The limits of democracy and individualism


by Dr. Azly Rahman

(Part 3 of the speech to Malaysian and Indonesian Muslim students of North America and Canada, Washington DC, December 2007.)

I begin with two familiar quotes:

“A life unexamined is not worth living,” said Socrates.

“Work hard as if you are to live forever, devote your beingness to the Creator as if you are to die tomorrow,” goes a saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

In this third part of our discussion, we will talk about the world within and this relates to the limits of democracy and individualism. I use the word “personacracy” or “deeply personal democracy” to describe what is it that we need to know about ourselves in order to navigate through the politics of representation of the modern world and signs and symbols of the postmodern environment we inhabit. We need, as an American social critic Frederic Jameson called a “cartography of the self” or a GPS system of our inner and outer world to function in this environment.

But first, what does being and “individual” mean? Let me offer a perspective that you can build upon. I need you to listen carefully to the concepts. They might make sense.

Individualism

How limiting can the term “individualist” mean if it hovers merely within the realm of one’s beingness in relation to this world wherein information is mistaken for knowledge and propaganda for truth within the assumption that what we know can merely be grasped by the senses five?

If one’s entire beingness and becomingness is shackled by it being shaped by the apparatuses of the modern state, as the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci once said, and if one’s understanding of the world is merely a mimic of what politics, culture and scientism has dictated, then the word “individualism” is but a term coined so that the personhood in each and every one of us becomes an object to be studied through the process of Othering. Within this delimiting and shackling context then, I must name myself less as an individual and more as a “personacrat.”

My personacratic self primarily aims at understanding first and foremost my inner world with its attendant beauty and self-government, evolving personhood, destroying of paradigms and perpetual awareness of the supraconsciousness of what lies within. I am a personacrat derived from a conceptual meadow I coin as “personacracy”; a government (kratos) of the self, by the self, for the self.

I reject all forms of democracy; the illusionary system of government which has lost its meaning since it was first conceptualised. Personacracy allows me to be in this world of illusion, of Maya, but not be and become part of it. I am thus in this world but not of this world.

Personacracy

The government I have created in my wakefulness entails me to mediate between the I and the Thou-ness of the scheme of things. I conjure Existence as the highest ideal, going beyond merely thinking therefore I exist, rather believing that I exist within a universe of Existence. I persist to exist within this encapsulated notion called mind and body and persist to believe that when this body rots, death becomes the beginning of perpetual existence. I am eternal within this form and shape of beingness, until eternity calls upon me to be me with Nature and to be a witness to the Truth I have longed to meet.

I am truth within a Truth of greater magnitude. I am one and indivisible within a greater design of Oneness and Indivisibility. I utilize my senses five with guidance from my Inner Self in turn guided by a counter-balancing self within. And within these faculties and the political organs within, my entire personhood is a government in itself to be ethnically mastered and maneuvered through the oceans of mercy I call the world outside.

I am thus as such, closer to my Self than my jugular vein! In what ways then, am I not individualistic? Here are a few: I once wept when I had no shoes, until I saw a man with no feet; I once believed that man can rise to become Superman, until I sank deeper within myself to become a vicegerent of the Supreme Spirit; I once believed that life is to be lived until I heard one say the life unexamined is not worth living; I once believed that we live once and then die, until I discovered that death to me comes by every nightfall and I live a new life by every break of day; I once heard of a distant heaven and hell, until I name them so as I can be in them; I once let time pass, until I became it and gave what it asked for; I once thought loneliness is bliss until I began to desire of its unspeakable beauty; I once asked who should govern and why must I be governed until I found the ways to govern those within me who longed to be governed; I once marveled at creation, destruction and sustenance until I found that I am all in one Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer.

I am this world within and the world without but not with it. Because if I am part of it, I will be apart from the Thou I longed to be part of! I am a traveler passing through time. In my journey I have met mice and men, savages and savants, politicians and philosophers, economists and eco-feminists.

In my journey I have met Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Al Ghazalli and Al Arabi, and philosophers beyond the type of individualism I have been told to mimic. I am taking to the road not taken, for it should make a difference and as I pass through, I kept looking at open windows lest I be oblivious of what this world may teach.

Life and death

And as I pass through I become more subdued in my anger of what has wrought this world and made men wretched of the earth as I know that this journey is an arduous one; one which begins with a web of guess but will end at a point of certainty.

And at the moment of death, the end of the road, I am meeting a self of whom I am familiar with, who I once met before this journey begins. I create the rock I choose to roll so that one should imagine me happy. I can soar among eagles and dwell among sparrows.

Life, to me is not an end game but a journey towards Light, which has neither a beginning nor an end. And hence, why am I not an individual and democrat?

Because the world is too much for me. If all the world’s a stage, I insist not being a mere player but to create one for myself so that I can, in the end hold it like a crystal ball – the world and the stage and its players in all. Is there not beauty in personacracy, than in democracy?

I believe, therefore I am a personacrat!

I hope you have questions on this part of the lecture and I hope you will be able to understand a perspective of the self better.

In the last part I shall talk about your role as students, by way of learning from your environment, by naming it, and transforming it when the time for change requires you to do so.

[Part 4 will follow]

  1. #1 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 17 January 2008 - 11:30 am

    I suggest readers to watch the movie “The Great Debaters” to understand how society should work – it should not be the tyranny of the majority but based on laws that are just.

    http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2008/01/unjust-law-is-no-law.html

  2. #2 by Anba on Thursday, 17 January 2008 - 3:35 pm

    Dr. Azly,
    Your words of wisdom is well taken. At a time where the politicians and religious people’s influence seem to dominate this world, I’m reminded of the words of Jiddu Krishnamurti, a great teacher and philosopher who rejected all authority and urged everyone to be independent in the search for truth. In one of his famous speech, Krishnamurti said :

    “I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organise a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organise it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallised; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others.”

    Whats your take on this statement? Would you consider yourself a Muslim who is free of the limitations of the religion or are you above it? As for me, religion does not interest me anymore as I feel that one can be religious without belonging to a religion.

    Hoping to hear from you.

    May God bless the searhing souls.

You must be logged in to post a comment.