Bekir Gündoğdu
The limitation of power and rituals of humility reflect the common wisdom of civilizations. Although the practices in the Islamic world seem to be similar to the tradition of the reminderslave in Rome and the rituals in Europe, they are in fact the clearest proof that humility is oneof the common ethical values of humanity.
The Limits of Power and Humility from the Perspective of the History of Civilizations
The issue of power and its limitation is one of the most fundamental problems in humanhistory. Lord Acton’s statement “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” is a modern expression of this ancient problem. However, when the history of civilizations is examined, it is seen that societies recognized this danger long ago and developed variousinstitutional and ritualistic measures against it. The biggest contradiction that societies face is the need for a strong government on the one hand and the need to control this power on theother. This paradox has led to similar but unique solutions in different civilizations.
Roman civilization is one of the societies that developed the most systematic approach tolimiting power. The tradition of memento homo (remember that you are human) is more thana simple ritual, it is an institutional mechanism based on deep philosophical foundations. Theslave standing behind the victorious general or emperor in triumphal processions (triumphus), constantly reminding him of his mortality, is a striking practice to balance the arrogance of power.
In the person of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, we see a rare synthesis of power andwisdom. His Meditationes reflects the introspection of a ruler at the pinnacle of power:
In Meditationes, Book 7, Chapter 17, Marcus Aurelius states:
“What are you doing, my imagination? In the name of God, go away from here as you came. I know it is out of habit, I am not angry with you, but leave me alone.”
Again in Book 4, Chapter 3:
“A short life is the common fate of many things, but you either run away from everything orchase everything, as if you were destined to exist forever.”
Aurelius‘ Stoic philosophy represents the inner dimension of the limitation of power.
In European history, we see Roman practices in different forms. For example, at thecoronation of the Pope, a monk would burn a piece of flax and say “Holy Father, this is how the glory of the world passes” and this ritual would be repeated three times. At the coronationof British royalty, the archbishop would say, “Remember that you too are a human being”. At royal funerals, when the herald shouted “The king is dead, long live the king!”, contrary topopular belief, he was not proclaiming a new king, but emphasizing the transience of power.
The French King Louis XIV had a special “memento mori” room in his palace, covered withblack fabrics and containing skulls and hourglasses, which every new king was expected tovisit upon ascending the throne. At the coronation of the Russian tsars, a monk would offerthe tsar a handful of earth and a stone from his grave. This ritual symbolized the limits of power and the inevitability of death.
Similar rituals were practiced in other European monarchies such as Sweden, Venice andPoland. These practices were a reminder that the king came from the people, was there toserve the people and would one day die.
Many of these traditions were influenced by the Christian doctrine of vanitas (emptiness/ impermanence). This teaching emphasizes the transience of earthly power and glory. Today, many of these traditions have become symbolic or have disappeared altogether, but they arethe historical roots of the mechanisms for limiting power in modern democratic systems. These traditions also reflect the evolution of the understanding of power in Europe, where theidea of limiting power became increasingly institutionalized during the transition fromabsolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy to modern democracy.
In the Islamic world, it is often emphasized that power and authority are a trust from God andthat leaders should choose humility over arrogance. The life of Hazrat Umar is one of the bestexamples of how a leader can remain humble despite power. Despite conquering a hugegeography from the Arabian Peninsula to Egypt, from Syria to Iran, the Caliph Hazrat Umar lived a simple life and avoided arrogance. After the conquest of Jerusalem, he entered the cityhumbly, on a camel and barefoot.
In the palace of the Umayyad caliph ‘Umar bin Abdul Aziz, a slave used to call out everymorning, “O ‘Umar, fear Allah!”. This tradition later gave birth to the literature of “Nasihat al-Muluk” (Advice to Rulers). The Abbasid caliphs had special “musakkir” (reminder) officials. These officials would dress in black and remind the caliph of death in every Friday sermon. Inthe Ottoman julus ceremonies, the cry “Don’t be proud, my sultan, God is greater than you” reflects the essence of Ottoman political philosophy. This tradition should be consideredtogether with the concept of “Daire-i Adliye”. The absolute power of the Sultan was limitedby Sharia, custom and tradition.
In the Holy Qur’an, Surah Lokman states:
“Do not walk proudly on the earth. Remember that you can neither cleave the earth norcompete with the mountains.” (Lokman, 31:18)
This verse reminds us that man is a finite being and that although he may appear to havepower, there is in fact a power that is above all.
Although the practices in the Islamic world seem to be similar to the reminder slave traditionin Rome and rituals in Europe, they are actually the clearest proof that humility is one of thecommon ethical values of humanity. In other words, the limitation of power and rituals of humility reflect the common wisdom of civilizations.
Institutional control mechanisms in today’s democracies can be seen as modern reflections of these ancient traditions. However, the new forms that power takes in the age of technologybring with them the risk that traditional mechanisms of control may prove inadequate. Thereflections of this historical legacy in the contemporary world have played an important role in the development of modern democratic institutions. However, today’s complex powerrelations require a reinterpretation and updating of this ancient wisdom.