# Power and the Baha'i community

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Moojan Momen, Power and the Baha'i community, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Power and the Bahá’í community
> 
> Moojan Momen
> 
> Bahá’ís frequently claim that the Bahá’í teachings have the ability
> to create a new social order, a new way of organising human society
> such that individuals could develop themselves physically, mentally
> and spiritually to the utmost of their capability. When trying to
> explain what this new social order is, they present the list of social
> teachings that was enunciated by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during his journeys to
> the West a hundred years ago: the oneness of humanity, the equality
> of women and men, the need for harmony and balance between
> religion and science, the importance of education and so on. While
> these social teachings may have sounded new and exciting a century
> ago, that is no longer the case today. Even in the middle of the last
> century, in 1949, Shoghi Effendi was making this point:
> The world has — at least the thinking world — caught up by
> now with all the great and universal principles enunciated by
> Bahá’u’lláh over 70 years ago, and so of course it does not
> sound “new” to them.1
> Many other groups are now promoting these social teachings that
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá spoke about a century ago. The majority of thinking
> people accept them. The problem for humanity now is not accepting
> these teachings, but how to implement them. Most people have
> accepted the need for the eradication of poverty, for the equality of
> women and men, for the removal of racial and other prejudices, and
> so on, but despite the fact that this has been well accepted for many
> decades, there has been little success in implementing these aims: the
> gap between the rich and poor is not closing, women are still unable
> 210                                                 Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> to progress in society as easily as men, racism still exists in all areas
> of social life.
> 
> So the problem the world faces is not in the principles that would
> lead to a better society but in the application. In its 1985 statement,
> The Promise of World Peace, the Universal House of Justice offered
> up the Bahá’í community as a model for the world to examine:
> 
> The experience of the Bahá’í community may be seen as an
> example of this enlarging unity. It is a community of some
> three to four million people drawn from many nations,
> cultures, classes and creeds, engaged in a wide range of
> activities serving the spiritual, social and economic needs of
> the peoples of many lands. It is a single social organism,
> representative of the diversity of the human family,
> conducting its affairs through a system of commonly
> accepted consultative principles, and cherishing equally all
> the great outpourings of divine guidance in human history.
> Its existence is yet another convincing proof of the
> practicality of its Founder's vision of a united world, another
> evidence that humanity can live as one global society, equal
> to whatever challenges its coming of age may entail. If the
> Bahá’í experience can contribute in whatever measure to
> reinforcing hope in the unity of the human race, we are
> happy to offer it as a model for study.
> 
> In this passage, the Universal House of Justice is holding up the
> Bahá’í community as a model of a new society for study. So the
> question arises: in what way is the functioning of the Bahá’í
> community as a solution to the problems that society now faces?
> What aspects of Bahá’í community life are answers to these
> problems? What we need to do is to look at our present society and
> try to determine what are the root causes of the problems that it
> faces and then to see in what practical ways the functioning of the
> Bahá’í community tackles these problems. I am going to deal mainly
> with Western societies since these are the only ones about which I
> feel I can speak, but what I say may well be also true of other
> societies since the conditions I will be describing are by no means
> confined to the West and, in any case, the problems the West faces
> are gradually seeping out to other parts of the world.
> 
> There are of course many problems that the world is facing but I
> am going to focus on two partly inter-related problems: first the fact
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                     211
> 
> that a large proportion of people in our societies feel that they are
> excluded because they have no power within society or that they are
> unable to participate fully in society because barriers exist that
> prevent this. They feel unable to develop fully on account of this and
> feel a sense of injustice and consequent resentment. The second
> problem is that the balance between individual freedom and central
> authority in society has not been satisfactorily resolved. While
> authoritarian regimes have been overthrown and democracy
> established in many parts of the world, many are now saying that the
> balance has shifted too far towards individualism and a lack of
> central authority, that the rampant freedom of the capitalist market
> has led to a danger of falling into a situation of the 'rule of the
> jungle', where the wealthiest and most powerful have free reign to do
> what they like. The same situation prevails within religions where
> fundamentalists and liberals are locked in conflict over the question
> of whether society should be subservient to the authority of
> traditional religious forms or whether religion should change and
> adapt to accommodate social realities.
> 
> Hierarchical, Hegemonic, Patriarchal Society
> Returning to the first of these two problems that society faces,
> the fact that a large number of people feel excluded from society to
> some extent, so pervasive is this that in fact, in most societies, the
> majority of people find that they face barriers of one sort or another.
> These may be barriers of gender, race, social class or even such things
> as the accent with which one speaks. But in all, it means that the
> majority of every society faces barriers to some degree, which mean
> that they are not treated equally, cannot advance in their occupation,
> cannot obtain the same services, cannot live in the same areas and
> cannot join in some activities in society. The barriers that are put up
> can be minor, such as just having to wait longer than others for the
> same service or they can be major such as finding that one’s chosen
> occupation is barred to one.
> 
> Although there is lip service to equality in many Western societies,
> the reality that most people experience is one of constantly coming
> up against these barriers. Thus for example, in most Western nations,
> the principle of the equality between men and women has been
> acknowledged for almost a century and yet women say that they
> 212                                                Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> experience what has been called a “glass ceiling” as they develop
> professionally and try to advance in their careers. They reach a point
> at which further progress seems to be denied them despite their
> having the qualifications for it. They see male colleagues with less
> experience and perhaps even fewer qualifications being promoted
> ahead of them.
> This same experience of facing barriers to progress is also
> experienced by people from racial and ethnic minorities, from the
> lower social classes and by many other groups. In fact the only people
> who do not experience this and who therefore obtain the full benefits
> of society are, in Western societies, educated white males from the
> upper strata of society. It is usually these people who are in positions
> where they are analysing their society in an authoritative manner and
> initiating change. Thus the social structure is hierarchical and highly
> competitive. That which is given the highest value in such societies
> are power, authority, control, victory, ownership, courage, strength.
