C. Historical Applications

It is easy to see that these broad concepts can incorporate a spectrum of governmental structures, from autocratic to democratic, all of which can claim to be "Islamic." This point has been well-expressed by Gary Sick, former member of the National Security Council during the Carter administration, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Middle East Watch, and adjunct professor in the School of International Affairs of Columbia University: "Islam is protean and has the capacity to take many forms. One of these forms, I am convinced, is democratic. Regrettably, another form is authoritarianism or totalitarianism – another form of government that was perfected in the West and is also available for imitation."4

Clearly, if the concept of shura is understood to mean a broad-based consultation which is then binding upon the ruler, and if the concept of baya is understood to imply universal consent by the governed to legitimize the authority of the governor, then the resulting system is democratic in character.

Historically, for a variety of reasons, part of which may be that Islam initially united fiercely independent nomadic tribes in Arabia living with no central authority, Islam has tended toward autocratic governments. In other words, greater stress was placed on obedience to the ruler than consent of the governed or consultation with them in political decision-making. The shura has often been limited to a small group, and has been non-binding in character, more in the way of advice than a checks and balances system. Concurrently, the baya has not been universal, and often only the consent of a very small and non-representative group was taken as sufficient to legitimize the authority of the ruling sultan or caliph. Once legitimized, the caliph is then due obedience by the verse noted above, as well as various Prophetic traditions which are often quoted in this vein as well.