Islam and democracy
Dec. 17th, 2007 09:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerThis essay is perhaps less interesting to those outside the class, as you will not have read Islam and Democracy published by the US Institute of Peace, which forms the material on which the essay comments.
Which of the various contributors did you find most persuasive in arguing for the compatibility of political Islam and democracy? Which did you find most persuasive in arguing against the compatibility of political Islam and democracy? Which of the geographic examples seemed to support the argument for compatibility? Incompatibility? On the whole, which side of this debate do you fall on?
I found John Esposito’s comments (pp.10-12) most persuasive in arguing that political Islam and democracy are, at least, not incompatible. I appreciate the point he makes about how the history of colonial regimes and the nature of those that followed them (autocratic either as monarchies or as military, often Russian-style “socialist” dictatorships) made the development of democratic traditions or institutions difficult. And he also points out the fundamental schizophrenia between the West’s dependence on oil and hence desire for “stability” (which is to say, status quo) on the one hand and it’s putative support for democracy on the other. At the very least, one could maintain that the jury is still out on whether democracy and political Islam can work together, based on Esposito’s observations.
As for incompatibility, while Mumtaz Ahmad argues that Islamic fundamentalism is not totally antithetical to democracy, his assurance is rather dampening. Unlike Faour and Khalil, he does not adhere to the idea that ‘shura’ (consulting) can be the basis of decision-making in an Islamic state. Rather, he sees decisions being taken on the basis of shari’ah, or law as laid down in the Qur’an or the Sunna, which cannot be debated or reinterpreted but must simply be accepted and applied. To be sure, event he most dogmatic scholars who insist simply on application without interpretation are *forced* to undertake interpretation of a sort when issues arise that simply could not have been addressed specifically in so many words by the Prophet (e.g., mobile phones or jet travel). But if the ultimate authority is God (which, effectively, means those authorized to decide which passages of shari’ah apply to a situation) instead of the people consulting with one another about the best way to apply the law, then democracy is unlikely to prove compatible with such strict Islamist application.
The example of Jordan, unexpectedly (given its nature as a monarchy) is quite encouraging in suggesting that a growth of democracy is not incompatible with Islam. Like late 17th and 18th century England, Jordan has managed to find a route towards a slow growth of democratic institutions and a gradual birth of democratic traditions by consistently allowing elections but without handing over supreme power to the elected representatives right away. By contrast, Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most discouraging example, combining all the worst attributes (near-total opposition to democracy in an autocratic monarchy that claims to derive its power from its religious authority). It is hard to see, even with the minor concessions made to elections since the book came out, how Saudi Arabia, in some ways the most Islamic state in the area, will ever reach anything close to democracy with the vast majority of political, economic, and military power held tightly by a single clan/family.
On the whole, I confess I am pessimistic about the advent of democracy in the Middle East in the near term, mostly because, as the various writers have observed, most countries lack the institutions and traditions needed to create true democracy (rather than simply the occasional election manipulated cynically by ethnic, family, regional, or confessional factions). While many (most?) nations in the region lack anything like a true educated middle class to serve as inspirators and demanders of true democracy, the masses who might be moved even to a populist, majoritarian sort of government-by-occasional-votes are disillusioned by the failure of previous Western-inspired ‘solutions’ to national/regional issues and probably need to suffer through several failed religious regimes before this ‘answer’ too proves unsuccessful and some less simplistic. More nuanced solution is sought out.
Which of the various contributors did you find most persuasive in arguing for the compatibility of political Islam and democracy? Which did you find most persuasive in arguing against the compatibility of political Islam and democracy? Which of the geographic examples seemed to support the argument for compatibility? Incompatibility? On the whole, which side of this debate do you fall on?
I found John Esposito’s comments (pp.10-12) most persuasive in arguing that political Islam and democracy are, at least, not incompatible. I appreciate the point he makes about how the history of colonial regimes and the nature of those that followed them (autocratic either as monarchies or as military, often Russian-style “socialist” dictatorships) made the development of democratic traditions or institutions difficult. And he also points out the fundamental schizophrenia between the West’s dependence on oil and hence desire for “stability” (which is to say, status quo) on the one hand and it’s putative support for democracy on the other. At the very least, one could maintain that the jury is still out on whether democracy and political Islam can work together, based on Esposito’s observations.
As for incompatibility, while Mumtaz Ahmad argues that Islamic fundamentalism is not totally antithetical to democracy, his assurance is rather dampening. Unlike Faour and Khalil, he does not adhere to the idea that ‘shura’ (consulting) can be the basis of decision-making in an Islamic state. Rather, he sees decisions being taken on the basis of shari’ah, or law as laid down in the Qur’an or the Sunna, which cannot be debated or reinterpreted but must simply be accepted and applied. To be sure, event he most dogmatic scholars who insist simply on application without interpretation are *forced* to undertake interpretation of a sort when issues arise that simply could not have been addressed specifically in so many words by the Prophet (e.g., mobile phones or jet travel). But if the ultimate authority is God (which, effectively, means those authorized to decide which passages of shari’ah apply to a situation) instead of the people consulting with one another about the best way to apply the law, then democracy is unlikely to prove compatible with such strict Islamist application.
The example of Jordan, unexpectedly (given its nature as a monarchy) is quite encouraging in suggesting that a growth of democracy is not incompatible with Islam. Like late 17th and 18th century England, Jordan has managed to find a route towards a slow growth of democratic institutions and a gradual birth of democratic traditions by consistently allowing elections but without handing over supreme power to the elected representatives right away. By contrast, Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most discouraging example, combining all the worst attributes (near-total opposition to democracy in an autocratic monarchy that claims to derive its power from its religious authority). It is hard to see, even with the minor concessions made to elections since the book came out, how Saudi Arabia, in some ways the most Islamic state in the area, will ever reach anything close to democracy with the vast majority of political, economic, and military power held tightly by a single clan/family.
On the whole, I confess I am pessimistic about the advent of democracy in the Middle East in the near term, mostly because, as the various writers have observed, most countries lack the institutions and traditions needed to create true democracy (rather than simply the occasional election manipulated cynically by ethnic, family, regional, or confessional factions). While many (most?) nations in the region lack anything like a true educated middle class to serve as inspirators and demanders of true democracy, the masses who might be moved even to a populist, majoritarian sort of government-by-occasional-votes are disillusioned by the failure of previous Western-inspired ‘solutions’ to national/regional issues and probably need to suffer through several failed religious regimes before this ‘answer’ too proves unsuccessful and some less simplistic. More nuanced solution is sought out.
