5/24/2011

Is Islam and Democracy Compatible in the 21st Century?

No. Due to differences in perception, political Islam and Democracy are

incompatible in the twenty first century. Let’s forget about the terrorism or the extent of

the injustices that have been committed by terrorists whether they are true or not.

However, the stereotypes created to further contradict Islamic politics in relation to the

western politics can be tempered with a more academic and objective view of the

institutional inability of these two not only governments but political cultures to exist side

by side. These are differences in perceptual interpretations indicating two mentalities

that just don’t see things the same.

If we apply this concept to political scenarios that research examines (Fuller,

2008, p. 46), we can see how there is a seemingly inherent quality, which is directly tied

to dissimilar perceptual application that divides these two modes of thinking into

incompatible approaches to governance. The differences between the two political

ideologies breed misunderstanding and mistrust, and the differences have always existed

between the two mentalities. The disparities were of course made worse by terrorism. We

seek to put away the narrow-mindedness created by terrorism and divert our focus to the

conceptual imbalance in the origins of the two political models.

Research reveals that Islam plays a specific social function. It is an essential part

of our cultural ideals and how our cultures have developed. “Islam seems to lie behind a

broad range of international disorders: suicide attacks, car bombings, military

occupations, resistance struggles, riots, fatwas, jihads, guerrilla warfare, threatening

videos, and 9/11 itself. Why are these things taking place? "Islam" seems to offer an

instant and uncomplicated analytical touchstone, enabling us to make sense of today's

-1-
 5/24/2011

convulsive world. Indeed, for some neoconservatives, "Islamofascism" is now our sworn

foe in a looming "World War III (Fuller, 2008, p. 47)." This means that there are certain

dynamics demonstrating a cultural disparity that would certainly carry over to the

political arena, and attempted integration between these two approaches of government

would not be successful.

Research has considered the question of the differences in the world without

Islam. The answer was that things would not have developed the same way, but the

survival of other western forms of thinking influenced by religion and informed by

Christian ideology and western expansion and democratic culture would not have taken

hold in that region of the world. The basic differences between these languages and

policies are representative of a deeper mentality which rules out democratic and Islamic

types of political thought from integrating or co-existing together with democracy. The

difference in mentality that inhibit co-existence is rooted in the supposed difference in

mentalities that research does not believe that harmony with the west would have been

reached if Christianity had taken hold in the Middle Eastern regions that are today

Islamic.

Research characterizes the motives of the west, according to other associated

faith, as having different interests such as expansion where “the patent goal was to

establish colonial outposts as sources of wealth for the metropole and bases for Western

power projection (Fuller, 2008, p. 46),” as opposed to the spread of the faith of

Christianity. This means, the spiritual missionary missions launched in these areas were

merely economic priorities of the western world that was not scripturally tied to a sense

of origin towards the land but which rather sought economic gain to be found from being

-2-
 5/24/2011

expanded into a particular land. At the same time the Islamic connection to the land was

more valued and incorporated into a spiritual adaptation of the social structural ideals and

the inherent mentality of associated groups with the land as the basis for social

organization.

Islamic and democratic cultures have evolved with totally different perceptions as

well as interpretation of the world, as it relates to a necessary or common code, which

would be called government. This caused no small amount of perceived invasiveness on

the part of the Islamic mind, and the Islamic people. “The single most important common

denominator is that in each case we sought to export democracy to an alien culture. Iraq,

though artificially glued together eighty years ago, is part of an Islamic civilization

which, like Vietnam's, goes back many centuries. Neither tradition-based culture has

much in common with the fast-paced, future-oriented, gadget-obsessed, pleasure-loving,

pragmatic American lifestyle (Weidhorn, 2007, p. 90).”

This particular aspect made a transfer or delivery of Democracy to an Islamic

nation doubtful at best and impossible at worst. The fact is that in America there is what

research calls a “coexistence of adverse orientation of cultures due to the fact that

whatever their past hatreds in faraway places, coexist amicably in the name of the greater

religion of the Almighty Dollar (Weidhorn, 2007, p. 90).” The implication is that a

capitalist Democratic state is governed by financial interests, as evidenced by their

traditional motives for expansion into Islamic countries. Islamic countries, on the other

hand are not acting out of economic interests, and are bonded by their affiliation to

specific religious sects. We find that the inherent forms of government in Islamic

-3-
 5/24/2011

societies revolve around the stratification of these groups and thus its cohesion is

governed by tribal and religious affiliations that determine what regulates society.

