ECPR - Granada, 14-19 April 2005 Workshop 11 Post Cold War Democratization in the Muslim World: Domestic, Regional and Global Trends Directors: Frédéric Volpi and Francesco Cavatorta CATS & DOGS OR LIONS & TIGERS: ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY B. A. ROBERSON Warwick University b.a.roberson@warwick.ac.uk - Work in Progress - Not for citation, quotation or distribution without the permission of the author
INTRODUCTION For at least the past 15 or 20 years, social scientists have been expected, through their analyses, to provide reliable, definitive answers as to how to successfully democratize authoritarian regimes. This expectation arose from the concerns that western governments and international institutions had regarding the affects of authoritarian regimes on social order and international stability. In recent years, the importance of democracy as well as human rights have been introduced by the west, primarily the US, as a foreign policy objective. Western governments saw the process of democracy as leading to a form of government that would be more accomodating to the political and social needs of their people, provide the governments with a much needed legitimacy and create a peaceful domestic and regional environment. This was seen as particularly important in the crisis ridden region of the Middle East. Much has been written on the question of whether Islam is compatible with the notion of democracy, does it allow for the principles and norms associated with democracy. This question arose as the problem of how the strategic importance of the Middle East to the west was to be reconciled with the desire to democratize the area without jeopardizing the existing level of stability in the region. This devolved in the west into foreign policy recommendations that would hopefully transform the authoritarian character of the Middle East governments to make them more responsive and accountable to their people and thus more conducive to stability and peace in the region. This would be provided through institutional arrangements and political processes through which conflicts among different groups could be resolved peacefully. It would also make to more difficult for any faction in society to carve out a special niche for themselves in the decision process. The norms and principles associated with democracy were seen by some as incompatible with precepts contained in Islam - this view producing a focus on politics and religion as being inseparable in Islam and consequently inhibiting the possibility of a state based on the sovereignty of the people in the western style (Huntington, Lewis). In order to give some perspective on this question, it is necessary to first consider the relevance of the nature of Islamic society that gives it its distinctive perspective on not only the social life of its adherents but the politics that pervades their social existence and would form the basis of its perspective on democracy. In the early Arab muslim world, societies were largely tribal with identities furnished by ties with clan and tribe. Many of the features and values of a tribal
society formed the cultural perceptions and defined the social relationships among the people in the umma (the Muslim community). The value system - what was good or bad in the behaviour of the members of the community - was derived from the rules, admonitions and principles contained in the Qur an and Sunna. This combined with the values, customs and traditions that were incorporated into the umma that had their origins in the pre-islamic period provided the character of the personal belief system of the individual who comprised the umma. Eventually, the values, principles and traditions transcended their tribal origins and were universalized so that an individual muslim from anywhere in the world would have similar perspectives on their religio-social aspects of their life as any other muslim from any other part of the world. While the individual had his special relationship with God, as he or she understood it from the Qur an, the transcendent values and perspectives (which covered considerable aspects of a person s life, including etiquette, personal hygiene to inheritance, commerce and so forth) on life created a social identity and a sense of belonging which bound its members into a religious brotherhood. The bonding among muslims was strengthened by the existence of a law, the Shari a, that derived its rationale and principles from Islam. The shari a became the bonding agent in regard to everyday issues that members of the umma had to deal with and in the process strengthened the cohesion of the social community of Islam. Islam is a religion largely devoid of a hierarchical structure and a centralized authority. In these circumstances, it becomes clear that the locus of authority as it is exercised in Islamic society becomes uncertain. This is in the sense that though the state or government had all power to act in its sphere - maintain order, responsibility for financial and police administration, protection of the realm and prosperity of the people from attack- it did not have the authority to impinge on the sphere of the shari a which entailed religious ritual, marriage, divorce, inheritance, through to commerce, etc. Eventually, fully developed law and morality become interchangeable. How does this fit in with the notion of democracy as it is viewed in the west? Just to recapitulate briefly some of the conceptual problems associated with democracy itself - the western notion of democracy. Democracy, put simply, is a pluralist political system in which individuals participate in taking decisions which affect their lives. This is done through institutions and procedures which are supposed to ensure that the decisions that are taken by governments will reflect the interest and needs of the people. Pragmatically, this was to be done through a system of representation through institutions and procedures by which citizens can express effective preferences. However, considering the variety of views and their intensities that exist in all
societies and the limiting of issues set by the process of elections makes representation at best problematic. Where in the majoritarian system the minority becomes unrepresented, proportional representation in a parliamentary system often may not enhance compromise and conciliation among different segments of the population, thus frustrating the objectives of the process. The point is to make sure that those in political power that take decisions will not do so at the expense of the population at large or against particular minority groups. How can one curb the powerful and at the same time maintain effective government? When one looks at the structure of democracies, one sees divisions among the powers allotted to government that is to ensure both effective government and protect the people from the corrupt practices of government. Effective government in this form requires a concentration of power within the executive in regard to some of the responsibilities of government - war, social order etc. The general normative aspect of social order lies with those who create law for society.the objectives that emerges from this bifurcation - this separation of powers within government - of political responsibility differ between the executive and the legislative sectors of government. The objective of ensuring the stability of the social system will entail authoritative decisions comparatively autonomously without the involvement of the people. The legislative branch, however, because of the diversity of views, interests and perspectives within a society and the impossibility of aggragating these differences puts the legislative representative under pressure of special interests, the hegemonic ideology and his survivability as a representative. The point here is that the divisions within democractic government do not produce the desired results to which the substantive objectives of democracy aspire. Thus, there are obviously problems associated with the achievement of democracy, problems which put the concept clearly in the domain of ideology without a consensus on a competing ideology. Though democracy as an ideal is highly problematic, it still affords us, the people, the opportunity to inhibit to some extent the excesses of government. This is very much dependent, to some degree at least, on the increased participation of people in transparently functioning institutions which allow them to substantively choose their outcomes. When it comes to the question of Islam and Democracy, first of all, to capitulate some of the basic understandings regarding Islam, the principles and precepts upon which, in part, it is founded is premised on revelations from God which have informed mankind of a belief system concerning human relationships and how people should behave toward each other and from which a value system was developed by which muslims are expected to guide their lives. The Qur an and Sunna provide the general guidelines for the conduct of social life. These are