> The main interactions are power struggles and competition. The ends
> justify the means. Results are expressed in terms of victory or defeat.
> There are only rewards for the winners in such a society, none for the
> runners-ups. It is epitomised by tradition, institutions, civilisation,
> law, and control over the natural world. Those who have power and
> wealth are valued, considered important, are consulted about major
> decisions and are listened to when they protest. Those who have no
> power or wealth are not valued, not considered important, are not
> consulted on major decisions and not listened to when they protest.
> As a result of having their ideas disparaged and discounted as they
> grow up, they often cease to have ideas of their own and merely
> repeat what the newspapers and political demagogues tell them is
> true. Decisions in such societies are made by just one man or a small
> group of men and are then handed down to be carried out. The social
> structures in these societies are pyramidal with one or a few people at
> the top and increasing numbers as one goes down. This is what is
> meant by a hierarchical society.
> 
> The fundamental problem underlying this situation is the fact that
> we live in societies that are patriarchal or hegemonic. The word
> patriarchy means ‘rule by men’ and implies a domination of society
> by men. The majority of positions of power and authority whether
> this be in government, business, professional or even in recreational
> and informal groups and societies are held by men. The concept of a
> patriarchal society goes, however, beyond just the fact of the gender
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                        213
> 
> of those in authority. For example Britain went through a period of
> almost two decades when there was a female sovereign and female
> Prime Minister, but this did not change the fact that Britain was a
> patriarchal society. If a woman wants to reach the higher echelons of
> society, she must masculinize herself, become competitive and
> aggressive, become more male than the men. There is considerable
> evidence that girls are inherently less competitive and more co-
> operative than boys. Therefore in any society where power is the
> highest value and there are no other constraints, girls/women will
> usually be dominated by boys/men. In modern Western societies
> where almost all positions of power are awarded on the basis of
> competitiveness (either in the form of outright competition for the
> post or through interviews where competitiveness is given the highest
> value), the inevitable result is that men dominate most positions of
> power in the society. This is the patriarchal society.2
> One might think that the sorts of totalitarian regimes that existed
> in Europe in the inter-war years of the twentieth century or which
> exist today in many parts of the world are the only remaining
> hierarchical societies and that democratic Western societies are not
> hierarchical but there is just as much of a hidden hierarchy in
> Western societies as in any totalitarian state. The relatively small
> number of people at the top of the hierarchy in Western states
> control the political process, the newspapers and other media, the
> education system, the justice system and all other important areas of
> life. Through this control, they also control the discourse of society.
> It is their opinions that are heard on the television, read in the
> newspapers and put into the textbooks studied at schools and
> universities; theirs is the only discourse that gets publicity and is thus
> regarded as the norm for the society; they have a hegemony over the
> norms, values and discourses of society. The voices of those lower
> down the hierarchy are ignored, considered unimportant and
> marginal; their experiences of social barriers and prejudice are
> regarded as the “rumblings of social malcontents”. This is the
> hegemonic society.
> Thus our modern societies, no matter where we live in the world,
> are hierarchical, patriarchal hegemonic societies. In the West, there
> may not be tanks in the streets enforcing the hierarchy, but all such
> societies depend upon force to maintain the pyramid of power. In the
> West, this compulsion is maintained through the law and the police
> force. This situation is not one that is easy to change. Those with
> 214                                               Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> authority and power control the communications media and
> education. They therefore are in a position to impose their worldview
> on others. Women and other groups low down the hierarchy have one
> of two alternatives in this situation. They can accept the system and
> continue to hold a lower place in society. If they wish to try to beat
> the system can only do so by competing with those already in power.
> Power is thus corrosive and subversive. Even in a democratic
> process, the attempt to gain power is itself corrosive. If a group
> wants to bring about social justice and a more egalitarian society, it
> has to gain power in order to bring this about. It thinks that if it
> gains power, it will control the state and then it can use the state to
> achieve its goals of social justice and a more egalitarian society. It
> forms a political party and starts to campaign to gain votes. But in
> this process, it is being diverted from its goal of achieving social
> justice and a more egalitarian society and its goal is now achieving
> power. Everything becomes subordinated to this goal. Achieving
> power now becomes the main goal of the group and other goals such
> as social justice become secondary. What happens in practice is that
> once the party is successful and has achieved power, the hierarchy
> remains the same B remaining in power has the highest priority. To
> this priority the lower goals such as social justice and a more
> egalitarian society are readily sacrificed. The people who voted for
> the party feel betrayed as they see the party chasing after those who
> wield influence and have social power and failing to implement
> anything that benefits them.3
> Thus the values of the patriarchal, hierarchical hegemonic society
> are subversive; they subvert those that try to defeat them. This has
> been what successive revolutions from the 18th century onwards have
> found. The French Revolution and the various Communist
> Revolutions that have occurred have all been in the name of creating
> a more egalitarian society, where power is no longer the highest value.
> Those that led these revolutions were however forced to seize power
> and in doing so found their initial values subverted. The result was a
> society that was just as hierarchical as before, but with merely a
> different set of people in power.4
> All groups that are low in the social hierarchy, whether women,
> racial and ethnic minorities or people of lower social class or status
> face much the same sorts of barriers and problems. Indeed if one
> considers that half of society is women and then adds in the various
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                       215
> 
> ethnic and class groups who are also dominated by the white upper
> and middle class males who are at the top of the social hierarchy, one
> can see that in Western societies where we are all supposed to be equal,
> it is only a small percentage who have full access to the benefits and
> opportunities and the majority are a good deal less “equal” than them.
