Most (but clearly not all) of the regimes I've seen in Muslim-majority countries have been autocratic, but that is not a reason to believe that democracy was not or is not compatible with Islam. At the very core of Islam is free will. Autocratic and despotic regimes thwart free will and that interferes with sincere faith.
Reuel Marc Gerecht 1 of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies writes in the New York Times that:
One of the great under-reported stories of the end of the 20th century was the enormous penetration of the West’s better political ideas — democracy and individual liberty — into the Muslim consciousness.
If by this Mr. Gerecht means to say that the ideas of democracy and individual liberty as advanced and implemented in the West during the 20th century have also reached the people of Muslim majority countries, then I would agree. I don't agree that these values are foreign to Islam, however.
I don't expect people to take my word for it. I'm not an expert on Islam or democracy (I'm a strong advocate of both though). But those who are agree.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is one such expert. Dr. Khan notes that there are two extreme groups of thinkers who agree that Islam and democracy are not compatible, but that these groups both are at odds with Islam and the majority of Muslims in living today. He describes the two groups this way at Ijtihad.org:
[S]ome western scholars and ideologues have tried to present Islam as an anti-democratic and inherently authoritarian ethos that precludes democratization in the Muslims World.
Islamic activists, using extremely broad, simple and sometimes crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, reject democracy as rule of Man as opposed to Islam which is rule of God.
He goes on in this succinct article to expose the erroneous thinking of both of these groups. He notes that the first groups looks to the behaviors and attitudes of those Muslims who support autocratic rule as authentic reflections of Islam when they are so far from it. He furthers notes the utter idiocy of the latter group who cannot grasp the fact that in any system of government people must hold de facto sovereignty.
Columbia University's Professor Richard Bulliet argues that many of the anti-democracy sentiments espoused by Muslims are actually reactions to what they perceive as cultural imperialism that they wish to reject (at least outwardly and for now). In an article on Islam and democracy in The National Geographic in 2003 Professor Bulliet said:
Some of the people who say that democracy has no place in Islam, what they really express is a sense that the word 'democracy' as presented in international discourse appears to be wholly owned by the West. The word itself has, for some, a connotation of cultural imperialism. If you talk about representative government without the baggage of these institutions in the U.S., but on more idealistic grounds, then it makes perfectly good sense to a lot of Muslims. The idea of citizenry participating in government is, particularly within Sunni Islam, sort of a bedrock theory.
Professor Bulliet goes on to note, as does Dr. Khan, that there are some Muslims who reject democracy as incompatible with Islam. This group, he notes, is in the minority.
Louay Safi, a member of the board of directors of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and an American Muslim, believes that Islamic values and democracy are quite compatible. In the same National Geographic article Dr. Safi is quoted stating:
I think that Islam as a set of norms and ideals that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths, is fully compatible with democracy. I don't see how it could be compatible with a government that would take away those values.
I would argue that Muslim society was a society where communities had some control of their own affairs. There was more decentralization of power. The central government was mainly focusing on issues of law and order or security. There was a lot of liberty for individuals to negotiate many of the norms and rules within their own communities.
This idea described by Dr. Safi certainly sounds familiar!
Mr. Gerecht seems to agree with Drs. Safi, Bulliet and Khan. His New York Times op-ed argues in favor of the U.S. supporting a robust move to democracy in Egypt. He argues that President Obama must send a clear message that America is not afraid of Muslims voting. And he ends with a great line:
[President Obama] can put an end to the West’s deleterious habit of treating the Middle East’s potentates respectfully and the Muslim citizenry like children.
The idea, if not the person advancing it, certain is very agreeable to me.
_______________________________________________________
1 I am aware of who Mr. Gerecht is and encourage readers to read his biography here to better understand the motivation behind what he is saying. Mr. Gerecht is a neoconservative who supports active efforts at regime change in the Middle East. Iran is Mr. Gerecht's specialty.
Recent Comments