The Islam secular vs. democratic dilemma: Does it exist?

[mitsho]

Arguing over etymology rarely brings up anything useful. After all, it doesn't really matter whether we call X a theocracy or a clericocracy or whatever. It does matter whether we are talking of the same factors, elements etc. .

A 'democratic theocracy' in aelf's terms would probably mean the Iran of today where some democratic processes are in place, but "Religion" plays such a large role in determining everyday life for the citizens (and the clergy determines a lot by interpreting the scripture).

Written out like this, I don't think onejayhawk would disagree, right? The other Interpretation of theocracy however is the more strict one where the law is decided by god. Now aelf would probably also agree that this notion is incompatible with 'democracy'. (It's utopic since it cannot exist, but that is not a Problem for a categorisation after all). When we then go back to 'clericocracy', we can again imagine some combination with democratic procedures (election of the clergy or elections within in the clergy).

Again, stop arguing over semantics and discuss the issues/processes/etc. Sometimes I think we would be much better of talking of A, X and Y in political science instead of Democracy, Monarchy and Republic. Words carry so much meanings that confuse.

 

[aelf]

Precisely. onejayhawk couldn't see past the semantics. Again, this is what I said:

Even if God does head a theocracy, theoretically it doesn't always have to be the same God. What if the people hold an election every 10 years or something to choose which God to follow? Doesn't that blur the lines between theocracy and democracy?

In the real world, even if there is a kind of 'Constitution' comprised of laws promulgated in a holy book passed down from God, someone still needs to interpret them and pass new laws that are necessitated by changing times, and God is not going to be doing it. So a theocracy ends ups being run by someone other God. If, say, clerics run the show in lieu of God, the clergy is not a monolithic body. What if the people vote on which clerics should hold office? This is not impossible.

Besides, the clergy typically do not monopolise all the power and layman groups may hold some executive power (see Iran). There may or may not be elections to determine who are in these layman groups (again, see Iran). This again points to the fact that political systems are seldom cleanly of one type or another, and there is often an admixture of democratic mechanisms and authoritarian features.

What I was saying when he decided to get into this tedious turn of discussion (probably, as I've discovered, because he had nothing else to say) is this:

What I'm not seeing is why there is a practical difference with Christianity. If I recall correctly, much of Sharia is based on hadith, which is not uncontroversial in its supposed pronouncements on how the faithful must behave. And obviously, many Muslims seem to have found ways of being faithful without needing the institution of Sharia. They are bound first by secular laws and not by Sharia.

Thus, essentially, what we're requiring of them is no different from what we require of Christians - that they do not place their laws above secular laws in their view of the social contract in a secular and pluralistic society. You should also recall the similar charge leveled at Catholics for their supposed allegiance to the Church first, which was seen as incompatible with the principle of separation of powers.

You are also wrong on the point that it is basic to democratic rule. It is basic to liberalism. It's possible to have a theocratic democracy.

We must separate the two threads of democracy and secularism. Islam is easily compatible with democracy. Is it compatible with secularism? My point was that it is, because it has been done, and no one except extremists and madmen would say that that is not Islam.

 

[Tahuti]

We must separate the two threads of democracy and secularism. Islam is easily compatible with democracy. Is it compatible with secularism? My point was that it is, because it has been done, and no one except extremists and madmen would say that that is not Islam.

The question is, can Islam be compatible with secularism as well as democracy at the same time? It was pretty much clear from the beginning that Islam is compatible with secularism, disregarding democracy, and vice versa, though it may not necessarily be compatible with both at the same time. In Arab countries, Turkey and Iran, there is very clear pattern to be had in which Islamic movements have broad popular support in free elections, whereas more secular voices in such countries usually if not always hold power using non-democratic means, such as military rule.

 

[mitsho]

The problem is that just because there is (hypothetically) no example doesn't mean that it cannot exist. It's a question without an answer because we can perceive notions how it would work, yet cannot prove it. In my mind, it's too deterministic a question for political science.

Now we could throw around examples (like Tunisia, like Iran in the 50ies, like Indonesia) and counterexamples from Christian countries with similar Problems (i.e. though not entirely comparable Viktor Orban's Hungary). But throwing around anecdotal examples doesn't really answer any question, right? I would much rather (than trying to create Patterns to find one universal solution) discuss the examples in particular and look at where the Problems lie, because Turkey is different from Tunisia and from Iran (and for a true comparison you'd Need first a model, good measurements and hard data, and even then we can go on discussing interpretations...)