> 
> A further fact that makes it difficult to achieve any change is that
> in patriarchal societies, it is very difficult to even gain an
> acknowledgement of the fact that a problem exists. It is men from
> the dominant group who control the communications media and the
> education system; it they who are the journalists, the newspaper
> editors, the social analysts, the professors of social sciences and these
> men experience no barriers and therefore see no problem. The
> rhetoric coming from these leaders of society is that their societies
> are fair and democratic with equal opportunities for all. These
> individuals at the top of the hierarchy have not experienced life in the
> lower levels of the hierarchy, they have not come across any social
> barriers or obstacles in their careers or faced prejudice and injustice.
> They therefore can truthfully say that “ours is an open society; people
> get to the top through merit alone” — and therefore there is no need
> for any change.
> 
> The Bahá’í Answer to the Hierarchical,
> Hegemonic, Patriarchal Society
> It can be seen that because of its unseen barriers and subversive
> nature, it is not a very easy matter to contemplate changing such a
> society. The question then arises as to whether the Bahá’í Faith has
> any answers to this difficult situation. Since the Bahá’í Faith aims for
> equality between men and women and to bring into being a more
> egalitarian society, how does the Bahá’í Faith seek to resolve this
> problem? It can be seen from the above that a very radical change is
> needed and furthermore it must be a change that does not inherently
> find itself subverted.
> 
> Firstly of course, a set of values is needed that does not place
> power and wealth at the highest level; but this is perhaps the easiest
> part of the process. Most religions offer a set of values that
> emphasise the importance of values such as love, service, humility
> etc. and indeed most religions teach that wealth can be a barrier to
> spiritual progress. The Bahá’í Faith has similar teachings. There are a
> 216                                                 Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> large number of quotations from the Bahá’í scriptures asserting the
> equality of all human beings, for example, and others that assert the
> equality of men and women.
> 
> Even in the earliest stages of its history, the Bábí and Bahá’í Faiths
> have been engaged in overturning the power structures that formed
> the foundations of society. When the Báb praised a simple sifter of
> wheat for having discerned the truth and recognized him before all of
> the learned class of Isfahan, when the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh asserted
> that understanding religious truth did not depend on the years of
> book learning that the Islamic learned classes engaged upon at their
> religious colleges but rather on purity and spiritual discernment that
> could be cultivated by anyone, they were in effect laying an axe to
> the foundations of the hegemonic social structure that prized the
> book learning of the religious class and gave them authority and
> privileges on account of that.
> 
> In a letter written on 14 March 1927 to the Spiritual Assembly of
> the Bahá’ís of Istanbul, the Guardian's Secretary explained, on his
> behalf, the principle in the Cause of action by majority vote. He
> pointed out how, in the past, it was certain individuals who
> “accounted themselves as superior in knowledge and elevated in
> position” who caused division, and that it was those “who pretended
> to be the most distinguished of all” who “always proved themselves to
> be the source of contention.” “But praise be to God,” he continued,
> “that the Pen of Glory has done away with the unyielding and
> dictatorial views of the learned and the wise, dismissed the assertions
> of individuals as an authoritative criterion, even though they were
> recognized as the most accomplished and learned among men and
> ordained that all matters be referred to authorized centres and specified
> Assemblies. Even so, no Assembly has been invested with the absolute
> authority to deal with such general matters as affect the interests of
> nations. Nay rather, He has brought all the assemblies together under
> the shadow of one House of Justice, one divinely appointed Centre,
> so that there would be only one Centre and all the rest integrated into
> a single body, revolving around one expressly designated Pivot, thus
> making them all proof against schism and division.”5
> 
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá carried this process forward defining some of the
> words associated with the hegemonic push towards competitiveness
> in such a way as to subvert their meanings. Thus for example,
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                           217
> 
> regarding the word “victory”, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá writes that for the Bahá’í
> Cause: “its victory is to submit and yield” [SWAB 256] and he quotes
> Bahá’u’lláh as stating: “Therefore, today, `victory' neither hath been,
> nor will be opposition to anyone, nor strife with any person; but
> rather what is well-pleasing—this is, that the cities of men's hearts,
> which are under the dominion of the hosts of selfishness and lust,
> should be subdued by the sword of the Word of Wisdom, and of
> Exhortation.”6 Similarly, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá subverts the concept of
> competition from its usual role in a masculine society, that of gaining
> power, and instead promotes it as an approach in the arena of
> service: “Vie ye with each other in the service of God and of His
> Cause. This is indeed what profiteth you in this world, and in that
> which is to come” [qtd in ADJ 83]. The goal of personal ambition and
> the source of greatest glory do not belong, in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s
> estimation, to the person who seizes power but to the person who
> excels in service to “human uplift and betterment” [PUP 353] and to
> “the cause of the Most Great Peace” [PUP 123].
> 
> It is all very well to have egalitarian values and to subvert the
> foundations of the hegemonic society, but the question remains of
> what you put in its place. Many individuals and groups have had these
> principles but have not been able to transform them into practice
> because of the subversive nature of power. What is needed is to have
> some way to get these values prevalent in society without having
> them subverted. How does one set up a community that is more
> egalitarian? The Bahá’í community in fact provides a model for just
> such a social system.
> 
> First, the Bahá’í community does not contend for power. Those
> who have wanted to change society have always thought that the way
> to do this is to seize control of the state and that it would then be
> possible to use the power of the state to change society. They have
> therefore either taken the revolutionary road to power (as in the
> French Revolution and the various communist revolutions) or they
> have tried the democratic route, as with various democratic socialist
> parties. Apart from the pitfall of the subversion of their egalitarian
> values which has been discussed above and which they all suffered,
> what they have failed to appreciate is that the power of the state is
> largely illusionary. The state is but one element in a nexus of actors and
> by itself, it has only a limited ability to make changes. It cannot by itself
> 218                                                 Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> change the social structure, for example, since it is the social structure
> that is supporting the state and to try to change it risks destabilizing
> the state itself. The Bahá’í community eschews the route to power as
> a means of effecting a change in society. It refrains from all
> involvement in partisan politics, recognising that any such involvement
> risks subverting its values and ultimately frustrating its goals.
