If you have ever wondered if Islam is compatible with Democracy I written a paper addressing that very topic. If you haven’t ever considered it, you really should.
America, Islam and Democracy: A Clash of Civilizations?
Since World War II the United States has been on a campaign to spread democracy and capitalism throughout the developing world. At times the efforts have been intense, as with the reconstruction of Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. At other times, particularly during the Cold War, efforts have taken a less direct course, most often in the form of proxy wars as in Latin America and in Africa where, according to the World Policy Institute $1.5 billion worth of weapons have come from the United States alone (Shah, 2009). Currently the United States is on a mission to bring democracy to the Middle East, first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. But can democracy and capitalism succeed in an Islamic nation? Or, is this the beginning, as Samuel Huntington argues, of a protracted post-Cold War conflict rooted in a great clash of civilizations, the secular West versus the religious Muslim-dominated East (Huntington, 1993)? Is Islam hardened against democracy or are there conditions under which Islamic nations would embrace democratic institutions?
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1993 it appeared as if democracy had won a great, perhaps final, epic battle. Francis Fukuyama went so far as to proclaim the “end of history”. In an article that appeared in The National Interest he wrote, “In watching the flow of events over the past decade or so, it is hard to avoid the feeling that something very fundamental has happened in world history”. He went on to write, “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism”(Fukuyama, 1989). There was no longer any power, any system, that could challenge American hegemony. It would just be a matter of time until the majority of the world would embrace democracy and that would, in turn, usher in an era of peace and the culmination of political history.
Applying American Principles.
The United States has enjoyed a number of successful attempts at nation building beginning with the post-World War II revival of its Western European allies and even, or perhaps especially, its enemy, Germany. Since the end of the Cold War, attention has once again returned to Europe as the United States has supported the establishment of new democracies and free market economies in Georgia and other former Soviet Bloc countries. But now the United States finds itself embroiled in a great struggle in its attempt to spread democracy to the Middle East, a struggle, not against a sovereign state or political ideology but rather against Islam, a clash, as Huntington suggests, of cultures. It is viewed as an epic battle between the West, characterized by democracy, individualism, capitalism and modernity, and the East, a theocracy opposed to each of these. And, Huntington asserts, this is the battle that will shape the 21st century (Huntington, 1993).
The idea of a clash of civilizations is a shift that marks a transition to a new source of conflict. What began, following the Treaty of Westphalia, as conflicts between princes and monarchs to expand their holdings, evolved into wars between clearly defined, sovereign, nation/states. Then, in the aftermath of World War II another transition occurred. During the Cold War period conflicts were no longer primarily about territory but were rooted in ideologies (Huntington, 1993, p.22-23). Democracy fought against communism and, because they were diametrically opposed systems and beliefs, the survival of each hung in the balance.
American democracy had, indeed, triumphed over communism and was now looking to extend its influence and its free markets. Democracy and capitalism were on the move. On September 6, 2001, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked, “We are selling a product. The product we are selling is democracy” (Mehring, 2008). However, less than one week later, on the morning of September 11, 2001, when hijacked airliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, another seismic shift in political history occurred, one that would bring the history of political struggle back to life. But this time it would not be a battle of princes, or of nations, or even ideologies. It would be a battle of religiously based worldviews. It would be Islam versus Western civilization. And, as with the battle with communism, the perception was that only one of these worldviews, the Western worldview, could foster freedom and an atmosphere conducive to democracy. But is democracy uniquely and solely Western? In other words, are Islam and democracy incompatible? Anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world and the unsuccessful attempts to extend democracy into the Middle East in Afghanistan and Iraq have only served to reinforce that perception.
But, “In asking whether Islam is compatible with democracy”, writes Nurruddin Virani, “we must first understand two ideas. First, what do we mean by democracy? Is a country that allows religion to play a role in the public sphere automatically disqualified? Second, what do we mean by “Islam”? The religion is not a monolith – so which “Islam” are we talking about?” (Virani, 2008, p.1). The fundamental questions are, what kind of democracy and what kind of Islam?