 

[aelf]

The question is, can Islam be compatible with secularism as well as democracy at the same time? It was pretty much clear from the beginning that Islam is compatible with secularism, disregarding democracy, and vice versa, though it may not necessarily be compatible with both at the same time. In Arab countries, Turkey and Iran, there is very clear pattern to be had in which Islamic movements have broad popular support in free elections, whereas more secular voices in such countries usually if not always hold power using non-democratic means, such as military rule.

Under military rule, it didn't matter whether Islam is compatible with secularism or not. Secularism was simply imposed.

I think a positive answer to your question can be provided by a society with an Islamic majority that retains a secular democratic political system. And we've all seen examples of that in real life.

 

[r16]

this so called broad support for the Islamist cause -and not the Muslim thing as we are almost all Muslims in Turkey- come from a generally "tired" political center , massive economic problems that lead peole to look for alternatives and actually military approved election fraud . This is not the 1940s or 50s where people didn't exactly believe the negative influences of "Islamists" could be checked by a working goverment .

 

[Tahuti]

Under military rule, it didn't matter whether Islam is compatible with secularism or not. Secularism was simply imposed.

That's a good point. However, then it would mean the question would move towards whether Islam in its current form is compatible with secular democracy?

 

[Flying Pig]

And therefore it becomes a question of theology - namely, 'can a Muslim ever be a secularist?'

 

[Raijan]

There are several major principles of a democracy, and we can use these to how democratic an Islamic government can be.

Equality of political rights:
Which basically means that every citizen of a country has the right to vote and one person's vote is not worth more than the other.

We first have to find out who can be considered a citizen in Islam. According to Muhammad when he drafted the Constitution of Medina, he considered the Muslims as well as people of other faiths (Jews) to be part of one community, in this clause:

(25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.

After Muhammad, the leaders after him like Abu bakr and Umar made deals with non-Muslims to guarantee the protection of their life, property and religion in exchange for the Jizya, but other than the Jizya, the non-Muslims were mostly self-autonomous in their communities, and used their own laws.

It was a weird kind of arrangement, but it begs the question, "Does granting self-autonomy necessarily imply political equality?" Well, not really. But in the end, the non-Muslims were responsible for their own affairs for the most part, so there was no need for political equality.

Majority Rule:
Decisions are made according to what is favourable for most people.

Majority rule is restricted in Islam only by Islamic law. For example, if the majority wanted to make theft legal, it cannot do so because that goes against Islamic law. Though in some cases that can be bent, depending on the case.

For most other government decisions, I believe it is left to the people to decide. In theory, the leaders of an Islamic government have to make decisions that the majority of people agree upon. In practice, this was usually done by a Shura council of people form different tribes or areas that represented their people. Nothing in Islam prevents a Shura council that is elected by people, as far as I know.

Political participation:
People have to somehow be able to have a say in government. In Islamic government, this is done through a Shura council, which is supposed to represent the will of the people. From what I know, nothing in Islam prevents people from participating in government.


Political freedom:
Essentially, the right to criticize government, freedom to associate with whoever, and to voice opinion without intimidation.

Basically, the best way to summarize this is:

-People do have the ability to criticize government in Islam, especially if it is being "unjust" (However you define that), inefficient or corrupt. Muhammad apparently said that the best of jihad is a word of truth directed at a tyrant. There are some people that claim that criticizing an Islamic government is criticizing Islam, which equates to apostasy, but that is part of the extreme end.

-Freedom of association is guaranteed in Islam as long as the association in question is not seeking to harm society or other Muslims, and as long as it does not seek to cause rebellion, instability and uprising.


So there's Islam's compatibility with democracy.

We have to consider that one important goal of an Islamic government is to fulfill the priorities expressed in the Qur'an as well as to make it easier for Muslims to perform their obligations. Also, an Islamic government would grant citizenship to someone just for being a Muslim, since that might be the most important criteria. For that reason, I really doubt that an Islamic government can ever be truly secular, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a lack of a freedom of religion.