A recent political wave that scholars have noticed rising among several Muslim majority

countries has been identified as Muslim Democracy. The phenomenon of Muslim Democracy not only
suggests a split from various strands of Islamism, but also signifies a form of democracy distinct from
liberal Western democracy. A survey of Turkeys experience with Muslim Democracy provides
considerable insight into the characteristics that constitute this rising phenomenon, as well as the
opposition it has encountered.
The term Muslim Democracy initially raises two important questions: how does the political
platform of its proponents vary from those of Islamist parties? And how is this form of democracy
different from other forms of democracy, such as liberal democracy? With the case of Turkey, two main
sociopolitical factors have allowed for the emergence of Muslim voices distinct from the bellow of
Islamists. First, the domineering involvement of the military in the political sphere sought to curtail the
influence and freedom of Islamist parties. As such, political actors were forced to creatively rethink and
reformulate their political blueprints in order to exist within the competitive, yet restrictive, electoral
arena. As a result of this repositioning of political platforms, new voices emerged advocating a more
moderate stance as opposed to the conservative and ideological ones of Islamist parties.
Second, the introduction of capitalism into Turkey during the 1980s resulted in the creation of
an entrepreneurial Muslim bourgeoisie *who+ had a greater stake in politics and became more
engaged (Taspinar, 128). This social class was more concerned with issues involving the private sector,
such as maintaining their economic position by ensuring their country remained a secure participant in
the global market force. As such, these actors entered politics and campaigned for ensuring political
stability *rather+ thanintroducing Islamic law or creating a theocracy (128). With the incorporation of
such actors into the political arena, what evolved was a greater emphasis on pragmatism as opposed to
ideology. Rather than advocate for a concentration of power in an elite social class, Muslim Democratic
voices such as the AKP sought a centrist synthesis that would allow them more access across the
sociopolitical spectrum (Mandaville, 126).
With the constant pressure to attract votes, Muslim Democrats in Turkey enforced a position of
moderation and pragmatism. However, the question of how the role of Islam in a Muslim Democratic
position contrasts to the role of Islam in an Islamist position still remains to be addressed. In order to
appeal to classes in Turkey that had been previously excluded culturally and economically by the
Kemalist elite, Muslim democrats such as the AKP used the language of Islamic values to horizontally
connect solidarity-based groups with rural origins and shared Islamic ethos (Mandaville, 127). The role

of Islam differs here for rather than use the language of shariah and advocate for an administrative and
legislative Islam as societys religion or tradition, Muslim Democrats invoked Islam as a religion of
human nature or an internal state (White, 452) from which informed their moral stances.
The phenomenon of Muslim Democracy is distinguished from liberal Western democracy in that
it challenges the seemingly fixed and separate spheres of church and state that characterize Western
democracies. The very existence of the democratic process in Muslim majority countries such as Turkey
and the fact that Islam plays a role in informing the morals and values of politicians and their political
platforms defies the traditional conception of democracy as only being able to thrive in secular states
where religion is relegated to the private realm. Turkish Muslim Democrat Ali Bulac argues that in order
for Muslim leaders to address the problems that democracy tries to solve, such as class conflict and lack
of public representation, they need not adopt Western models and principles of democracy (i.e, the
Western interpretation of secularism). Rather, the task of the Muslim intellectual is not to rework
Islam so that it takes the form of yet one more modernist construction, but to show how its beliefs and
practices remain a sufficient foundation for community in contemporary life (White, 455). Thus,
Muslim Democracy derives its democratic values from the Islamic tradition while still acknowledging the
personal role religion plays by not imposing it onto society and by instead supporting secular reforms.
Turkeys experience with Muslim Democracy has not been met without opposition. Opposition
has come from both secularists and Muslims. In the secularist camp, the military has been a huge barrier
to the rise of Muslim Democracy in Turkey, yet through defiance and persistence, Turkeys ruling party
AKP has consolidated their power while diminishing that of the militarys. The reason the military has
opposed Muslim Democrats such as the AKP is due to its role in instituting Kemalism and secularism. As
staunch defenders and enforcers of a secularism that abhor any sign of religion in public life, the military
has always been suspicious of any political actor that seems to sympathize with religion. As AKP draws
many of its moral stances from Islam, as well as employing Islamic rhetoric, it has faced severe
opposition from the military. On the other side of the fence, Muslim Democrats, such as Turkeys
Reformists some of whose ideas have been transplanted into the AKP, have also dealt with opposition
from orthodox Muslims and Islamists. This camp has criticized Muslim Democrats for their disregard for
shariah, their openness to secularity, and their liberal interpretations of Islam such as the
arguement that Islam is private and personal.