The media frenzy surrounding Muslims in
the aftermath of 11 September 2001 attacks have aggravated concern over the
integration of Islam in Western societies. Often Western supremacists
scrutinize Muslims for hating liberal freedoms and values. Bernard Lewis and
Irfan Ahmad speculate in their research whether Islam is compatible with
democracy. Lewis presents the claim that the nature of fundamental Islam and
Muslim political tradition is incompatible with electoral democracy. On the
other hand, Ahmad is motivated to remove suspicion from Islam; he argues that
Islam enshrines a government system akin to democracy, incorporating theocracy
and democratic ideology. In this paper I contrast and critique the debate
between the two scholars. I demonstrate that although Islam and democracy are
incomparable on the premise that both concepts are founded independent of each
other, in different time periods for different purposes; Islam internalizes
many principles which resemble democratic values which can inspire the establishment
of electoral democracies in Muslim countries.
In the article, “Islam and Liberal
Democracy: A Historical Overview,” Lewis suggests that a relativist approach is
not appropriate to the question of Islam’s compatibility with democracy. Lewis
argues that the understanding of democracy should be grounded in literary
analysis which explicates democracy as ‘a method of choosing or removing
governments as followed by England and other English-speaking countries’. This
definition subverts Islam’s relationship with democracy as Muslim countries
sparsely maintain the system of free elections to change governments. First,
Lewis addresses the political crisis in Muslim countries in the form of
autocracies and ruling dynasties. Second, he discovers an almost uncanny
resemblance between Islam, Judaism and Christianity to suggest that like its
predecessor religions, Islam does not reject democracy. He estimates that,
although “the fundamentalist version of Islam is incompatible with liberal
democracy,” there are elements in the Islamic literature which could be pursued
to develop democratic institutions.
Incongruously, Ahmad declares in the
article, “Democracy and Islam” what can qualify as a conflict of interest. He
conceives the compatibility of Islam compatible as an issue of incompatible
paradigm (460). First, Ahmad analyzes the inherit bias with which Western
scholarship views Islam; he argues that academics like Rowley, Lewis and Geller
attempt to explain Islam through “selective reading of Islamic texts and
traditions” (460) to make the religion appear “fanatical and inhospitable to
democracy” (460). Second, Ahmad explores a new conceptual relationship between
Islam and democracy through a case study on India’s Islamic organization,
Jamaat-e-Islami. Third, Ahmad offers a revisionist reading of history to the
context and effect of de-democratization Muslim countries by the West
democracies.
From the very onset, Lewis proposes that
the definition of democracy plays a great role in determining Islam’s
commitment to democracy. He firmly believes democracy to be a form of
government that “can be changed by elections as opposed to where elections are
changed by the government” (52). The most important criteria for government to
classify as democracy are fair and free elections. To this effect, fundamental
Islam and Muslim political tradition is the opposite of democracy (54). Most
Islamic states maintain a strict autocratic government system, designed to
protect the succession of a single family to power. The fundamentalist Islam
holds democracy suspect “as a corrupt and corrupting form of government” (54).
Furthermore, Lewis assumes that due to a severe limitation in language (the
lack of a cognate term for citizenship in Arabic), the citizenry under Islamic
governments is unable to participate in political discourse or expel their
leaders to power (55).
Ahmad counters Lewis’ proposal with a unique
understanding of Islam and democracy. He argues that Islam is a theoretical concept
as much as democracy is an abstract and changing idea. There are no normative
and fixed textual or practical explications of Islam. In the same way, the
application of democracy and degree of democratic freedoms vary from country to
country. Therefore, without first defining Islam and democracy, it is a mistake
to view the former as an antithesis to the latter. Ahmad challenges Lewis’ allegation
that the Muslim political tradition is hostile to the values of democracy by
asserting that “prevalent democracies have been hostile to Muslim societies”.
Many autocrats and fascist in the Muslim world are financed by the
international democratic governments. Without the monetary support of Western
democracies, dictatorships and theocracies in Asia and Latin America would not
survive. Ahmad contests that democracies such as the US and India have
desecrated the sanctity of human life (462). The ethnic cleansing of the
Aboriginals and Muslims under democratic governments is indicative of the fact that
inequality and death among minorities are ramifications of Western democracy.
While Lewis is conscientious of defining
Islam and democracy, his comparison of an ancient religion with a modern
political prerogative is unfathomable. Islam predates democracy; Prophet
Muhammad and, the founders of democracy such as Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson
never collaborated, hence their movements are heterogeneous and exist
independent of each other. Islam’s primarily functions as a source of spiritual
identity, guidance, salvation and community for its followers. Democracy is a
distinct method of exercising political control over the state. Although some
aspects of Islamic doctrine have political undertones, the purpose of Islam is
not to prevail itself as a political system. Simultaneously, democracy is a
secular political system, it does not concern with the religion of the state.
Additionally, Lewis’ contention that fundamental Islam
rejects democracy is tendentious. Islam is neither hostile towards democracy
nor susceptible to autocracy. The dictatorships in Muslims countries are not
inspired by the teachings of Islam. Rather the present political system in
Muslim countries is a product of post-colonialism and post-imperialism.
For this reason, I strongly agree with Ahmad’s premise that Western democracies
sponsor dynastic rule in Muslim countries to secure their economic and
geopolitical interests.
