Parliamentarism and Islamic Shūrā stand out as significant concepts that have shaped democratic and consultative governance systems. These concepts should help solving the Tai Ji Men case.
by Davide S. Amore*
*A paper presented at the seminar “Parliaments, Democracy, and Tai Ji Men,” co-organized by CESNUR and Human Rights Without Frontiers on June 30, 2024, UN International Day of Parliamentarism.


Table of Contents
Introduction
The Islamic Shūrā (ar.: شورى), or “consultation,” is a fundamental principle in Islamic governance derived from the Qurʾān and the practices of Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. The concept emphasizes collective decision-making and mutual consultation among members of the community. Shūrā is explicitly mentioned in Qurʾān 42:38, where it is highlighted as a trait of the Muslim community.
وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱسْتَجَابُوا۟ لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَـٰهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ
… those who respond to their Lord and establish the prayer, and manage their affairs by mutual consultation and spend from what We have provided for them…
Historically, the practice of Shūrā was institutionalized in various forms in Islamic states. The early caliphs of Islam often sought the counsel of knowledgeable and respected members of the community before making significant decisions. This consultative process aimed to ensure that governance was just and aligned with the principles of Islam.
In contemporary times, the concept of Shūrā has influenced the political systems of several Muslim-majority countries, inspiring efforts to integrate Islamic principles with modern democratic practices. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have incorporated elements of Shūrā in their governance, although the extent and form of its implementation vary widely.
Parliamentarism, a system of democratic governance in which the executive branch derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature (parliament), has deep historical roots. Its origins can be traced back to Medieval Europe. The English Parliament, established in the 13th century, is often considered the oldest in continuous operation. It emerged from the early councils and assemblies summoned by monarchs to seek advice and consent on crucial matters, particularly taxation. Over time, this body evolved, gaining more power and eventually leading to constitutional changes like the Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the powers of the king and laid the groundwork for modern parliamentary democracy.
Parliamentarism spread globally during the 19th and 20th centuries, often through colonization and the influence of the British Empire. Countries adopted and adapted the system to fit their unique historical and cultural contexts. Key features of parliamentarism include a clear separation of powers, regular elections, and a system of checks and balances that ensure the government remains accountable to the people.


Main differences between Western parliaments and Islamic Shūrā
The concept of Western parliaments primarily originates from the Medieval European tradition. The English Parliament, which began to take shape in the 13th century, is one of the oldest examples. The principles of representative democracy, the separation of powers, and the rule of law are foundational elements in Western parliamentary systems. These ideas were significantly influenced by Enlightenment thinkers and the political revolutions in the 17th and 18th centuries. Shūrā, on the other hand, is rooted in Islamic tradition and jurisprudence. Its principles are derived from the Qurʾān and the practices of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. Shūrā emphasizes mutual consultation and collective decision-making, with an aim to ensure that governance aligns with Islamic teachings and the welfare of the community.
Western parliamentary systems typically feature a bicameral or unicameral legislature composed of elected representatives. The structure includes an upper house (like the Senate) and a lower house (like the House of Representatives or Commons), each with distinct roles and powers. Members of parliament (MPs) are elected by the public through regular, competitive elections. The structure of Shūrā can vary widely depending on the country and its interpretation of Islamic principles. Shura councils may consist of appointed or elected members, including scholars, community leaders, and experts. The process of selection and the composition of Shūrā councils can be influenced by both traditional and modern considerations, aiming to represent various segments of the community while adhering to Islamic values.
Decision-making in Western parliaments is typically formalized through legislative procedures, including debates, committee reviews, and voting. Laws and policies are proposed, debated, amended, and passed through a majority vote. The process is designed to be transparent and accountable to the electorate. Shūrā operates through a consultative process where decisions are made based on consensus or majority opinion, with a strong emphasis on achieving communal harmony and justice. The decision-making process is guided by Islamic principles and the advice of knowledgeable individuals. The goal is to ensure that outcomes are in accordance with Sharīʿah (Islamic law).
In most Western parliamentary systems, there is a clear separation of religion and the state. While individual members may be influenced by their personal beliefs, laws and policies are generally secular and are intended to apply universally, regardless of religious affiliation. Shūrā is inherently tied to Islamic religious principles. The guidance provided by shura councils is expected to align with the Qurʾān, Ḥadīth (sayings and actions of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ), and other sources of Islamic jurisprudence. Religious considerations are central to the decision-making process, and the aim is to ensure that governance adheres to Islamic values.
A possible solution of the Tai Ji Men case
The Tai Ji Men case is a notable example of modern struggles for justice and human rights within existing legal and political frameworks. Tai Ji Men is a spiritual and cultural organization in Taiwan, practicing Qigong, martial arts, and self-cultivation. Legally established in 1966 by Dr. Hong Tao-Tze, it promotes values of peace, love, and conscience. In 1996, Tai Ji Men was subjected to politically motivated legal prosecution involving allegations of tax evasion and fraud. Despite subsequent court rulings in favour of Tai Ji Men, recognizing it as a non-profit organization that had committed no crimes and owed no taxes, the case lingered due to bureaucratic inertia and systemic corruption. The protracted legal battle has drawn attention to issues of religious freedom, human rights, taxpayers’ rights, and the abuse of state power. The Tai Ji Men case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by minority groups and spiritual organizations in asserting their rights within legal and political systems. It also highlights the importance of judicial independence, fair governance, and the protection of human rights in any society.
That said, integrating Western parliamentarism with Islamic Shūrā could offer a balanced approach to resolving the Tai Ji Men case by combining democratic accountability with ethical and communal considerations. To address the Tai Ji Men case, a joint legislative and consultative committee could be established, merging the strengths of both systems. From the Western parliamentary perspective, this committee would ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law, involving a bipartisan group of legislators. On the Islamic Shūrā side, respected Taiwanese community leaders and scholars, including those of the local Muslim community, and experts may provide ethical advice, ensuring that decisions align with the communal values and principles of justice and equity inherent in Islam and accepted by many other religions and cultures.
Mainly, seeking reconciliation and restorative justice could further resolve the conflict. Western mechanisms for reconciliation, such as mediation or restorative justice programs, could promote an amicable resolution. The Shūrā approach would emphasize forgiveness, restitution, and the restoration of relationships, reflecting the values of compassion and justice emphasized by Islam. Finally, ensuring ongoing monitoring and review would be essential. From a parliamentary perspective, a monitoring body could oversee the implementation of the committee’s recommendations and ensure compliance with legal standards. In the Shūrā tradition, engaging community leaders and scholars in ongoing review would ensure the resolution remains just and beneficial to all parties involved.


Conclusion
The evolution of governance through parliamentarism and Islamic Shūrā illustrates humanity’s pursuit of justice, accountability, and inclusive decision-making. While parliamentarism has shaped modern democracies with its structured legislative systems, Islamic Shūrā offers a consultative model grounded in religious principles. The Tai Ji Men case, meanwhile, serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring need to protect human rights and ensure just governance. As societies continue to evolve, these diverse governance principles provide valuable lessons for building more equitable and inclusive political systems. By combining the procedural rigor and accountability of Western parliamentarism with the ethical and communal focus of Islamic Shūrā, this integrated approach could address the Tai Ji Men case comprehensively, ensuring justice, fairness, and respect for human rights.