> 
> Second, in the Bahá’í community power does not rest with
> individuals. There are no priests or any other religious professionals
> with any special power or authority by virtue of their position.
> Authority rests with institutions acting as institutions. It is true of
> course that individuals are elected onto these institutions but these
> individuals hold no power or authority in their own right. Even the
> chairman of a National Spiritual Assembly, the national governing
> body of the Bahá’ís in an area, has no individual authority. A member
> of the National Spiritual Assembly is still subject to the authority of
> the local governing board, the Local Spiritual Assembly, in the area
> where he or she lives. All authority rests with the institutions making
> decisions as a body. There are individual appointments made to
> positions such as the Boards of Counsellors and the Auxiliary Board,
> but these appointees play only an exhortatory and advisory role. They
> hold no authority or power.
> 
> Third, decisions are made in the Bahá’í community through
> consultation. The Bahá’í process of consultation is one which
> encourages all those taking part to participate. This helps to draw out
> members of minority groups and races as well as lower social classes
> who do not feel confident enough to speak in group settings. The
> Bahá’í ideal of consultation provides a safe and encouraging
> environment for such people to express their views. Indeed, just as
> men are better at competition, women are inherently better in the co-
> operative environment produced by the consultation process. In such
> an environment, they therefore feel comfortable in putting forward
> their views (which is not the case in a highly competitive
> environment) and they are able to play a major role in Bahá’í
> community life.
> 
> There are also other provisions in Bahá’í community life which are
> aimed at encouraging minorities. The Bahá’í Faith has been spread
> through planned action. In these plans, a deliberate effort has been
> made to bring into the community every type of minority living in a
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                       219
> 
> particular area. This has been assisted by having, as part of these same
> plans, Bahá’í literature translated into as many languages as possible.
> Another example is the fact that, in Bahá’í elections, if there is a tied
> vote, then if one of those tied is from a minority, that person is
> automatically declared the winner of the tie.
> 
> A Practical Path to a Different Society
> It is however, in the last two decades that the Bahá’í community
> has produced a practical path forward that all, whether Bahá’í or not,
> can follow in creating a more egalitarian society. Since about 1996,
> the Bahá’í community has been engaged in a programme of action
> that works to mitigate and counter many of the worst features of the
> hierarchical society. The central feature of this programme is a course
> of participatory learning designed to develop the human resources
> within a community. The course encourages people, especially those
> at the base of the power pyramid who have been used to having their
> ideas disparaged and discounted and have ceased to think for
> themselves, to start to think, to develop ideas, and, in the protected
> consultative environment of the course, to start to have the
> confidence to express those ideas. Furthermore, the course focuses
> on the spiritual aspects of the human being, encouraging the growth
> of a spirit of selflessness and service. As a result, people are
> encouraged to engage in acts of service. They are initially trained to
> do such service as organising children’s moral education classes,
> junior youth empowerment programmes, devotional meetings, home
> visits and accompanying others in their path of service. These acts of
> service then enable participants to have ideas about the needs of the
> community and how to address these. Thus participants in the courses
> are trained not only to develop their own ideas and have the
> confidence to express them but also, through acts of service, they
> begin to see the reality around them and to have thoughts about how
> to address the problems of their community.
> 
> All of this is then brought to the cluster reflection meetings where
> those attending reflect on what has occurred previously and with
> input from Bahá’í administrative bodies and from ideas arising from
> their own study groups and service projects, they consult upon the
> needs of the area and how these can be addressed realistically with the
> resources available. These study courses and reflection meetings are
> 220                                                Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> not confined to Bahá’ís. Anyone interested can engage with this
> process, can take part in the study courses, can carry out the acts of
> service and can participate in the reflection meetings. In this way, the
> power to change their own community is devolved down in a
> meaningful way to the members of that community.
> 
> If we were to create in this way more egalitarian societies, this
> would not just solve the problem that large numbers of people feel
> alienated and unjustly treated by the structures of the hierarchical
> society, it would help towards resolving other social problems as well.
> To reduce the competitiveness and aggressiveness associated with the
> patriarchal, hegemonic society would also be a major step towards
> world peace since this competitiveness and aggressiveness also feeds
> across from a society's internal affairs into its external foreign
> affairs and results in undue aggressiveness and lack of co-operation
> at the international level. A higher value being placed on co-
> operation within our societies would result in a higher level of co-
> operation in global affairs and in resolving global problems. The
> greater involvement of women in social affairs would in itself also be
> conducive to world peace according to the Bahá’í teachings.
> 
> The competitiveness of the business world is a major contributor
> to pollution and environmental degradation. The competitiveness
> that the patriarchal society demands results in an inexorable pressure
> to reduce costs often with the result of increased pollution. If local
> environmental regulations prevent this pollution then modern
> business instead of accepting this as a price worth paying moves its
> factories to elsewhere in the world where the environmental
> regulations are not so strict. Unfortunately although the
> environmental regulations are local in their effects, the pollution
> caused by these companies respects no borders and is world-wide in
> its effects. A society that is not so driven by the urge to be
> competitive would also be inherently less polluting.
> 
> Thus to produce more egalitarian less hierarchical societies would
> help in the resolution of many of the problems that the world faces
> from the alienation and sense of injustice that breeds civil unrest,
> vandalism and violence to global problems such as war and
> environmental pollution.
