What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
I’ve lived in the Islamic world twice, once in Palestine and once in Uzbekistan. In total I’ve only lived among Muslims for about 2 and a half years, but I was in my twenties, and in both cases I was spending most of my time interacting with ordinary people in ordinary neighborhoods. I wasn’t locked away in offices filled with expats, and indeed I would often go for days or weeks without seeing a fellow Westerner. So, I think I was in a position to develop some moderately useful anecdotal impressions about the attitudes of ordinary Muslims towards democracy and the West.*
In my opinion, most ordinary Muslims don’t hate Westerners per se. In my months of living and working in Gaza City, I walked the streets freely and never felt that my nationality put me at particular risk. I was occasionally accosted by someone who wanted to give me an earful concerning American policies towards Israel, but that’s about as serious as it got. Uzbeks, in general, have very favorable feelings towards the United States. If someone accosted me on the street in Uzbekistan, it was generally to ask whether I could help them get a visa.
Despite this, my experiences in the Islamic world eventually led me to believe that, on the whole, Muslims do not want democracy. When asked, they normally say that they do. Further discussion reveals, however, that what they really want is peace and prosperity. If you talk to them about civil liberties, you’ll find that most of them are pretty adamantly opposed to free speech and religion. They don’t think proselytizing should be legal, and most are suspicious of legal protections for Muslims who want to convert to another faith. They are scandalized by the suggestion that blasphemy, for example, would qualify as protected speech.
It would probably be possible to have a democracy with less civil liberties than we have here in the United States. Free and fair elections, however, are surely a necessary and defining feature of a democratic state. Do Muslims want them? Again, if asked directly, most would tell me that they did. At the end of the day, though, I found that they were fairly indifferent. The Uzbeks had great admiration for Vladimir Putin, and often expressed the wish that they could have such a strong and capable leader. Their impressions of Russian politics were strongly influenced by their own MSM, which was dominated by Vremia, a (very yellow) Russian television station that invariably portrayed Putin in a positive light. But here was the fascinating part: when I filled them in on some of the discrepancies in the Russian electoral system, they didn’t disbelieve me. They just didn’t particularly care. A few even observed that if Putin could successfully rig elections, that proved him to be clever, capable, and the perfect man for the job.
Is it just an incontrovertible truth of the modern world that justice, peace, and prosperity can only be achieved in a democratic state? Are elections the only effective safeguard against tyranny? That certainly hasn’t been the case historically and it’s hard to see why it should be so now. Why couldn’t the Islamic world hammer out a system of government that was more hierarchical and authoritarian than ours (perhaps a monarchy of some sort), and that restricted civil liberties more than we would allow, but that still ensured the rule of law and consistently protected an Islamified understanding of citizens’ rights?
Undoubtedly, such a society would have many features that we Westerners would lament. Homosexuality would probably be illegal, and women and religious minorities would be treated as inferior citizens. Makers of anti-Islamic videos would be prosecuted. At least, though, such a society might direct its ire against the actual creators of controversial literature, instead of massacring innocents who were utterly unassociated with the offensive media. More generally, I think radical Islam would mostly simmer down if Muslims had functional governments of their own to attend to. Like people everywhere, most ordinary Muslims want peace and stability, and care little about the lives and customs of foreigners who live far away.
Is there any chance of this happening? I don’t know, and obviously the initiative would mainly have to come from within the Islamic world itself. But on our end, I think it’s worth considering whether there are more achievable possibilities for the Islamic world -- possibilities that we could live with, even if they aren’t especially delightful to us.
*I should admit that my anecdotal data is a bit old. I was in Palestine in 2000, and in Uzbekistan from 2002 through 2004.
- Comment (67)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Could you say more, James, about the perspective of Iraqis in that environment?
Mar '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Excellent post, Rachel - I would be interested in hearing even more about your experiences in both countries. Great comments, too.
My defense of moderate Islam notwithstanding, I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything in this post. I have never lived in an Islamic country, but just looking back at history, the notion that some societies cannot handle self-rule does not seem far-fetched.
A more important question is not whether Muslims truly desire to elect their governments as much as whether they truly desire to live in peace with each other and their neighbors. Peace is possible both under strongmen leaders and under democracy, but democracy is not possible during constant conflict.
Edited on September 18, 2012 at 6:36amMar '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Aaron Miller: There's a difference between saying all peoples are capable of freedom and saying all peoples areimmediately capable of freedom.
For some nations, attaining freedom is like abused and neglected children learning love and discipline. Exposure to a better way often isn't enough to provoke change.
Beautifully put.
I don't disagree with the statement that all people yearn for freedom; but the freedoms in our Constitution must be built up to. I don't see why we can't advocate for a "one step at a time" approach to Muslim countries (or China, Russia or Africa for that matter).
Step one should be strong institutions. Without personal safety, property rights, a strong judiciary and stable currency citizens won't be able to build a stable life for themselves worth defending at the ballot box.