the precepts of Islam. Whatever emerges and developed in Islamic society must be compatible with these precepts. It really does not say much about how society is to be ordered. As we have seen, it tends to say a lot more about how people are supposed to behave towards each other, but not the institutions and processes for an Islamic order in society. There are a few key words that people generally use to relate Islam to the process of democratization. These are shura (consultation), majlis al-shura (consultative council or parliament), ijma (consensus) and ijtihad (independent interpretation of sacred sources). Some central Islamic principles are those involving equality, justice and consultation. In a broad and actually symbolic sense, these can be compatible with western notions of liberal democracy. Consider the question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy: The premise contains an assumption that is false in that it implies an assumption that Islam is a homogeneous body of beliefs that is established in an Islamic order. In actual fact, there is a considerable diversity among muslims as to how they understand and interpret the Qur an and Sunna. Despite the dogma and rituals in Islam, there are many questions that arise in the multitude of issues that confront the individual in which Islam provides no clear answer. There are those within Islam who view the Qur an and Sunna literally and where they are able to enforce the Shari a, they use that to legitimize their actions. They are able to do this because while most muslims have a more relaxed view of the literalness of Islam, they still look to it for guidance in how best to live their lives. Across the Muslim world, there seems to a sense of what they have lost over the past 100 years or so, with the Shari a having been marginalized. And it is this empathetic view of most muslims in the context of the reality of their lives in which governments have failed to live up to their expectations and responsibilities to provide for the needs of their peoples. Therefore, it requires time to work out, as it required in Europe. In recent years, the issue of Islam and democracy has come to the forefront of international concerns. This is more of a result of international policies than development within the various societies. As an example, it is not generally understood that in Saudi Arabia, which is viewed as authoritarian with wahhabism forming the foundation of that authoritarianism, that the government was rich enough to be able to coopt critical elements in society that might undermine their position. Nevertheless, for quite some time, a group of former Islamists (sunnis and shi is) together with liberals have been calling for democratic change within an Islamic framework. What they want is a change in the Wahhabi religious doctrine as promoted by the government. Criticism of Islam is usually quite difficult to voice. Despite this, criticism of Wahhabism is not unusual in Saudi Arabia. At times there have been advocates for the changes in the doctrine of Wahhabism by prominent ulama in the Al-Hasa and Hijaz
areas and even some ulama from the Najd region. But this criticism of Wahhabi doctrine was largely from small dissident groups. In recent years, however, this dissidence has widened. The Shi i are also involved in this criticism. However, in conformity to customary practices, they have not been involved in direct attacks on Wahhabism but have tended to give support to Sunni advocates of Wahhabi change. What is a bit unusual in the Saudi political environment is that the Saudi government itself has allowed these critical trends to occur and has even responded positively to some of them where they imply social and religious reform but they still remain reluctant to introduce political reforms. As an indication of this trend, in June 2003, thirty Saudi ulama representing the varied confessional groups in Sauda Arabia (Wahhabi and non-wahhabi Sunnis, Sufis, Ismaili and 12er Shi is) met at a conference. What emerged were recommendations which were critical of Wahhabi doctrine. The conference itself accepted the reality that there was confessional diversity in Sauda Arabia which had un to then underpinned the notion of Wahhabi exclusivism. There was also criticism of the principle that not only sins themselves are prohibited but also actions that could lead to the commission of sins. This is referring to a core Qur anic injunction concern promoting the good and forbidding the bad. No one from the official Wahhabi establishment attended the conference. Recently, the government-controlled press in Sauda Arabia has allowed the publication of some of the religious criticism that is being circulated. There has been some change in social and religious issues: women are recognised as having an economic role in the society and some restrictions on Shi I religious practices have been loosened. The point is that in current discourse democracy is often conceptually viewed in its institutional and procedural aspects without reference to the substantive ends they are to serve. Where these ends are referenced, they are usually couched in general terms that are assumed to be related to the means by which the ends are secured. What the discussion about Islam suggested was that, while it did not prescribe a particular type of government, it focussed on the moral behaviour of individuals in their personal relations, business or commercial relations etc. The key point to be made was that muslims also have different and competing views and interpretations about their religion, about what the texts say to them that range from the radical to the conservative to the moderate to the liberal. The overarching Islamic values of equality, justice and consultation resonate with western values, but there is no homogenous religious point of view as to the solutions to the needs of society or the political issues of the day. The example
from Saudi Arabia (an Arab country without the panaply of democratic institutions that Egypt has long had) suggests that it is people at the local level in their engagement with the issues that concern them who are likely to shape and press substance into its evolving institutions, including adjusting or changing the meaning of key Quranic injunctions. Overall, the suggestion that Islam and democracy are incompatible is misplaced. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Antony Black, The History of Islamic Political Thought: From Prophet to the Present, (London: Routledge, 2001). Larry Diamond, Juan Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, eds, Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy, (Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner, 1990). Hugh Goddard, A History of Muslim-Christian Relations, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000). Ian Shapiro, Democracy s Edges, 1999. Hadenius, Democracy and Development, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Charles Kurzman, ed, Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook, (Oxford: OUP, 1998). Susan Marks, The End of History?, European Journal of International Law. 1997. Robert Pastor, ed, Democracy and Its Critics, (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1989).