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                       221
> 
> Individualism and Authority
> A second area that is causing a deal of turmoil for many because it
> is a problem that has not been successfully resolved in any society is
> the balance between individuality and authority in society and the
> associated problem of how to maintain a balance between centralised
> national or international authority and local initiative and
> independence. The balance between these has not been successfully
> achieved in any society. In those societies that have swung too far
> towards individuality, the cult of the individual threatens the
> cohesion and moral order of society. Using the pretext of personal
> freedom, some individuals are subjecting others to virtual slavery
> (driving the poor into financial debt that makes them virtual slaves of
> the owners of their debts), sexual abuse, and the physical and sexual
> abuse of children. The opposite extreme is that of the sort of
> collectivism seen in communist societies, where the individual is
> suppressed completely, supposedly for the benefit of the community.
> Neither extreme allows either full human development or human
> prosperity. Of course, all human beings are individuals and must be
> given the freedom to develop their talents and potential, but to allow
> that freedom to go to excess, where human beings are given the
> freedom to sink to the level of animal behaviour and to oppress
> others stunts human development and causes society to fall apart in
> corruption and moral decadence. Similarly excessive centralized
> control stifles human initiative and leads to loss of morale and
> enthusiasm for projects because people do not feel involved in the
> decisions that affect their lives.
> 
> These two extremes of excessive individualism and excessive
> control can be seen operating in many situations in the world.
> Broadly speaking, the United States of America leans towards the
> extreme of individualism and rights to liberty in all areas. In practice,
> this means that those with money and power use this liberty to
> control the communications media and the political process to their
> advantage and in order to impose their aims on society. Thus
> paradoxically, in precisely those societies where the most freedom is
> given to the individual, the result is that the individual is most
> manipulated by commercial and other interests. Western Europe has,
> on the other hand, moved towards centralized control and many
> aspects of daily life are regulated by the centralized authority of the
> 222                                                   Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> European Union. The result is that people feel remote from the
> decision-making process and therefore feel increasingly justified in
> rebelling against it or ignoring it. There are of course many areas of
> the world where centralized authoritarian political regimes go much
> further than Europe and these regimes suppress individual initiative
> even more and result in a loss of morale and initiative in their populations.
> 
> These extremes are not confined to political structures however.
> Matters such as international aid have swung across the pendulum
> from a strict centralised control of methods and means of deploying
> international aid — often leading to inappropriate aid being given
> because the people at the centre do not know what is appropriate —
> to a much more relaxed system with decisions being made locally —
> often resulting in corruption and dissipation of effort. In religions in
> particular this tension can be seen as one of the most prominent
> features of religious life in the past century. In almost every religious
> group there is some degree of conflict between those who hold to a
> strict central doctrinal and organisational authority in the religion
> (often associated with religious fundamentalism) and those who want
> to free the individual believers to think freely about religious ideas
> and to experience the religion in ways that suit each individual (often
> described as religious liberalism).
> 
> In the Bahá’í Faith there are several aspects to achieving the right
> balance between individual liberty and centralized authority. While
> Bahá’u’lláh on the one hand applauds democracy and commends
> Queen Victoria for having “entrusted the reins of counsel into the
> hands of the representatives of the people” [PB 34],7 he also, on the
> other hand, condemns the excess of liberty that leads to
> libertarianism and states that it will “exercise a pernicious influence
> upon men” [GWB 216]. Shoghi Effendi summarises this by stating that
> “The Bahá’í conception of social life... neither suppresses the
> individual nor does it exalt him to the point of making him an
> anti-social creature, a menace to society. As in everything, it follows
> the ‘golden mean’” [UD 435-436].
> 
> As in the case of achieving a more egalitarian society, there are
> many groups and movements other than the Bahá’ís who agree with
> Shoghi Effendi's view that the ideal is to achieve this ‘golden mean’.
> However in practice, we find that societies and groups either
> gravitate towards one extreme or the other or else they swing like a
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                       223
> 
> pendulum between the two extremes. It appears that no society or
> large group has succeeded in finding a way of remaining at the
> ‘golden mean’. It is in the practicalities of how to achieve this state
> that they have failed.
> 
> Once again, the Bahá’í community provides a model of how to
> achieve this balance. This is achieved in the Bahá’í community
> through an innovative separation between power and authority. In
> most societies, organisation and groups, it is taken for granted that
> those in authority should also be given the power to enforce their
> authority. Thus mechanisms of enforcement are enacted to compel
> those who are members of that society or group to follow the
> directives of those that are in authority. These may be laws for a
> society or codes of discipline in organisations or rules in the case of
> groups. Those who are in authority are given the power to sanction
> whoever fails to follow their directives.
> 
> In the Bahá’í community, however, there is an attempt to separate
> authority and power to some extent. We have noted above that
> individuals have neither authority nor power in the Bahá’í
> community. The elected institutions of the Bahá’í community have
> the authority to direct the affairs of the community, but their
> obligation is to try to achieve their objectives through winning the
> support of the individual Bahá’ís. Shoghi Effendi addressing primarily
> the members of the elected Bahá’í institutions states:
> 
> Let us also bear in mind that the keynote of the Cause of God
> is not dictatorial authority but humble fellowship, not
> arbitrary power, but the spirit of frank and loving
> consultation. Nothing short of the spirit of a true Bahá’í can
> hope to reconcile the principles of mercy and justice, of
> freedom and submission, of the sanctity of the right of the
> individual and of self-surrender, of vigilance, discretion and
> prudence on the one hand, and fellowship, candor, and
> courage on the other. [BA 63-64]
> 
> The elected Bahá’í institutions have, in effect, very little power to
> enforce their authority in many areas when compared with the central
> authorities of other religions. They have no doctrinal authority; no
> authority to determine correct doctrine or to create new doctrine or
> theological teachings, nor to interpret the texts of the scripture. Thus
> they hold no power in many areas over which religious leadership has
> 224                                                Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> traditionally held both power and authority. They have the authority
> to direct the Bahá’í community by laying out plans of action for the
> Bahá’ís, but they have no sanctions or other means of compelling the
> Bahá’ís to carry out these plans. If any Bahá’í, for example, wants to
> completely ignore the present Five Year Plan of the Universal House
> of Justice, they are free to do so without any fear of sanctions
> against them. The general situation is summed up in the words of the
> Universal House of Justice thus:
> 
> Authority and direction flow from the Assemblies, whereas
> the power to accomplish the tasks resides primarily in the
> entire body of the believers.8
> 
> The power that the elected institutions have over the believers can
> only be exercised in extreme situations and is thus rarely encountered
> by the average Bahá’í. This power involves Bahá’ís who actions go
> outside certain limits. These include for example administrative
> sanctions against Bahá’ís who bring the Bahá’í Faith into disrepute,
> perhaps by their disregard for the moral code of society (however
> what Bahá’ís do privately is not usually a cause of action by the
> Bahá’í institutions). More severe sanctions are taken towards those
> who seek to create division and sectarianism in the Bahá’í community
> (however holding differing opinions is not sanctionable, it is only
> when an individual attempts to create a sect or grouping around such
> an opinion that sanctions may be applied). The overwhelming
> majority of Bahá’ís will not however experience this.
