Their relationship is all in how it’s defined

by ASMA UDDIN

Islam’s relation to democracy has been a hot topic for a long time, but especially so after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ever since the events of that fateful day, Muslim and non-Muslim thinkers have been evaluating the ways in which Islam can work with democracy. This question often assumes that “democracy” is synonymous with or representative of Western civilizations and that the analysis of Islam’s compatibility with democracy is usually a counter to those who claim that there will soon be a “clash of civilizations” between the Islamic and Western world.

Those who insist on compatibility rather than conflict between Islam and the West (where “the West” is signified by “democracy”) usually do so by noting democratic practices in traditional Islam. This line of argument points out, for example, that the bay‘a, or pledge, given to rulers in the Islamic state functioned like a vote. Also noted is the Qur’anic requirement of shura, or mutual consultation, which demands that the ruler consult the people, usually through their religious leaders before making official decisions.

A different approach to reconciling Islam and democracy problematizes the idea of Islam as inherently democratic. By noting conflicts between democracy and Islam as it has been practiced, writers taking this approach do not seek to contradict the idea of Islam as compatible with democracy. Rather, they question traditional conceptions of “Islam” and insist on reinterpretation (ijtihad) as a means of revealing and resurrecting democratic elements in Islamic principles. According to these writers, uniting Islam and democracy requires creative work.

A third approach is presented by the late Iliya Harik in Democracy and the Paradoxes of Cultural Democracy. The difference in approach is fundamental – Harik does not equate democracy with Western civilization. Nor does he assume that Islam, or the Islamic world, must find a way to achieve what the West has already achieved.

Instead, he discusses the contextualization of democracy, arguing that democracy does not belong only to the West. He also shows how democracy, in its multiple forms, has always been a part of many civilizations, Western and non-Western.

Harik notes three elements often considered prerequisites of liberal democracy:

(1) The separation of state and religious establishment,
(2) Autonomy of the individual, and
(3) The prevalence of egalitarian attitudes.

He then goes on to dissect each to show that none is unique to Western democracies. For example, on separation of church and state, Harik starts by noting two different forms in which this occurs: the Franco-American accommodation of religion and the Anglo-Nordic integration of church and state. The latter is evident in the British break with the Catholic Church, which resulted in a “state-dominated Church rather than separation of the two institutions.” A similar structure was in place in the Ottoman Empire, where the Sultan controlled the religious establishment. In both of these cases, religion served the needs of the state.

Harik also argues that in order for a democratic state to remain authentically democratic, democracy must sometimes accommodate principles that contradict the prerequisites outlined above. For example, the focus on individualism should not result in “discrimination against communities.” According to Harik, democratic communalism may be in tension with liberal individualism, but it is not incompatible with democracy.

These arguments fit into Harik’s larger theme of contextualization. “Democratic values have the effect of being mutually constraining,” and the extent to which values will be complementary or in competition depends on the weights assigned to the various elements within a particular context. Social democracies, for example, will assign different weights than will liberal democracies. Context is relevant in other ways as well. For instance, although the U.S. is “institutionally secular,” religious attitudes are prevalent among its citizens. In countries such as Denmark and Norway, secularism is more social than institutional. The different ways in which secularism is manifested in these countries complicates the determination of which country is more secular.

Just as secularism cannot be compared without reference to context, so too is comparison between Islamic and Western countries a contextual matter: