President Bush called the elections in Iran flawed and lacking democratic fundamentals. By all accounts the elections in Iran were free, although the process I would agree is flawed on many levels. By comparison to the Afghanistan and Iraq elections, Iran’s elections were democratic.
So what are these fundamentals that must exist for democracy, and does Islam have what it takes. I think this is an important question because we have so much riding on Iraq and Afghanistan democracy. I also think the fundamentals question is important because democracy is more than just having elections, as Bush has pointed out in the Iranian elections.
Is freedom of religion a fundamental that must exist? I hope not because these are effectively one-religion countries, with the odd minority here and there (christians, jews)
Is equal rights a fundamental that must exist? I hope not because the Koran (at least the interpretation of the Koran) gives few rights to women. Also, there are huge differences between the different sects in Islam so that even within the religion there are minorities.
Is the separation of State and religion that must exist? Religion is completely tied to entire political process starting at the mosque level, all the way to the qualification of candidates. Obviously this is not going to happen in the Middle East.
So, in light of the Iranian elections (which seemed pretty good to me considering it took the US 100 years to give black people the right to vote), I wonder if we can ever truly make Iraq a democratic nation and what that democracy would look like?
The way to make democracy work in Iraq is to pay large bribes to whoever supports us and cross your fingers. It’s not much different then what we did in Latin America and Asia. Remember our good friends Diem, Norweiga and Pinochot? Without US $$$ and CIA support they would not have lasted a week.
Although it does not answer your question directly, I think there is some and I do mean some, merit to the idea that Islam as a religious/social movemnt is about 500years “younger” than Christianity. There seem to be some parallels between europe in 1500 and the Middle East in 2000. Obviously the analogy is not exact, but the 1500’s did see some changes toward a more democratic government.
The biggest problem is not Islam. Shoot, you could make arguments that Christianity and democracy cannot coexist and you would have over 1000 years of history to back you up. Show me in the bible where it talks about all men being equal under the law, free to pursue life liberty and happiness.
The problem is that there is no real democratic tradition in the middle east. The foundations of our democracy were laid with the signing of the Magna Carta some hundreds of years ago. It’s not like it happened in the west over night by any stretch of the imagination.
You forget that our nation was for the most part a one religion nation as well.
What do they (Iraq specifically) have? A foreign army forcing a regime change. Probably not ideal circumstances.
Will it work? Maybe. Who can say? I doubt it will look like our kind of democracy and we should be tolerant of this possibility.
Bush is right in that an election does not a democracy make. My philosophy is that for democracy to truly work, the elected leaders need to completely understand and embrace the notion that they are in office to serve the people and nothing more. This is not an easy concept, even here in the west where stories of politicians sucumbing to bribery and graft and lust for power at all levels of governemt are daily occurances.
It also take a commitment of the people to continually hold their elected officials accountable for their actions, not only during an election, but at all times.
I think this depends heavily on your definitions of “democracy” and “Islam.”
The truth is that there is no such thing as an “Islamic Democracy.” In Islam, many of the social laws are derived directly from the Holy Quran. As such, the laws themselves are holy and divinely inspired. Therefore, the people can’t choose to change them, or to abolish them. If you don’t get to choose your laws, you aren’t a democracy. That said, I think an Islamic country could have democratically elected leaders. I think an Islamic country could elect a legislature to pass laws for things not covered by religion, and could probably democratically elect the religious leaders who interpret religious laws. Obviously, Islamic countries can be tolerant towards citizens with other religions and lifestyles. It has happened in the past, and happens now in some of the ME. However, an Islamic state could not, for instance, allow changes in their laws that altered the status of a women’s right to choose abortion, for instance. So, if a large part of the population was Christian, and voted to change the abortion laws, they wouldn’t be able to do that and still be an Islamic state. It would be democratic in some ways, but not in total. But then again, we aren’t democratic in every way either.
The answer to your question is difficult, if it exists at all. I think the closely thing to this accommodation is modern Turkey, which is one of our allies and a fairly open democracy. That said, it still battles occasional uprisings of fundamentalism and theocracy.
That said, I think the answer to your question depends on the quantity of fundamentalism involved. Obviously, a fundamentalist Islamic government would be far from what we would consider a democratic republic. But I would also argue that a fundamentalist Christian government, were one to come to existence, would not be all that different - drawing laws not from popular legislative consensus, but from the Koran/Bible or some other fixed source.
And I think that’s the fundamental hazard. Laws have to be contextualized to their time, and laws that don’t inevitably create more problems than they purportedly solve. Some would argue that this “conservative” viewpoint represents a preservation of values in a changing time, but I would personally argue that it often is a futile attempt to resurrect a halcyon time which in reality never existed. But that’s a personal judgment.
Therefore, the people can’t choose to change them, or to abolish them.
Of course they can. They could simply hold a referendum to decide whether or not to adopt those rules from the Quran as legally binding. There ya go. Democracy.
" a fundamentalist Islamic government would be far from what we would consider a democratic republic. But I would also argue that a fundamentalist Christian government, were one to come to existence, would not be all that different "
Good point. Islam and democracy can co-exist only if the legal system is secular.
“Of course they can. They could simply hold a referendum to decide whether or not to adopt those rules from the Quran as legally binding. There ya go. Democracy”
“Of course they can. They could simply hold a referendum to decide whether or not to adopt those rules from the Quran as legally binding. There ya go. Democracy”
…but no longer Islam.
How’s that, now? They couldn’t actually vote to adopt Sharia?
"Maybe I need to hear what your definition of democracy is. "
It’s when church and state are seperated. That’s the fundamental principle behind the US constitution.
In the first place, it is not “the fundamental” principle behind the Constitution.
In the second place, it’s evident that civics education in Canada is even worse than down here. The definition of democracy is not “when church and state are seperated.” Get thee to a dictionary.
If the question is, can there be a completely secular, Islamist democracy, obviously, the answer is no. But that’s a pretty stupid question for discussion, isn’t it?
Here’s a more interesting question, imo: Can liberal democracy survive capitalism? (Ever read James Burnham’s “The Machiavellians”? If not, don’t bother- you’re living it.) Or even more interesting: Can liberal democracy survive radical secularism?
Yes they could, but the Sharia can’t contradict the Quran. The law is derived from religion, not from the will of the people, and if their will changed, they could change the law and not still be in accordance with the Quran, or they could live in accordance with the Quran and not be able to change the law.