> If Bahá’ís have such freedom of thought and freedom to disregard
> the exhortations of their institutions, what is it then that preserves
> the unity of the Bahá’í community (for if the Bahá’í Faith is to
> achieve its stated goal of uniting humanity, it is obvious that it itself
> must remain united). The principal mechanism whereby the individual
> is granted freedom of thought in the Bahá’í Faith and yet unity is
> maintained is that of the Covenant. In the Bahá’í Faith, there is no
> doctrine or creed about the nature of God or the nature of
> Bahá’u’lláh to which the individual is obliged to assent. Bahá’ís are
> free to read the scriptures for themselves and to come to their
> understanding of theological matters. The only limit on Bahá’ís is
> that they cannot claim that their understanding of theological matters
> is authoritative or binding on any other Bahá’í (and thereby attempt
> to set up a cabal or sectarian grouping). Only the interpretations of
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                      225
> 
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi are authoritative. Since both
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi are deceased, their writings have
> effectively become part of the scripture or authoritative text. There
> is no longer any living authoritative interpretation in the Bahá’í
> Faith. What preserves the unity of the Bahá’í community in the face
> of this ideological individualism is the concept of the Covenant —
> that all Bahá’ís pledge themselves to obeying the instructions of the
> Focal Centre of the Covenant, which since 1963 has been the
> Universal House of Justice. Since the Universal House of Justice is
> not a body that creates doctrine or dogma but rather a body that
> directs the affairs of the Bahá’í community, obedience to the
> instructions of the Focal Centre of the Covenant does not limit the
> individual's freedom to think whatever they wish about theological
> matters, but only their freedom to act in ways that would set up sects
> and cliques around such individual interpretation.
> 
> Another aspect of the balance between centralized authority and
> local democracy in the Bahá’í community is the fact that the
> authority and powers of the local governing councils of the Bahá’í
> community have been laid down in authoritative Bahá’í texts. The
> local governing councils have inherent rights over matters that are
> purely confined to their locality, an authority that cannot be
> removed by the decision of the national body. Thus one cannot have
> the situation that has occurred in many countries where the local
> governing authorities have had their rights stripped away by the
> desire of the national government to centralize and control all
> aspects of the nation's life.
> 
> In all aspects of Bahá’í community life, the emphasis is on
> decentralization — handing down to the local level everything that
> can appropriately be administered at the local level. “It [the
> world-wide Law of Bahá’u’lláh) repudiates excessive centralization on
> one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the other. Its
> watchword is unity in diversity” [WOB 42]. But to offset problems
> that may arise from such decentralization — where local prejudices may
> discriminate against some individuals or groups, individual Bahá’ís
> are given substantial powers to appeal the decisions of their local
> body to the national and even, if necessary, to the international level.
> 
> In the pre-modern period, individuals, except for the elite in
> society were given a script at birth which they were expected to
> 226                                                Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> follow and which severely limited their choices in all aspects of their
> lives. This script however, as long as they followed, gave them a
> socially-recognised identity, a guaranteed place in society and made
> them feel included in the workings of their community. The
> individualism of contemporary society means that people are free to
> tear up the script that they are given at birth and write their own
> script in terms of their individual choices. This individualism,
> however, leaves most individuals with no assigned or recognized
> social interactions that can make them feel part of a community, an
> anomie resulting in no social structure to which a person can relate.
> Throughout most of human history it has been religion that formed
> the glue binding individuals to their communities. Having cast
> religion aside, most individuals in the twentieth century experimented
> with various social and political ideologies, such as communism,
> nationalism and racism, which tried to take the place of religion in
> linking the individual into a community. All of ideologies failed with
> disastrous consequences for the societies that tried to adopt them.
> What the Bahá’í Faith offers is a modern religion, free of the
> superstition and irrationality that marks much of traditional religion,
> and offering a pathway for the individual to link into a community
> united in constructive action and service; giving that individual
> interpersonal links that can give that person a feeling of belonging
> and interconnectedness.
> 
> The Maturity of Humanity
> I would like to suggest that these two aspects of the social
> dynamics of the Bahá’í community which we have discussed, the
> removal of hierarchies of power and the achievement of a balance
> between society and the individual, can be thought of as related to
> the statement that has been made by Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi
> Effendi: that humanity is just entering its collective stage of maturity.
> 
> No sooner had mankind attained the stage of maturity, than the
> Word revealed to men's eyes the latent energies with which it
> had been endowed — energies which manifested themselves in
> the plenitude of their glory when the Ancient Beauty
> appeared, in the year sixty, in the person of `Alí-Muhammad,
> the Báb. [Bahá’u’lláh: GWB 77-78]
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                        227
> 
> Similarly, there are periods and stages in the life of the
> aggregate world of humanity, which at one time was passing
> through its degree of childhood, at another its time of youth
> but now has entered its long presaged period of maturity, the
> evidences of which are everywhere visible and apparent.
