Democracy and Islam: Sources of Compatibility and Incompatibility
The debate surrounding the marriage of Islamic principles with the ideals of liberal democracy has been a longstanding one. To identify whether the two are compatible or not, we must first look at the core of liberal democracy. Democracy is the process which forms the political portion of the development of society. A liberal democracy makes the distinction between the private and public realm and tends to be fundamentally at odds with religious lifestyles practiced in the traditional manner. Political liberalism does not deal with the end goals of religion which are constituted upon the pursuit of virtue and collective morality. This creates friction between liberal democracy and the collectivist religious tradition. Liberal democracies have many factors which are progressive and appeal to modern society. They promote tolerance, protection for minorities and individuals, and are open to all types of religious citizens .
Thinkers such as John Esposito and Alfred Stepan concern themselves with empirical theories of democratic governance which take a look at what is necessary for a democracy to function. Alfred Stepan concludes that there need not be a separation between religion and government and that this separation has never wholly come to fruition in the world. Stepan furthers his ideas by arguing that most of the major world religions are multivocal and comprised of some ideas which promote democracy and others which deter democracy. In terms of Islam, tolerance of pluralism and diversity existed but dwindled during an era of heightened ethnic, social, and religious tensions. Periods in Islamic history which embodied the Islamic principles aligned with pluralism include life under the rule of the Abbasid caliphate along with the time period surrounding Prophet Muhammad. Four Islamic concepts and principles that imply compatibility with Islam include the dhimmi system, shura or consultation, the elective principle, and the Qur’anic injunction which states there is no compulsion in religion.
The dhimmi system refers to the system of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule and points to pluralism in law and practice. Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, a religious scholar and professor at Georgetown University, argues that a key feature of Islam which should be put to the forefront is the necessity for democratic pluralism. He believes that Islamic rulers must ensure the rights of all religions and cultures in an Islamic society. This pluralistic practice of protection for any and all religions under an Islamic rule points to the compatibility between Islam and the liberal democratic ideal of a government promoting tolerance and protection for all of its religious citizens. Another Islamic principle that is united with the ideals of democracy is the concept of shura. Shura is a method of decision making by participation in Islamic societies. Fathi Osman, an Egyptian scholar who also called for broad-mindedness when looking at Islam, points to Shura as highly beneficial to modern democracy. He believes that because people in authority are referred to in plural in the Quran, it suggests that individuals do not have power in Islam but rather the power is in organizational bodies. In modern times this would translate into elements of the election process and interactions with the community to obtain opinions on policy issues.
Murad Hoffman, a German diplomat and convert to Islam, agrees with the concept of Shura and believes that only through representative bodies is mass shura possible. The elective principle prevalent in the Sunni doctrine of Islam is discussed further by Hoffman. He believes the goals of democracy to prevent an abuse of power and retain a power balance align with Islam. Hoffman believes that the most righteous among citizens should be selected through elections and become the head of state. He claims that the election of rulers is embedded into Islam and demonstrated by the election of successors following the Prophet’s demise. This supports the democratic ideal of elections and the system of choice in voting for a candidate.
Finally, another example draws directly from verse 256 of Surah Baqara. This verse reveals the Qur’anic order that there is no compulsion in religion. This verse claims that religion should not be forcibly imposed upon others. Mohamad Al-Awa, an Islamist thinker believes that the Qur’an does not condemn political parties, and that people should be free in their thought. He believes it is unislamic to indoctrinate blind obedience. He promotes the notion that Muslim children should be raised to be independent and capable of acting out their free will. He criticized the brotherhood for not promoting critical thinking and believes that free will and rationality are an essential component to Islam and government organization. This aligns with the individual rights and rationality promoted by liberal democracy.
Still, refutations can be made regarding the compatibility of democracy and Islam. Regarding the ideal for a model of plurality found in the dhimmi system, the concept of seyadat-al Islam, or Islam’s sovereignty over any non islamic social or political framework as inferior, lurks in the background. The social forces unleashed by the religious passions this concept provokes can be difficult to quell and make enacting plurality under an Islamic society hard to actualize. This also poses a problem for shura or consultation found in Islam. Bernard Lewis, claims that consultation only occurs in Islamic societies within an elite inner circle and would not take all viewpoints of the citizenry into account. The elective principle from an Islamic standpoint is also challenged as incompatible with liberal democracy because the values of Islam are inherently contradictory with the values of liberal democracy. The value of ethics in Islam is not founded upon interest and utility, but rather upon absolute value and duty. In terms of the Qur’anic injunction that there is no compulsion in religion, the authoritarian nature of many Muslim regimes does not allow for freedom and consent as opposed to compulsion. Islamists believe liberal democratic governance should never exist, and that secular legal norms should be disregarded. This poses a barrier both for the existence fo liberal democracy and also for those pro-democracy Muslims who do not believe in the incompatibility of democracy and Islam.
In conclusion, this intellectual excersice highlights just how nuanced the issue of Islam’s compatibility with democracy truly is, and how it can not be understood from a reduction to one-sidedness. Islamic principles and democratic principles have much overlap, but an implementation of full liberal democracy alongside Islam can prove to have many roadblocks. I can conclude that a liberal Islamic democracy can be implemented contingent upon a deeper grasp of Islamic principles from a lense unfogged by stereotypes surrounding Islam and supplemented by holistic study of the religious principles and rationale.