Wittes discussed three different types of Islamic groups: tikfiris, militant and nationalist Islamist groups, and those groups that appear to reject violence as a means to achieve their goals. The first group uses violence to accomplish their goals, justifying the violence by means of religion. However, since religion is used as a justification it is extremely unlikely that the violence would stop, even if a group like al-Qaeda was able to seize control; there would always be those citizens who are not religious enough or not observant enough of religious law and customs, who need to be 'taken care of' so to speak. The second group attempts to reinforce democratic processes by means of violence. However, democratic means cannot exist if the government, or group, employing them uses force or the threat of violence to reinforce the democratic policies. The third group appears to be more peaceful and conducive to democratization such as Jordan, but the state is still greatly influenced by Islamic law and tradition.
Wittes postulates that democracy cannot really exist in an Islamist state until there is "a more open political market" and more pluralism. I agree that in order for democracy to exist there needs to be an arena for open discussion between the government and the citizens about the manner in which the government is operating. In addition, the state needs to allow others to run for office in a fair election, in order to support a diversity of political views. Although I would argue that true democracy cannot exist without the separation of church and state. This, however, appears to be impossible as religion is so thoroughly engrained in Islamist society that is would be difficult to separate the religious from the secular, and most likely any attempts to do so would meet violent opposition.
1 comment:
N.B. This comment is not meant to address each item of the previous one, but is about the same topic.
I generally think it's foolish to assert that any particular religion is incompatible with democracy, capitalism, or any of the other institutions we know and love that are not inherently tied to religion. Every time I hear people sincerely question whether Islamic states can "handle" democracy, I hear echoes of Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.” Time ultimately disproved his notions about Catholics and eventually time will perform the same courtesy for Islam.
In particular, I find it intriguing that Fish goes so far as to propose that there is a “causal” connection between Islam and difficulties in democratization in the article “Islam and Authoritarianism.” He specifies a lack of women’s rights as the element within Islam that directly impedes democracy. However, empirical evidence does not support this notion. For instance, the UAE is far from democratic yet women’s rights are embraced in a country where female literacy (79%) is higher than male literacy (75%). On the other hand, Turkey and Lebanon are democracies even though men have much higher literacy rates in both countries.
While democracy may eventually bring about women’s rights, there is no evidence that the inverse is true. What do women gain if you grant them equal rights in a country where men do not have rights anyway? The ideas of democracy and liberalism exist independent of women’s rights in the Middle East, just as they did in the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries. Instead of picking out an element of Islam on which we can blame a supposedly permanent inability to democratize, Fish should look at the economic and political circumstances that allow countries of various religions to democratize and see how they have applied in the Islamic World in the past and how they can apply to new democracies in the future.
Post a Comment