MAJLIS

Batoota — Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:32:22 +0000

MAJLIS. An Arabic term that seems to have been used in pre-Islamic Arabia to indicate either a tribal council or council of tribes, majlis, after the advent of Islam and the foundation of the caliphate, denoted the audience chamber of the caliph and, later on, that of one of the sultans. It also referred to a gathering of a select group of people in the presence of a leading notable, a religious dignitary, or a well-known poet.
In modern times, majlis has been primarily used as the name of an institution set up to deal with matters pertaining to the public interest or domain. Hence, in the first half of the nineteenth century, majlis was virtually restricted to governmental institutions and organs, formally known as diwdns. These new institutions were established during the age of reform, particularly as a result of the Tanzimat movement associated with a number of Ottoman sultans, ministers, and officials. [See Diwan; Tanzimat.] It was perhaps the Egyptian Ibralinn Pasha (d. 1848), Muhammad ‘Al-i’s son, who popularized the use of the term after his occupation of Syria between 1831 and 1840. He thus set up a central council in Damascus (majlis al-shurd) and other local councils in every city and town. The central and local councils dealt with civil, financial, and administrative matters, although ultimate authority was reserved for the military governor of the country.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, majlis entered the vocabulary of modern Islam in order to denote a particular type of institution. Its most outstanding characteristic was the fact that it signified an organization which had clearly defined aims and equally precise internal regulations. Moreover, it often referred to institutions that had official functions in society and served a common purpose. This type of institution, governed by procedural rules and set up for the benefit of the community, came into being as part of the belief in the necessity of an orderly system of government. In Egypt, for example, Khedive Ismd’il (r. 18631879) set up in 1866 a consultative chamber of deputies (majlis shurd al-nuwwdb) and introduced a system of indirect elections. In 1876 the sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876-190g) promulgated a new constitution which stipulated the creation of an elected chamber of deputies (meclis-i meb’usan) and an appointed senate (meths-i a’ydn).
In the twentieth century, the term majlis has gained widespread currency in all Islamic countries. Used in various combinations, it refers to a variety of official, private, and social institutions. Thus, a board of directors of a commercial company is generally called in Arabic majlis al-iddrah. However, its most frequent use is reserved for parliamentary institutions endowed with legislative authority or deliberative functions, as in the cases of Turkey, Iran, and most Arab countries.
A new type of majlis began to emerge, particularly in the Arab world, following the proliferation of coups d’dtat between 1949 and 1970. Once in power, the military officers would invariably set up a new institutionmajlis giyddat al-thawrah (Revolutionary Command Council)-and invest it with ultimate authority.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gilsenan, Michael. Recognizing Islam. New York and London, 1982. Articulate anthropological insights on majlis as a reception room. Hudson, Michael. Arab Politics: The Search For Legitimacy. New Haven, 1977. Analytic study of institution building in the Arab context.
Kedourie, Elie. Politics in the Middle East, New York and Oxford, 1992. Provocative diagnosis of parliamentary life in a number of Islamic countries.
Ma’oz, Moshe. Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine, i8go-r86r. London and New York, 1968. Accurate descriptive sections on the role of majlis (meclis) in Ottoman Syria.
YOUSSEF M. CHOUEIRI

LOYA JIRGA

Batoota — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:48:22 +0000

LOYA JIRGA. Councils summoned by Afghan rulers over the past century to consolidate their authority and nationalist programs have been called by this term,
which means “grand assembly” in Pashtu. Modernist Afghans and historians have attempted to trace loya jirga into the distant past and indigenous tribal custom, but loya jirga differ from tribal jirga in fundamental ways. Tribal jirga are a Pashtun custom of communal assembly for deciding on collective undertakings or settling internal conflicts. Decisions are reached by a consensus of those attending. Loya jirga are bodies of delegates summoned by the ruler and limited to his initiatives; they include religious leaders, who have only ratifying roles in tribal jirga. A more proximate model would be the majlis, for loya jirga belong to the history and centralization of government in modern Afghanistan.

LOYA JIRGA

The format was set by Amir `Abd al-Rahman Khan (188o-1901), who initiated several consultative bodies to check the quasifeudal jagir system of titleholders adopted by previous amirs and to assert power over officeholders and local leaders. His arrangement of loya jirga as “national” assemblies alongside assemblies of titleholders (darbari shahi) and of local leaders (khawdnin mulki) was formalized in the first constitution of Afghanistan proclaimed by Amir Amanullah (1919-1929) in 1923.
Boundaries of the nation and the ruler’s authority have been the constants of loya jirga. `Abd al-Rahman held three, according to Hasan Kakar, to affirm his negotiations of Afghanistan’s modern borders and his paramount authority within them. Amanullah summoned a loya jirga in 1921 to ratify his treaty with Britain recognizing Afghanistan’s independence, again in 1924 after a rebellion against his efforts to modernize Afghanistan, and in 1928 to press reforms; the last provoked a civil war. After its conclusion, Nadir Shah (1930-1933) called a loya jirga in 1930 to affirm his proclamation as ruler by a jirga of tribal militia; another was summoned in 1941 to accept British demands (to expel Axis nationals) that infringed Afghan sovereignty. Loya jirga were convened again in 1949 and 1955 to press nationalist claims to tribal territories in Pakistan; these were reaffirmed by a loya jirga summoned in 1964 to ratify a new constitution.
The last provides a picture of loya jirga at work. Of more than 45o delegates, 176 were elected for the event, to offset 176 who were members of the National Assembly, with the balance drawn from appointed legislators, officials, and the committees that had drafted the constitution. Although the delegates were not “king’s men,” it was the ruler’s assembly; it was composed to check entrenched interests and to establish the authority of the center.
Whatever loya jirgas employ of regional traditions and techniques, their specific features belong to the history of modern Afghan government, not to tribal models. Loya jirga have never assembled to settle conflicts or to decide a course of collective action, but only on a ruler’s initiative, and then more for communication than for consultation between the ruler and constitutent communities. Apparently formulated by Amir Abd al-Rahman as a check on title-holders and local leaders, the loya jirga has been a device for nationalizing the boundaries of the country and authority within it.
[See also Afghanistan; Majlis.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gregorian, Vartan. The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan. Stanford, Calif., 1969. The most comprehensive and balanced political history of Afghanistan.
Kakar, M. Hasan. Government and Society in Afghanistan. Austin, 1979. Provides a detailed study of Emir `Abd al-Rahman’s government.
Poullada, Leon B. Reform and Rebellion in Afghanistan, 1919-1929. Ithaca, N.Y., 1973. Places the Amanullah period in a tribal context.
Dupree, Louis. Afghanistan. Princeton, 1978. Contains a lively account of the 1964 loya jirga.
JON W. ANDERSON

majlis – Hybrid Learning

MAJLIS

LOYA JIRGA