Islam versus democracy: the theoretical debate

Ironically enough, there is a point of junction between some Western scholars and radical Islamists, in that both sides argue that there is an inherent incompatibility between Islam and democracy. The foundation of such a claim that has crucial implications at the level of policy-making is the argument of divine sovereignty. In other words, “if Allah has revealed clear principles of what is to be encouraged and what is to be proscribed, then human desire and man-made law have no place in tampering with these proscriptions and prohibitions. ” Following the same line, fundamentalists claim that state and religion are inextricably linked

One of the cornerstones of Islamic political thought is the need for just governance. In general lines, this was strictly interpreted as an accurate application of Islamic law by the rulers and implementation of justice at the social level.
Unfortunately, at the beginning-during the chaos generated by the Mongol invasion- the context urged for the adoption of emergency precepts according to which even unjust rulers were preferable to anarchy. As expected, this constituted a de facto sanction of tyranny that was only overturned in the twentieth century by mainstream Islamists. It was them who started promoting the principle rulers that failed to deliver justice could and should be legitimately toppled, “a near Jeffersonian vision that the tyrannical state should be resisted, even by force. ”

In spite of Western suspicion of moderate Islamists that are embracing democracy, there is a very practical reason for this acceptance of democracy that goes beyond intricate theoretical arguments about the source of sovereignty. As one scholar was noting, “Islamist appreciation for the values of a democratic order has been strengthened by the very reality that they themselves would be the primary beneficiaries of it. ” And what is meant by “beneficiaries” does not only refer to the recent victory at the ballot box of Islamists in Palestine and Egypt-although this is a core issue- but also at matters pertaining to human rights. Nowadays, even Islamists who are not violent become the primary victims of arbitrary authoritarian rule in the form of arrests, persecutions and executions.

Consequently, the certitude that they would gain a dominant position in initial elections, as well as the need that their human rights be respected has prompted them to view democracy in more pragmatic nuances. Last but not least, another element that resulted in such a favorable Islamist attitude towards democracy was the fact that contemporary Islam has the capacity to incorporate a broad range of nontraditional political ideas. To quote Feldman, “political Islam is forward-looking and eminently modern in its insistence on science, propaganda, technology and engagement with the world. ” This is how, in recent years, various proposals for a form of Islam upholding democratic values such as consultation, consent of the governed, and political pluralism have materialized. Another author astutely noted that “within the context of Islamic faith, culture, history and contemporary experience, there are clear lines of guidance which suggest a unique and distinct political framework that can rightly be described as truly participatory, both in substance and spirit and capable of establishing a political order committed to the twin goals of ‘adl (justice) and shura (consultation), the real substance of operational democracy. ”

In spite of this pragmatic embracement of democracy by moderate Islamist, caution is still recommendable due to the low record of Islamists who are or were in power- in Iran, Sudan and ex-Taliban Afghanistan. Nevertheless, these are instances in which the very means by which Islamists came to power were not democratic in the least, therefore diminishing the likelihood that they would open up the system towards greater democracy. Subsequently, these cases lose relevance when assessing what shape an Islamist rule generated by a democratic electoral process would take.
The real test, then, is whether they are ready to win and then face the prospect of loss in future elections. Scholars argue that this has less to do with the nature of Islam and more to do with the political culture of the respective country. As Fuller was pointing out, “where democratic concepts or practice have some historical roots or track record, chances are good that Islamists –indeed any political party-will honor constitutional precepts and accept defeat as well as victory. ” A positive example of such a situation is the case of Turkey, whereas the case of Algeria indicates an opposite probability.

What is more, an encouraging development is that those Islamist parties that are allowed to legally participate in political competition actually start playing politics. In other words, they manifest the will to form coalitions with other parties regardless the ideological divide, in order to achieve common short-term goals.