As Arat puts it, there are theoretical tensions between Islam and Democracy.

They are visible in specific social organization and dynamics of minority group

integration such as with women (Arat, 2005, p. 90), implying that the swaying of public

opinion is based upon appeal to spiritual planes that are not so much dependent on liberty

as upon the traditional scripture-based exclusion of those minorities like women. In

effect, a Democracy that welcomes diversity is contrasted with a society that rules

according to religious majority.

Theoretical tensions demonstrate differences in perceptions that cannot be

clarified or bridged under a uniform body of law and democratic politics, and Islamic

politics cannot peacefully co-exist within the same government structure. The

structural divisions of societies under Islamic political rule are based on religions and

tribal affiliations which bond the individual to the territory and his identity fuses with

his people whose presence is a product of their scriptural connection to the land as

opposed to a desire for economic growth. In this way, all members are determined by

an opposing mentality to capitalistic pursuits that when applied to a governmental

model revealing that Islamic politics exist in a vacuum of a social system that is

inherently unrealistic: “Islamic ideology" often masks a more elemental power

struggle: "political pragmatism is the most important feature of political behavior of

most Muslim political leaders" (Azra, 2006, p. 20). Capitalism is the ultimate

pragmatism, where organization of society is a pragmatic pursuit which is the biggest

challenge if not obstacle to Islamic lawmakers.

-4-
 5/24/2011

The struggle to merge the pragmatism of the political state in the here and now

with the abstract and esoteric guidance of the scriptures in the Islamic culture is often a

source of “fragile coalition” politically speaking (Azra, 2006, p. 21. In any Muslim

countries, the notion of religions on the formation of a balanced representative or any

parliamentary model is lacking at best.

The processes in the Islamic political court are most tied to Biblical law and

government by religious pursuits (Azra, 2006, p. 57). In a Democratic model religion,

and government are totally separated. In effect, Islamic politics is based on

fundamental scripture adaptation, while Democratic societies are based on nationalist

tendencies when not all in the Democracy share the same faith upon which to build

tribal representations that maintain more traditional structures.

Many say that Abraham Lincoln gave the broadest definition of democracy

saying that, “it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” In the

Islamic faith, sovereignty belongs to God and not to the people. God is the Creator and

the Law-giver of the universe, so all authority in human affairs ultimately is vested in

God. The phrase, sovereignty of the people would be considered heretical or

blasphemous. Seeing this we know that if the definition of democracy that Abraham

Lincoln gave is correct the Islamic people are unable to be democratic according to

their faith.

Since Islamic societies are based on religious and scriptural precepts, and the

respect of a tradition which has been removed from western forms of government is

highly contradictive. While we choose not to utilize as the stereotyping and bias that

occurs on a regular basis in our western society as a result of terrorist activities that

-5-
 5/24/2011

have stigmatized Islamism in the eyes of many in the Democratic society, we still must

point out in Islamic society the representation of a mentality whereby Holy War is an

option, be it the most extreme. While Mohamed was a peaceful man, he was a warrior.

The American approach of Democracy is founded not on the ability of our leader not

to lead religious wars “unless for economic purposes such as the Crusades (Azra, 2006,

p. 70),” but to lead equitable and fair voicing of the diverse rationales in a dynamic

model of liberty. The Islamic political model is not rooted in liberty but in faith,

necessarily excluding all other faiths from any participation in government, or equal

role in society. By their very nature, government needs a comprehensive and shared

cultural integration that does not exist between the Islamic and Democratic ideology

and models.

-6-
 5/24/2011

Works Consulted

Aram, Yesim. Rethinking Islam and Liberal Democracy: Islamist Women in Turkish

Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005. Print.

Azra, Azyumardi. Indonesia, Islam, and Democracy: Dynamics in a Global

Context. New York: Equinox Publishing. 2006. Print

Bhutto, Benazir. Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West. New York: Harper

Publishing, 2008. Print.

Cofman-Wittes, Tamara and Haqqanit, Husain and Fradkin, Hillele. “Islamic Parties and

Democracy.” Journal of Democracy. 19.3 (2008): n. pag. Web. 22 Oct. 2008.

Fuller, Graham E. 2008. “A World Without Islam.” Foreign Policy 164 (2008): 46-53.

Print

Hakim, Khalifa. The Prophet and His Message. Lahore, Pakistan: Institute of Islamic

Culture, 1987. Print

-7-