In the wake of the Arab Spring, several questions have arisen regarding the participation of Islamic political groups - often referred to as “Islamists” - in what could be the emerging democracies in the Arab world.
Numerous issues come to mind when considering the inclusion of Islamists in the democratic process, including: how are we defining democracy, are the principles of Islam compatible with democracy, and what are the Islamists’ positions and beliefs about democracy - and can they be trusted.
There is no real distinction between the functions of the state and religion in Islam’s canonical texts; the two entities are intertwined.
The American "wall," as Thomas Jefferson once described it, between church and state isn’t necessarily feasible in a truly Islamic state.
The reason for the perceived incompatibility is that Shari’a, the legal system of Islam, extends itself well beyond the religious realm, infringing on social and economic arenas as well. These are areas that typically fall under the jurisdiction of a civil state in modern democracies.
It should be noted that the religion-state separation is a relatively modern, predominantly American phenomenon. Even in secular democracies such as Britain, the Queen remains both the head of state and the head of the Church of England, although her official functions in each are mostly symbolic and ceremonial.
Contrary to the international surge of hope for democratic outcomes inspired by the Middle East Uprisings, it may be unwise to assume that western-style democracy can take root within a predominately Muslim state, especially in the current political and social climate of the Arab world.
Even if we assume that democracy is possible, the international community should still be resolute in their demand that, for these countries to be considered democracies, they must adhere to certain criteria that grants them such recognition. For instance, these states should have universal suffrage - including women as well as ethnic and religious minorities - and should respect the rights and liberties of minorities, the hallmark of democracy.
There are three major sources from which to draw insight into the potential for democracy in the Muslim world, and among those who espouse Islam as a political ideology: history, opinion polls, and the positions and beliefs of those who espouse Islam as a legitimate political system.
For centuries, Islam was an empiric religion that had alternately included the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, was adopted by the invading Mongols - who ended the Abbasid Caliphate with the sacking of Baghdad in 1258, and lasted all the way until the Ottoman Empire and its final days in the early 20th Century.
The most modern, and most important imposition of Islamic rule on a modern state was the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. The political ideology at work was expounded in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s work “Vilayet i-faqih” which translates as “Guardianship of the Jurist”.
In Twelve Shi’a Islam, the final (12th) Imam did not die, but went into occultation and will return at the end of time to unite and lead the Muslims. In his absence, the functions of his rule are passed to the scholars of Islamic Jurisprudence. Thus, it is a continuation of Islamic rule.
Islam and Democracy in Modern Times
The result of the Iranian revolution was “Constitutional Shari’a” (Mushrutiyya al-Mushru’aya), and the subsequent results have been unpleasant for many Iranians, especially Iranian youth.
Today, what we see disguised as a democracy is the brutal mechanism of a theocratic guild that suppresses the rights to free expression and worship and actively abuses and murders religious minorities and those it deems social deviants – homosexuals and the sexually promiscuous being popular targets.
The real functions of democracy in Iran are illusory, present only in name and hollow declaration. The final approval of virtually every social, political and religious decision is left to a council of religious panjandrums.
Yet another foray into democracy for Islamists took place in 2006, when Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliamentary elections. The violence that ensued between Hamas and Fatah cost hundreds of Gazans their lives, while many more were tortured and maimed, some even being summarily shot in the limbs for failing to express the appropriate platitudes of allegiance to Hamas’ rule.
Hamas professed allegiance to the idea of democracy as recently as a 2010 interview with the Jordanian newspaper al-Sabeel.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated; “Addressing disputes within national ranks must be through dialogue, consensus, and arbitration by people, through democracy (emphasis added) and the ballot box." In the same interview, he defines his movement; “Hamas is not a military group but an all-embracing national liberation movement, with [national] resistance as its main axis…”
Hamas has failed to embrace a two-state solution. Despite declarations of a de-facto acknowledgement of the State of Israel, Hamas left its charter unchanged in their call for the liberation of all of Palestine.
Meshaal himself stated that the current interpretation of two-states is only due to the imbalance of power in the military and political fields, which grossly favors Israel.
In a 2003 poll of Gazans, 56% stated that they supported a two-state solution with Israel. Nonetheless, Hamas has failed to deliver on any serious compromise on behalf of its citizens, refuses to halt rocket fire which has provoked routine and devastating Israeli responses or even hold another set of elections (satisfying even the minimum criterion for democracy).
Throughout the Muslim world, opinion polls have shown favorable views towards democracy. In the 2003 Pew Global Attitudes Project, people were asked whether “democracy is a Western way of doing things that would not work here.” In many countries people disagreed in overwhelming numbers, with 83% in Kuwait, 68% of Jordanians and 53% of Palestinians in disagreement with the above statement.
In the Western world, there are Muslims – both immigrants and native born - who seem to participate peacefully and fully in the democratic process, many while maintaining a relatively high level of devotion to their faith.
It remains to be seen what will come of the Arab Spring; will Egypt transform into a democracy, or was this merely a military coup carried out on the coat tails of popular protest? Can Libya and Syria be transformed?
With any luck, we will see massive participation of devout Muslims in the formation of new societies, and the exercise of self-determination, the inalienable human right so oft quoted by western leaders.
Establishing democracy that is compatible with Islam seems achievable in the future of the Arab world; however, such democracies could remain highly susceptible to corruption, mismanagement and abuse if the essence of the state remains overtly religious, and Shari’a remains the sine qua non of the Islamic state.
In Europe, there was a fierce and protracted battle to rid the civil state of religion. It’s reasonable to believe that a similar battle must take place for genuine democracy to flourish in the Muslim world.