Islam and Democracy: What is the West to do?
With the news that the governing AKP (Justice and Development Party) has escaped a ban from the secular-leaning courts in Turkey, it seems an appropriate time to look at the state of democracy in Muslim states in the Middle East.
The Middle East, particularly in 2008, is not an area that lends itself to simplistic analysis or short answers. Indeed, to engage in such mistakes would be little better than stumbling in the dark. However, if one can navigate through the slow developments in Baghdad, around Iran’s nuclear reactors, Israel’s wall or the blinding diamond of Dubai, it’s possible to see a change in this most puzzling of regions, in the form of slow but sure democratic reform. What the Western world must decide during this long process is who to support, what to risk, and how to truly realise the very real dream of a democratic Middle East.
You only have to take to the web to realise that the Middle East, especially its younger generation (and it’s getting younger every day) is crying out for change. There is far more to dissent in Middle Eastern states than bread riots in Cairo or Hamas marches in Gaza. The result has not simply manifested itself in liberal democratic movements, the kind the West would embrace with open wallets and diplomatic assurances. The primary opposition in countries such as Palestine, Jordan and Egypt against the secular, autocratic governments has manifested itself in Islamist political groupings. As the Catholic Church became a rallying point for opposition movements in the Eastern Bloc, so Islam becomes a focus for those resisting Arab dictatorships. Whether the West can tolerate working with such groups remains to be seen. In Turkey, they already have been and indeed the AKP are far more pro-EU and economically liberalising than their secular counterparts, who for the first time in a Middle Eastern state (with the obvious exception of Iran) find themselves in clear opposition.
For all of the Bush administration’s rhetoric regarding democratic reform in the Middle East, little has changed in the past decade unless you are an Iraqi citizen. There has been a general trend of ‘deliberalisation’ within the region, regimes reacting to the fruits of democracy in the form of strong public support for Islamist political groupings rather than secular parties by backtracking on reform. Unfortunately, the West has done little to stem to such trends.
Speaking frankly, the status quo is considerably more comfortable for the Western world. Rather than have to deal with the messy confusion of democratisation, gentle support can be offered to existing governments thereby maintaining the oil supply and a façade of regional harmony. The US and the EU may call for democratic reforms, but when standing at a press conference with King Hussein of Jordan or the Saudi Royal Family, will offer little but token nudges towards such change. President Bush’s weak references to Egypt’s civil society in a joint press conference with President Mubarak last January are a typical example. Those in power have realised such perceptions, and have added the fear of Islamist terrorism as a further factor. As Anwar Ibrahim, former Prime Minister and now opposition leader in Malaysia and foremost writer on the relationship between Islam and democracy has stated, Middle Eastern dictators will be ‘telling their Western interlocutors, in effect, “It is either us or Bin Laden”’. The longer the West is taken in by such scare-mongering, the harder it will be for real democratic movements to succeed in such nations.
If the Western world is to break with such a discredited policy, which continues to allow autocratic governments to clamp down on civic society simply by shouting ‘terrorism’ in a crowded press conference, it must realise that democracies in the Middle East may not look like the liberal, politically-correct environments of toleration and secularism that we are used to imagining exist. Indeed, the only reason democratic systems have been so successful, why so many nations aspire to join the ranks of democracies and why the very concept is held as a near-universal truth is its flexible nature. If, rather than supporting dictatorial governments, the West offered support to those Islamist groups, demanded that the often-stated but necessary component of democracies, ‘free and fair elections’ actually took place, then a democratic system would develop. It may not look perfect, but at least the citizens of the Middle East would finally have a say in their future.
However, the naysayers will point out one serious problem with such a policy. It is often considered a given that the Muslim populations of the Middle East are more radical, more anti-American and more religious than their governments. If they were given a vote, they might end up picking the ‘wrong’ people: a Muqtada Al-Sadr rather than a Mahmoud Abbas. However, we should have more faith in the same democratic systems we hold dear within our own borders and which have developed in all corners of the world in the past sixty years. Through elections, campaigning and negotiating, Islamist political groups will moderate their stances on a whole range of issues, positions which would previously have been unacceptable to their Western counterparts. Vali Nasr, of Tufts University, Boston, explains such a process: ‘It does not matter what ideology Hezbollah spews. At the end of the day, when they go to the polls, they need to win those elections. And when you sit in a parliament and have to make deals with people – that has an impact on you.’ A democratic Middle East with moderate governments: surely this is what we have wanted all along?