James, I would also be interested in hearing about your experiences, especially since you worked at building new Iraqi institutions, no?
Edited on September 18, 2012 at 1:58amMay '10
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
I suspect democracy is most effective in small commmunities comprised of individuals who share basic goals and principles. The larger the group and more mixed its membership, the less feasible representation and genuine debate becomes.
As Rachel said, subsidiarity is the key.
In a large nation, democratic elections should not be straight from the citizen to the national leader. Staggered elections might be preferrable. Everyone should vote for someone he or she is actually capable of knowing, speaking to and sanctioning in some way other than elections.
So, for example, a citizen votes for a town council rep; council reps vote for the mayor; mayors vote for regional leadership; regional leaders vote for governors and state legislators; and so on. The general idea is that citizens should vote for people they can trust... and people they can trust to elect other trustworthy people in turn. A chain of trust.
Apr '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
TheRoyalFamily
James Of England
Democracy can also be a means to good government. Canada, as well as the US, is a democracy.
The US actually is a republic; the writers of the Constitution expressly designed the government to have as little democracy as possible while still being "of the people." A democracy is just a tyranny by the many, opposed to the usual tyranny by the few, or one. Hence, what we see with the "Arab Spring," or a HOA. A republic, especially as designed in the Constitution, slows down and dissipates that tyranny, to the point that hopefully it doesn't exist at all, at least for all those in the process somewhere (ie, the voters) · 2 hours ago
It's not a pure democracy, but it's democratic enough to put it in the genre of democratic countries. The same is true for Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Bangladesh, and other Muslim democracies.
Apr '12
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Bangladesh, yes. Indonesia. Democracy has kinda-sorta worked out in those countries. But overall, it is fairly remarkable how badly the democratization of the Islamic world has gone.
I'm not sure what all the reasons are for this, although I think one issue is the degree to which the Koran actually specifies how a Muslim society should be ordered. Christianity isn't really like that; Judaism is to a greater extent, and I think that would probably be a bigger problem for Israel if they didn't have so many existential threats to keep them occupied.
But another problem for Islam is the fact that its identity from the beginning was so wrapped up in successful conquest. When religious people feel they have lost their way, they often try to recapture the original spirit of their faith in one way or another. They try to recreate the early years. Christians have innumerable such groups, but usually they're fairly harmless because the early history of Christianity mostly involved martyrdom and desert hermits and whatnot. If people want to cloister themselves away somewhere to adopt an ascetic lifestyle, that's no big deal. Early Islam was more... menacing.
May '10
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
The typical American/Western approach to this [with unspoken assumptions made explicit] is something like this: All people everywhere [who are accustomed to thinking according to Western patterns and influenced by Western cultural and moral and ethical values, and who have grown up in an environment in which they had both the privilege and the responsibility of making their own choices and dealing with the consequences there of] desire to live in freedom [as we define it in American/Western society].
Of course, what that really means is "virtually nobody but us".
Sep '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
At least part of the issue is that Islam, as a whole, has never wrestled with the question implied in the phrase "Give to Caesar, what is Caesar, and give to God, what is God's."
Put a different way; as a result of man's rebellion against God, his nature is simply to do what is right in his own eyes. A governmental structure is designed to provide a tolerable social order, provide a rough measure of justice, and protect the interests of the nation and its' citizens (at least since Westphalia, as Ambassador Hill would insist I add).
Government has a legitimate, but limited mandate. In most forms of Islam (and certainly in the forms that get the most attention), there are no such limits. The Koran is the supreme law of the land. It covers every area of life. There is no arguing with it.
The American founding came about, at least in part, because its' leaders lived in a political culture free enough to allow wide ranging discussions on such questions. The very structure of the American government speaks to a desire to set up contrary institutions of power, limiting government at the outset.
Apr '12
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Brian McMenomy: At least part of the issue is that Islam, as a whole, has never wrestled with the question implied in the phrase "Give to Caesar, what is Caesar, and give to God, what is God's."
Government has a legitimate, but limited mandate. In most forms of Islam (and certainly in the forms that get the most attention), there are no such limits. The Koran is the supreme law of the land. It covers every area of life. There is no arguing with it.
Yes. I think this is right. The comprehensiveness and inflexibility of the Koran are both real problems for Islam.
Mar '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Listen to the most recent Hinderaker/Ward Experience. That is precisely on this topic with a fascinating interview with Andrew McCarthy. He says many of the same things you do.
Sep '10
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
I was a resident with a Pakistani Physician when 9/11 happened. Long story short, he said that democracy would never work in Pakistan. Reason: the common man has been told what to do for so many generations that he could never govern himself. He said that it would be like giving your dog equal decision-making rights in your home. He was serious.
