the bureaucrats are not in direct ownership of the entire system, they make sure to exploit the working classes and their products in their own interests? Perhaps, some argue, in Islamic states individualism is not deeply rooted in the system but is only coincidental? There are plenty of suspicions to this approach. One is that bureaucracy provides a fertile ground for upper levels in the bureaucratic system to rule the lower. This is what the pillar of bureaucracy is indeed resting on. There may be arguments that the public in Islamic states are not actively opposing the bureaucrats. The ruling bureaucrats are feeding from the extensive bureaucracy and Islamic states. It is true that, in Islamic societies, the dissatisfaction of the public has not yet turned into an active force against the bureaucrats. Under normal circumstances of bureaucratic leadership in the Islamic states, the public are not instrumental in their opposition. Only under conditions of upheaval and critical circumstances will the public rise against the ruling views. The bureaucratic leadership is well aware of such possibilities, and therefore they resort to militarism in order to strengthen their power base for confrontation against the mob. This is precisely why the Islamic leadership, against all odds, seeks to bring every aspect of the system, i.e., economic, social, political and cultural issues, under its total control. In this way, an entire organization, such as the ruling party, and judicial, police, military, security forces, are guaranteed to be subordinated to the needs of the ruling bureaucrats. It is hard to imagine that, across the globe, there are any bureaucratic systems compared to those of Islamic states that bring the services of the above organizations to such an extent under their domination. The bureaucratic rulers of Islamic states consider themselves to be the champions and the most educated, trusted, scientifically minded and the best interpreters of the Islamic laws. In this way, they have managed to win the trust of many lower sectors of bureaucracy (including parties, governmental organizations and administrative sectors), workers, the uneducated and the rural populations, resulting in the virtual worship of individuals in Iranian society. Individualism has brought about a system of terror and force on behalf of the Islamic rulers, which has resulted in a stronger power base for the bureaucrats. Nowadays, the unquestioning trust of the public towards the Islamic rulers is over and has been replaced by an ever-increasing distrust of the Islamic leaders towards the public across the Islamic world. Now, as in the later decades of the 20th century, leaders of the Islamic states are not even benefiting from the trust of the most sincere members of their own parties. Against the interests of the majority of the population, bureaucrats of various kinds and creed are collaborating with the army, that military machinery, for upholding their own positions; it should not be forgotten that, throughout the Islamic states, bureaucrats unite to deploy every trick in the book to attract the pseudo trust of the public. It is no coincidence that the propaganda machinery in Islamic states is functioning at its fullest capacity. One point that is certain is that, within Islamic states, the overall trust of the public and the educated with regard to their leaders is in constant decline. What is paramount in today’s Islamic states is the leadership crisis. Being aware of potential crisis around the corner, the Islamic leaders have increased the level of pressure on the educated, the media and on any sector of opposition. Applications of force against the public would in turn diminish the credibility of the Islamic leaders. A brief study shows that never in the history of leadership in Islamic countries has the leaders’ credibility with the public been so low. These conditions will result in the downfall of these Islamic rulers. Today, bureaucracy in Islamic states is limited to a small sector of society, which will gradually polarize the states into various social classes of public. When the people’s distrust in the Islamic leaders are on the increase, the bureaucratic leaders, in order to tighten their grip further on their position, restrict the number of officials around them so that they are within the safe haven of their own trusted figures. This is indicative of the fact that a special relationship is formed at the top of the bureaucratic ladder that would allow those into the offices of government who have secured a special bond with the regimes’ oligarchy.
Posted on: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:34:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015