It is clear that many Islamic nations and Muslim groups are very opposed to the United States. America’s support for Israel, the war on terror and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed greatly to a strong anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world. And yet, as Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris note, “At this point in history, societies throughout the world (Muslim and Judeo-Christian alike) see democracy as the best form of government” (Inglehart & Norris, 2003, p.64). While this might seem like an exaggerated claim, it is strongly supported by findings from the 2008 Gallup World Poll, which reported, “Cutting across diverse Muslim countries, social classes, and gender differences, answers to our questions reveal a complex and surprising reality. Substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed (95% in Burkina Faso, 94% in Egypt, 93% in Iran, and 90% in Indonesia) say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech, defined as “allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues of the day.” (Esposito & Mogahed , 2008). But if overwhelming majorities of those Muslims surveyed support democracy where is the conflict? It appears that Muslims make a clear distinction between fundamental democracy and Western culture. While there is strong support for democracy, especially the rights of free speech and thought, there is a wholesale rejection of Western values, especially perceptions of greed, excessive consumption and moral laxness.
The democracy that people in the Muslim world envision is a different brand than what is typically thought of as American democracy. The Gallup World Poll report continues, “In our data, the emphasis that those in substantially Muslim countries give to a new model of government — one that is democratic yet embraces religious values — helps to explain why majorities in most countries, with the exception of a handful of nations, want Sharia as at least “a source of legislation” (Esposito & Mogahed , 2008). Sharia, according to Sarah Otterman, simply means ‘God’s law’, guidance that covers the spectrum of life, from religion to politics to economics and extends to all aspects of life (Otterman, 2005). It is highly practical. In banking, for example, Sharia prohibits, among other things, the collecting of interest. Instead, banks can collect appropriate fees and accrue profits without charging interest. Sharia provides the political, economic and moral guidance that helps to moderate excessive greed and corruption that is often associated with Western capitalism and free market economies. Under the banking guidelines of Sharia the subprime mortgage fiasco and the financial collapse could not have occurred. Sharia is a safeguard against excess. There is no conflict with democratic principles and Muslims who are allowed to retain Sharia as part of their legal code, overwhelmingly support the principles and the institution of democracy.
It is the blending of democracy with religion, along with the rejection of Western values that makes the Islamic approach unique. And yet, it is not as unique as it might at first appear. While within American democracy there is a clear separation of church and state, the American public shares very similar views to those held by Muslims in Islamic countries. In the United States, for example, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicated, “that a majority of Americans want the Christian Bible as a source of legislation. Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be “a” source, and 9% believe it should be the “only” source of legislation. Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran” (Esposito & Mogahed, 2008).
The question is whether there is a place for religion, especially Islam, in democracy? Louay Safi, a member of the board of directors of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), sees the pairing of democracy and Islam as a good fit. “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” (Hardwick, 2003). There are many Muslims who not only believe they are quite compatible but who would welcome the institution of democracy. What they would not welcome, however, is democracy that also requires accepting the trappings of Western values and Western culture.
Impediments To Fostering Democracy in the Middle East.
There are a number of factors inhibiting the acceptance of democracy in the Middle East, and while the general acceptance of democratic principles is widespread there are still significant political challenges. Mandy Turner notes, “…weak and ineffective transitional institutions are unlikely to build confidence or norms towards democracy and may lead to renewed conflict, as was the case in Angola in 1992, or the election of anti-democratic, wartime leaders as in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996 and Liberia in 1997” (Turner, 2006, p.741). Current political structures do matter. Few states in the Middle East currently support democratic institutions, though some, like Saudi Arabia, have initiated important democratic reforms (Hardwick, 2003). Palestine has even held elections. And, although much of the world did not like the outcome, Palestinians recognized the legitimacy of the Hamas victory. Then Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, a Fatah leader, immediately resigned his post along with his cabinet, when he recognized that Hamas had won. Qureia told reporters, “This is the choice of the people … it should be respected” (Wilson, 2006). It was a peaceful transition of power, the kind that is associated with successful democracies.
But elections alone do not constitute a democracy. It is as much about civil society as it is about political systems. Donna Lee Van Cott observes, “Hostility among peoples of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, whether rooted in generations of conflict or precipitated by recent events, is one of the most serious challenges to the survival and quality of democracy” (Van Cott, 2005, p.821). This has definitely been the case in Iraq with the ongoing armed conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis. Pluralism is central to overcoming group hostility and establishing a broader, community and national identity with national values and goals. Democracy requires the protection of, and the inclusion of, different minority groups and minority opinions. Without acceptance and protection hostilities between groups will continue to undermine efforts to promote democracy.