May '10
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
I think modernity is key as Faoud Ajami discusses in his recent WashPo oped. And another thing, I think we oversimplify the debate by grouping all muslim countries in N Africa and the Middle East as being of the same mind. Kuwait is vastly different from Egypt, for example. Beyond Islam or perhaps because of it, poor muslim countries have a societal structure more communal, less individual. More important are the rights of the group, than personal liberties. It's not that they are incapable of democracy, but that so many are stuck in the 17th century, but they have 21st century weapons.
Sep '12
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
We all seem to have loaded the word Democracy with a lot of assumptions about civil liberties, separation of powers, due process, and the like, when all that Democracy requires, when strictly defined, can be an otherwise illiberal society where citizens vote for an authoritarian government.
Singapore may be a good model for a socially authoritarian democracy with liberal markets. I can't think of any reason why a Muslim state couldn't operate like Singapore.
Jun '12
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Don't like democracy? No, they are just jealous of the people who have lots of money and live in the big house down the street.
You have money and I don't so naturally I hate you. Thinking that the abundance of wealth is due to the ramifications of a superior form of government is quite a reach. Is this what Achmed the goat-herder is thinking?
It's called jealously. You can view it in the animal world among mammals all the time.
Such a fundamental human attribute cannot be eradicated by a US President speaking in Cairo.
Jun '10
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
There is a universal yearing for freedom, but not a yearning for universal freedom.
Everyone wants to be free. That doesn't mean everyone wants everyone else to be free, too. That requires enlightened self interest, and there are a lot of unenlightened people out there.
But surely no one says "I want your tribe to enslave mine and force us to adopt your ways." Everyone says "my tribe should be free to follow our ways and the ways of our ancestors." At least at that level the yearing for freedom is indeed universal.
Jun '10
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Rachel Lu: .
Why couldn’t the Islamic world hammer out a system of government that was more hierarchical and authoritarian than ours (perhaps a monarchy of some sort), and that restricted civil liberties more than we would allow, but that still ensured the rule of law and consistently protected an Islamified understanding of citizens’ rights?
The House of Saud is a sort of monarchy. In fact aren't most of the Gulf states, Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E. all basically monarchies?
May '10
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
We did not get to our present form of government overnight. It was a two hundred plus year journey, that included a bloody civil war. All of the rights we take for granted emerged during this period. We cannot expect other civilizations to start off with the same rights we enjoy now; it is a process that each country has to experience on their own, and the end result will vary according to unique aspects of the people and place.
Mar '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Several interesting points being raised here, Rachel.
With regard to what your saying about the 'comprehensiveness' of the Quran, I think perhaps this is a more accessable way of saying what I and others have noted on other threads about the character of the revelation in Chrstianity versus other faiths (that is, the distinction between theology and law). You are right to identify this character, even more than the content of the law itself (which also plays a role), as a challenge to modernity (and therefore to liberal democracy as we conceive of it--whether this question is insurmountable is an open one, though you can put me in the 'no' camp).
I do not follow Rousseau in how I conceive of legitimacy--I therefore think that there are a variety of legitimate regimes, and I suspect that whatever form a modern Islamic state more friendly to the West takes, it will not look like the United States--just as many of the regimes of Western Europe or the Far East differ from one another in greater and lesser ways, and from us.
Mar '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Aaron raised a very interesting question back in #24 about the size of a regime and the question of representation. These might be better dealt with on another thread, but in passing we should say:
A useful way of thinking about the representation question might be to turn our attention to the Federalist, wherein Madison defends one conception of modern representation (one suited to a large republic and, in my opinion, to better governance) against the objections of the anti-Federalists (who seemed to think, to make a crude summary, that only a farmer could represent a farmer, and a shipbuilder a shipbuilder, and that therefore representation should be proportioned more by narrower 'class' interest).
I would say there is some virtue in what Aaron describes as far as tiered representation--so did the Founders (the Senate, the electoral college)--but that it goes to far to suggest that I vote for my city councilman and some many many tiers away the President of the country is elected--that insulates national leadership too far from us. A mixed system at the national level and state level would be preferrable.
Apr '11
Re: What If Muslims Just Don't Like Democracy?
Rachel Lu: Bangladesh, yes. Indonesia. Democracy has kinda-sorta worked out in those countries. But overall, it is fairly remarkable how badly the democratization of the Islamic world has gone.
I'm not sure what all the reasons are for this, although I think one issue is the degree to which the Koran actually specifies how a Muslim society should be ordered. Christianity isn't really like that; Judaism is to a greater extent, and I think that would probably be a bigger problem for Israel if they didn't have so many existential threats to keep them occupied.
But another problem for Islam is the fact that its identity from the beginning was so wrapped up in successful conquest......
I'm not sure that Christian societies all do fantastically at this. Look at Christian sub-Saharan Africa and you'll find nothing better than Islamic South Asia.
Iran aside, the Middle East is either new democracies or the monarchies that colonial powers left behind; the survival and stability of the post-colonial governments is to their credit rather than something to be deplored. Christian Latin America has mostly democratized. With luck, the Middle East will do just as well.