Lewis draws similarities between Islam, Judaism
and Christianity to imply that Islamic texts, like the Biblical scriptures, do
not inherently reject democracy. For example, Lewis points out that Islam’s
emphasis on “personal dignity” (55) of every human is a procurer to the modern
understanding of human rights. Moreover, in Islam “the exercise of political
power is conceived ... as a contract, creating bonds of mutual obligation
between the ruler and the ruled” (55). This suggests that Islam ratifies the
formation of a government on the basis of public consensus. The citizenry must
agree to government prerogatives. In turn this applies pressure on government
executive and policy makers to rule and pass laws according to the public will.
Islamic texts also encourage “civil disobedience” in the event of government
misconduct (56). These evidences demonstrate that Islam internalizes principles
which resemble democratic values, without using the word democracy. These
principles can be enhanced to develop electoral democracy in Muslim countries.
Ahmad broadens the debate by introducing
the concept of “theo-democratic state” as an obverse of democracy. A Theo-democratic state recognizes the
constitutionality of the Qur’an and Hadith. In such a state, the execution of
Islamic law, which would maintain the position of the ultimate sovereign, would
occur under the supervision of a person chosen by qualified individuals (463).
Therefore, the nature and association of the Islamic state is a combination of
both theocracy and democracy. It expresses solidarity with religious principles
and at the same time, it utilizes the opinion of the general public in the
implementation of those principles.
Notwithstanding my appreciation for
Lewis’ engagement with the “rich political literature” of Islam to ascertain
the religion’s compatibility with democracy (55), I believe that by comparing
Islam to democracy, he puts democracy on a higher pedestal. The word order is
indicative of his bias. He gives preference to democracy over Islam. In his
view, democracy is an unerring and irreproachable political system while only
those aspects of Islam are tolerable which coincide with democracy. Similarly, Ahmad’s
articulation of analogies, connecting Islam with democracy is nothing short of
an apologetic attempt to hold Islam to democratic standards. Both scholars
painstakingly try to portray Islam as democracy-loving to perhaps legitimize
and enforce the superiority of democracy.
Both scholars acknowledge that the equivalent
of individual rights and freedoms in the Islamic tradition is justice (Lewis 57
and Ahmad 462). Ahmad points out that the Islamic political system promotes the
establishment of democratic institution with respect to dividing commodities
equally and providing citizens with collective welfare. This can be affirmed
with the example of a Masjid (465),
which embodies the concept of a civil society consisting of private businesses,
medical healthcare, education and civil.
Ahmad further explicates Islam’s
promotion of democratic institutions through a case study of India’s
Jamaat-e-Islami. He examines Maududi’s initial fatwa against membership in
democratic assemblies and parliaments, issuing a subsequent ban against voting
during Indian national elections (463), which he later revoked on the premise
that “participating in the elections...[is] in the vital interest of Islam and
Muslims” (463). The evolution of Maududi’s political thought was inspired by
the “Muslim public’s disavowal of Jamaat’s ideology” (464) and India’s State of
Emergency which outlawed all political parties including the Jamaat. These
factors significantly refurbished Maududi’s point of view. He began to support
democracy nationally but also internally within the party, “members began to be
elected, and the [he] had to accept decisions taken democratically by shura”
(464). The rationale behind this case study is that Islam condones ‘independent
interpretive judgment, plurality of views and reasoned discussions’(465), the
matrix of democracy. Just as European and American liberal democracy have
biblical origins,
Islamic teachings can be used to inspire electoral democracy in Muslim
countries.
Lewis concludes that Islam possesses
drastic potential to stride towards democracy. The prerogative of Muslim
governments across Africa, Middle East and Asia is slowly changing from
autocracy, fascism and radical dictatorships to democracy (60). Although the
present forms of governments still prohibit public protest against the ruling
class and the replacement of ruling class through free elections, the impact of
education and mass communication is abetting public participating in political
discourse (59). Ahmad also culminates his research by reiterating that the
Western democratic governments are responsible for the de-democratization of
the Muslim countries. His example of
Iranian and Bahrainian democratic governments which were replaced with
dictatorships to 'serve the national interests of USA and UK’ (467) gives the
impression that Muslim governments cannot become electoral democracies until
Western interferences abate.
I believe Lewis’ argument has merit;
since 2011 social media has mobilized passive political resentment in the
Middle East into the revolutionary Arab Spring movement, which helped topple
long-term dictatorships in Egypt and Libya. Similarly, in 2014 emotive pictures
of violence in Gaza spread rapidly over Facebook, which catalyzed protests in
Western democracies against Israel. For this reason I agree with Lewis that
education and mass communication will gradually propel the democratic process
in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is over-simplistic to hold Western
governments accountable for de-democratizing the Middle East. Religious
cleavages and sectarian intolerance is responsible for extensive
armed-conflicts, making it impossible for Sunni and Shiite parties to mobilize
and establish intergroup trust, which is a crucial first step towards achieving
democracy.
Overall, Lewis and Ahmad believe Islam
contains ingredients which support electoral democracy; therefore, Muslims can
use specific Islamic teaching to warrant the removal of their autocratic
leaders. However, I believe this will require overcoming Western monopology and
internal religious disparities.
Works
Cited:
Richard
L. Perry and John C. Cooper, (eds) Sources
of Our Liberties, William S.
Hein & Co.,Inc., Buffalo, NY, 1991