Conclusion:
There is a story about a group of Lutheran nuns from Germany who went to South America as missionaries. Upon arriving and gathering together their first group of prospective converts, they set about teaching them the German language. Before the natives could hear the Gospel of salvation, they first had to learn to speak a foreign language. The Gospel was packaged in German and the only way to accept salvation was to accept speaking German. Democracy is often viewed as packaged within a Western framework. American-style democracy has worked well in Europe where fundamental Western values have been in place for centuries. It is unrealistic, however, to assume that a completely different cultural history and heritage should have to be changed just to adopt democratic principles. Democracy is valuable to any group willing to uphold its basic principles of individual rights, citizen representation, and a commitment to pluralism demonstrated through a willingness to respect and protect minorities within the community. And no one should have to learn another language, or another culture, in order to embrace it.
Perhaps divorcing the concept of democracy from the notion of Western culture and values would enable nations in the Muslim world to blend their current ideas of theocracy (as reflected in Sharia) with their more fundamental desires for the basic principles of democracy. But it will also require separating the practice of democracy from the image of the West. Safi explains, “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” (Hardwick, 2003). In many Muslim circles democracy is synonymous with the West, with an image of cultural imperialism. Ultimately it is Western values and Western culture, and not democracy, that is the focus of Muslim rejection.
The principles of democracy, that is, individual rights and freedoms and allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues, is not just a Western value, but is a widely held aspiration throughout the Muslim world. It is not incompatible with Islam. Islam actually provides a necessary framework where those democratic principles can be clearly supported by a rule of law, a strong social order and guidelines and restraints against excessive greed and corruption. Islam provides a rule of law, like the rule of law in the United States, based upon religious principles drawn from their understanding of the Word of God.
What is incompatible with Islam, however, is American-style democracy, or rather, what Americans have done to democracy. What is incompatible is a democracy that elevates individual and personal freedoms above moral and religious law and even above national and community interests. What is incompatible is the Western culture and the Western values of uncontrolled consumerism, rampant commercialism and unchecked moral decay. These conditions, interestingly, are objectionable to religious conservatives in the United States as well. It is the practice of American-style democracy, not the principles of democracy, which present the greatest challenges to establishing democracy in the Middle East. Islam can embrace democracy but it will likely resist any and all attempts to impose Western culture and Western values as part of any package of democratic reform. In that regard Huntington is likely correct; the fault line of the future will be cultural, not political. But it need not be destructive. If democratic principles can prevail, if pluralism can survive, if the spirit (and rhetoric) of the Crusades can be overcome, then cultural values can remain different and distinct and democracy can flourish. That process must begin with the acknowledgment that American-style democracy is not the only, or even the best, expression of democratic principles and processes and any expressions of cultural superiority, cultural arrogance or perceptions of cultural imperialism must be set aside. The core principles of democracy, not the core values of Western culture must be promoted. In such a climate Islam and democracy are quite compatible in both principle and practice.
References
Esposito, J., Mogahed, D. (2008) Do Muslims Want Democracy and Theocracy? Gallup
World Poll, March 6, 2008
Fukuyama, F (1989) The End of History. The National Interest, Summer 1989.
Hardwick, B. (2003) Can Islam and Democracy Coexist? National Geographic News,
October 24, 2003. Downloaded 1/29/2009 from
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1021_031021_
islamicdemocracy.html
Huntington, S (1993) The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Policy, Summer 1993
Inglehart, R., Norris, P. (2003) The True Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Policy,
March/April 2003
Mehring, F. (2006) “”Selling Democracy” Inside and Out: Public Diplomacy, Marshall
Plan Films, and Transcultural Conflicts” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Studies Association, 2008-12-11 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p105675_index.html
Otterman, S. (2005) Islam: Governing Under Sharia. Council on Foreign Relations, March 14,
- Downloaded 1/27/2009 from, http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/
Shah, Anup (2009) Conflicts in Africa—Introduction. Global Issues. Downloaded
1/28/2009 from http://www.globalissues.org/article/84/conflicts-in-africa
introduction#ColdWarbyProxySupportingandArmingDictatorshipsinAfrica
Turner, M (2006) Building Democracy in Palestine: Liberal Peace Theory and the
Election of Hamas, Democratization, Vol.13, No.5, December 2006, pp.739–755
Van Cott, D. (2005) Building Inclusive Democracies: Indigenous
Peoples and Ethnic Minorities in Latin America. Democratization, Vol.12, No.5,
December 2005, pp.820–837
Viran, N. (2008) Is Islam Compatible with Democracy? The Citizen, November 19, 2008
Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast
Wilson, S. (2006) Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in
Mideast, Washington Post Foreign Service, January 27, 2006
Balancing Act 