> Therefore, the requirements and conditions of former
> periods have changed and merged into exigencies which
> distinctly characterize the present age of the world of
> mankind ... The gifts and graces of the period of youth,
> although timely and sufficient during the adolescence of the
> world of mankind, are now incapable of meeting the
> requirements of its maturity. The playthings of childhood and
> infancy no longer satisfy or interest the adult mind. [‘Abdu’l-
> Bahá: PUP 438-439]
> 
> Such is the stage to which an evolving humanity is
> collectively approaching. The Revelation entrusted by the
> Almighty Ordainer to Bahá’u’lláh, His followers firmly
> believe, has been endowed with such potentialities as are
> commensurate with the maturity of the human race — the
> crowning and most momentous stage in its evolution from
> infancy to manhood. [Shoghi Effendi: WOB 165]
> 
> If one considers this metaphor, then it can be seen that what we
> have been discussing in this paper fits this metaphor well. When one
> is dealing with children, one imposes a hierarchy of power over them
> and instructs them as what they should do and not do. One has both
> power and authority over them. In the same way, in accordance with
> the Bahá’í model of progressive revelation, the religions that came
> during the collective infancy of humanity encouraged and resulted in
> hierarchical forms of society where people who had power and
> learning dominated those who did not. As a child grows into
> adolescence and eventually to maturity, the wise parents will
> gradually reduce the orders and instructions given to the child and
> increasingly allow the child to take responsibility for itself. They
> hand the power that they exerted over the individual as a child over
> to that individual once he or she reaches adolescence and maturity.
> This flattening of hierarchies and handing over power to mature
> responsible individuals can be seen as the appropriate response as
> humanity reaches its collective maturity. The Bahá’í teachings
> maintain that this is now the stage in the evolution of humanity's
> 228                                                Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> social life where this collective maturity is occurring and a new social
> order is needed to accommodate this change.
> 
> Conclusion
> One objection that can be raised is that while these considerations
> may be true of the Bahá’í community, can they be applied to society
> as a whole. Can one, for example, really run a society in which the
> local or national administrative authorities do not have power? Of
> course, one has to say immediately that where extremes of human
> behaviour are concerned — criminal activity, for example — then the
> authorities must also have the power to arrest, try and punish such
> individuals. But the Bahá’í administrative institutions have those
> powers to deal with such extreme individuals also, as mentioned
> above. However, in the lives of ordinary people going about their
> everyday activities, the Bahá’í teachings would point towards a
> greater reliance on the maturity and sense of responsibility of
> individuals to be given the power to regulate their own affairs. This
> would involve the handing over by national government to local
> authorities of a greater degree of the responsibility for the conduct
> of all local matters such as education, health and policing. But it
> would in turn mean a far greater involvement, through genuine
> consultative processes, of the individual citizens in the running of
> their local communities. Individual citizens would in turn have to
> take the responsibility of educating themselves in local issues so that
> they are not manipulated by single-issue pressure groups or vested
> commercial and financial interests.
> 
> This approach has wide-ranging implications in many aspects of
> social life beyond just that of the political system. In relationship to
> employment practices, this approach would also mean the rolling
> back of the present trend towards ever greater management control
> of workers in both the public and private sector, allowing people to
> do their jobs without incessantly seeking to control the way they do
> their jobs and setting targets and requiring paper-work which both
> consumes time and distorts activity.
> 
> Of course such rolling back of the power of both individuals and
> institutions cannot occur without a corresponding advance in the
> sense of responsibility and the maturity of individuals so that the
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                     229
> 
> vacuum created is adequately filled. This requires individuals who are
> mature enough to participate in social activity in a constructive and
> balanced manner. It requires an uprightness of conduct and a
> commitment to social involvement by all of the individuals in a
> society well in excess of what is the current norm. This in turn
> requires spiritual resources in the individual which is, of course, a
> subject that is too large to go into in this paper.
> 
> The whole process can envisaged as a disempowerment of the
> hierarchy of power and an empowerment of individuals to take over
> many of the essential social functions at present being carried out, in
> an unsatisfactory and unjust manner, by the power hierarchy. There
> will undoubtedly be a continuing need for an authority structure to
> coordinate more complex social functions at the local level and also
> those activities that are better managed at a regional and national
> level. Such institutions, which will of course be elected bodies, will
> also need to have powers of last resort in matters of criminality and
> social deviance. But the principle of de-centralization means that
> these wider social functions and powers will be kept to a minimum.
> At present, most activities that affect the lives of ordinary Bahá’ís
> are consulted upon and decided at the local level at reflection
> meetings by the people involved themselves. It seems likely then that
> in government also most activities that affect the lives of ordinary
> people will be consulted upon, agreed and carried out by the people
> involved themselves. The present Bahá’í administrative order
> provides a model for the functioning of such a social structure.
> 
> It is, however, worth pointing out that the Bahá’í community as a
> whole, after several decades of concentrating upon the geographical
> expansion of the Bahá’í Faith is now engaged, in the latest Five-Year
> Plans upon activities which are designed to create precisely the sort
> of human resources that would be needed for the successful
> application of such a model of community and society: training
> programmes to help individuals to take part in consultative decision-
> making. This is moreover, not just a training programme for Bahá’ís;
> rather it is thrown open to all to both participate in the training and
> participate in the programmes of social action that emerge from the
> training. The stated aim of the present plans in the Bahá’í community
> is to move from the type of community characterised by the passivity
> 230                                                 Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> of the congregation to one where the brunt of the activity and
> responsibilities are borne by the membership as a whole.
