It was the caliphate of the great Umar ibn al-Khattab. Under him, the largest territorial expansion took place, with the conquests of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the Sassanid Empire, Iraq, Mesopotamia and Byzantium. This resulted in the growth of the Arab empire across three continents in just ten years of his caliphate. For a few moments, let this fact seep through the eye of the mind.

After a military expedition in Yemen, cloth from Bayt ul Maal was distributed among the people of Madina. Everyone received an equal share. The cloth pieces were too small to make a full adult garment. After some time, the Caliph came to address a public congregation wearing a full garment made of the same cloth. Before he could begin his address, a man stood up and said, “We will not listen to you until you explain where you obtained enough cloth for a full garment, while each one of us received just one piece.” (Please put this in the perspective of today’s world.)

The mighty Caliph did not lose his temper, did not admonish the man, nor did he say that he did not need to explain. He asked his son, Abdullah ibn Umar, to respond. Hazrat Abdullah stated that he had given his share to make the full garment which his father was wearing.

On hearing this, the man who had held the Caliph accountable said, “Now we will listen and obey.”

The general response today would, at best, be a shrug of the shoulders, a statement signifying that this form of governance was fit for those times. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The golden rule between the State and its citizens is only one word: trust.

The people trust that their rulers — whether despotic, authoritarian, kings and queens, or democratic governments — will act as a parent in their best interest. As long as this trust exists, revolutions have seldom occurred. But once it starts eroding, it is like sand slipping away from within clenched fists.

Two of the most famous sociologists, Karl Marx and Max Weber, connected the loss of legitimacy and trust in authority with social upheaval. The gist of their scholarship was simple: revolution will occur from a loss of faith in economic, judicial and administrative justice, and from class oppression. Power survives only when citizens believe in its legitimacy.

Governments across the world need to remember the sobering lesson that stability cannot be manufactured through control. It is strengthened through scrutiny and accountability

Governments across the world need to remember the sobering lesson that stability cannot be manufactured through control. It is strengthened through scrutiny and accountability

The three major revolutions which changed history were the American Revolution (1775–1783), the French Revolution (1789), and the Bolshevik Revolution (1917). In all three, the most powerful rulers were ousted once the people lost trust in them, leading to widespread upheaval. And, interestingly, except for the USA, authoritarianism continued, replacing the King in France and the Tsar in Russia with new despots.

In the recent past, the Arab Spring began on 17 December 2010 in Tunisia, triggered by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old street vendor protesting police harassment and corruption. His act ignited widespread, rapid demonstrations against authoritarianism, poverty and unemployment, known as the Jasmine Revolution. The protests, which began as localised, rapidly spread across Tunisia despite government violence, resulting in the resignation of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali on 14 January 2011.

The success in Tunisia inspired similar uprisings against authoritarian leaders across the region, most notably in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria.

Trust is the invisible glue which holds diverse people together in a nation-state. It cannot be legislated, enforced by force, or borrowed from abroad. The kings who ruled for decades, besides other planks, had the trust of their serfs.

The most famous Mughal emperor, Akbar, ruled for fifty years because he was able to win the trust of his citizenry, the huge majority of whom were non-Muslims. Jahangir is the Mughal emperor most famous for being open to public complaints, specifically through his installation of a “Chain of Justice” outside his palace. This chain was connected to bells, allowing anyone to bypass officials and directly alert the emperor to grievances, ranging from property disputes to crime.

In today’s world, a strange paradox rules the realm of statecraft: despite being immensely powerful, with unprecedented coercive capacity, governments are most fragile. The recent happenings in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal are a perfect example. At the core is a simple fact: as power has expanded, trust in the State has decreased, and once a tipping point is crossed, institutions crumble like sandcastles, because no State can fight its own people. Obedience does not mean loyalty. Performative authority does not mean legitimate authority.

Trust is built over the years by the moral conduct of the State. It occurs when the citizenry believes that the rulers are subject to the same laws of accountability as themselves. They have to answer for their deeds. As soon as this façade is dented, trust begins its quiet withdrawal. People disengage first emotionally, then civically and finally politically. The rupture had occurred long before the protests started.

Governments across the world need to remember the sobering lesson that stability cannot be manufactured through control. It is strengthened through scrutiny and accountability. The example of the great Caliph was not extraordinary because he was questioned, but because he answered. His greatness did not lie in the expansion of his territory or power, but in his untouchable integrity and credibility.

Today, the enduring stark choice before every State is not between authority and disorder, but between trust and decay. History is unrelenting on this point: governments that choose trust endure even through very tough times; those that do not merely rule till they do not.

© The Friday Times