Islamic And Democratic Governance: A Comparative-Conceptual Systematic Literature Review Of Shura, Democracy, And The Indonesian Pancasila Order

Abstract

The relationship between shura and modern democracy remains contested, particularly regarding whether their similarities extend beyond procedural principles to their foundational structures. This study aims to analyze the convergence and divergence between shura and modern democracy and examine the conditions under which Islamic governance principles can interact with Pancasila-based democratic institutions in Indonesia. The study employed qualitative library research structured as a systematic literature review guided by PRISMA. Literature was retrieved from Google Scholar, Garuda, SINTA, and DOAJ, resulting in 34 sources selected for final synthesis. Data were analyzed using a five-dimension comparative-conceptual framework comprising sovereignty, representation, legitimacy, pluralism, and limits on majority power. The findings reveal that shura and democracy converge procedurally through deliberation, participation, accountability, and constraints on authoritarian power, but diverge fundamentally regarding sovereignty and the basis for limiting majority decisions. Shura locates ultimate sovereignty in divine authority and constrains political decisions through sharia, whereas modern democracy derives sovereignty from the people and limits majority power constitutionally. In Indonesia, meaningful interaction between the two is most feasible in areas open to ijtihad, while theologically fixed matters require conceptual caution. The study proposes a five-dimension comparative framework that advances a reciprocal-critical understanding of shura and democracy and offers a conceptual basis for developing Islamic value-based civic education within Pancasila democracy.