> 
> Of course the Bahá’í community is only at the very beginning of
> this process. At present, the Bahá’í community still largely reflects
> the wider society. Most Bahá’í communities are still run by a handful
> of individuals. But during the twentieth century, great strides were
> taken in transferring power and authority from individuals to
> institutions, followed by a process of devolving power and authority
> from central institutions to local institutions. The final part of this
> process — developing the capabilities of the generality of the community
> so that power can be handed on to them and they will take up this
> responsibility — is the aims of the current series of Five-Year Plans.
> 
> Lastly, I think all of this also has great implications for the way in
> which Bahá’ís present themselves. Bahá’ís have been used to
> presenting the Bahá’í Faith as having the answers to all of society's
> ills. This can seem arrogant to some and naive to others. It would
> seem preferable and closer to reality to present the Bahá’í community
> as one that has a mechanism through which all, whether Bahá’ís or
> merely interested individuals, can gather, consult and create together
> plans of social action designed to solve problems of society.
> 
> In the West, the Bahá’ís are facing a situation where there is a new
> religious scene that is affecting them very negatively. The main
> feature of this scene is the fact that, while an interest in spiritual
> matters is undoubtedly increasing, the type of religiosity that is on
> the increase is not assisting the Bahá’í Faith. There are two main areas
> in which religion is on the rise:
> 
> 1. Ultra-traditionalist religion — in almost all parts of the world,
> the traditional religion of each area is seeing a resurgence of what is
> usually called fundamentalism. The uncertainties and bewildering
> choices open to people in modern life together with the
> accompanying decline in morals and standards as people take
> advantage of the freedoms given to them by modern society has
> caused a reaction whereby people are turning back to the certainties
> and what they perceive to have been the higher moral standards of
> traditional religion. Such people want to turn the clock back two or
> three hundred years and return to a world where traditional religion
> and its accompanying traditional values and morals were the centre of
> Power and the Bahá’í Community                                        231
> 
> society. Clearly the Bahá’í Faith, representing as it does in every part
> of the world a new religion that is in competition with the traditional
> religion, is not going to find favour with such religiosity. (Of course
> the Bahá’í Faith does itself have very high moral and ethical standards
> and does agree with traditional religion in many areas and this is
> certainly an avenue that can be explored in presenting the Bahá’í Faith
> to people from such a background.)
> 
> 2. New Age religiosity — people are increasingly rejecting formal
> affiliation with any organised and established religion in favour of a
> highly-individualised pick-and-mix type of religiosity. They take ideas
> from every type of religion, (often from Eastern religions: chakras,
> reincarnation, astrology, etc.) and dabble in various types of religious
> practice (such as meditation or repetitive chanting), ending up with a
> medley of ideas and practices that is to their liking. Such people will
> often attend Bahá’í meetings, express their admiration for some
> Bahá’í ideas, but they will refrain from actually joining the Bahá’í
> community, either because they firmly believe in some idea, such as
> reincarnation, that is rejected in the Bahá’í teachings or because they
> just do not feel comfortable joining an organised religious group.
> Perhaps a deeper underlying reason that many such people do not join
> the Bahá’í community is that the Bahá’ís do not offer the sort of
> quick-fix spirituality that is the claim made by many groups. To join
> the Bahá’í community involves oneself in commitment and a long
> hard spiritual struggle and such a prospect may not be enticing for
> such people. Also the Bahá’í community does not offer the sort of
> immediate experiential religion offered by many successful religious
> groups.
> 
> The result of all this is that the Bahá’í Faith is not benefiting from
> the resurgence of interest in things spiritual that has been occurring.
> It is neither a traditional religion to be able to benefit from the rise
> in fundamentalism, while people who are engaged in the New Age
> movement may express appreciation of its teachings and may adopt
> them into their personal spirituality, they are not likely to want to
> make the commitments that becoming a Bahá’í entails.
> 
> Therefore in relation to the question of the presentation of the
> Bahá’í Faith, what the above analysis is intended to demonstrate is
> that the Bahá’í community is addressing and has developed ways of
> tackling some of the major problems that beset human society.
> 232                                                      Lights of Irfán vol. 19
> 
> Therefore it may be that in the present climate of pick-and-mix
> religiosity, of people not being willing to commit themselves to
> organised religion, it may be more productive to try to bring to
> people’s attention the nature of the sort of society that the Bahá’í
> Faith is seeking to bring about and the steps the Bahá’í community is
> taking to bring this about — to show that this sort of society can deal
> with the social problems that we face and to demonstrate that this
> sort of society can resolve some of the tensions in modern society.
> The implication of this presentation of the Bahá’í Faith is of course
> that if one wishes to tackle these problems, the most effective way to
> do so would be to become part of a process that has a pattern of
> social dynamics with at least a potential for solving some of these
> problems, whether that be as a fully committed member of the Bahá’í
> Faith or as someone who merely wishes to participate in the
> processes, plans and activities being carried out.
> 
> N OTES
> Shoghi Effendi, in “The Importance of Deepening,” Compilation of
> Compilations, p. 230
> See analysis of this in Marilyn French, Beyond Power, London: Abacus,
> 1985.
> See the analysis of this in John Holloway, Change The World Without
> Taking Power. The Meaning of Revolution Today, London: Pluto Press
> 2002, pp. 13-18
> George Orwell's Animal Farm brilliantly describes this process.
> Translated from the Persian. The Universal House of Justice, Messages
> 1963 to 1986, pp. 216-7
> Bahá’u’lláh quoted by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in A Traveller's Narrative, trans. E.G.
> Browne, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891, vol. 2, p. 114
> cf. Kitab-i-Aqdas vs. 123-4
> From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to Continental Boards of
> Counsellors and National Spiritual Assemblies, October 1, 1969, in The
> Continental Boards of Counsellors, Wilmette, 1981, pp. 37-38
>
> — *Power and the Baha'i community (Used by permission of the curator)*