‘Islam is the main obstacle to democratization in the Muslim Middle East’.

Discuss

For the past century, much has been said and written on modern Islam and its relation to politics – a

debate that has intensified since radical Islam reared its ugly head in 9/11 and announced itself onto

the world stage. So far as democracy is concerned, some observers assert that Islam and democracy

are incompatible.1 Those who advocate this line of thought often point towards the Middle East, and

the evident lack of democratic values that exist in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

Samuel Huntington for example, writes that “...among Islamic countries, particularly those in the

Middle East, the prospects for democratic development seem low.” 2 It is enticing to conclude, as

many have, that the one variable that is common amongst the Middle Eastern countries, namely the

presence of Islam, can help explain why they have failed to democratize. However, not only is this

gross oversimplification, it also ignores other factors which help explain this phenomenon – culture,

history, modernisation, the lack of civil society and external pressures on the region. As such,

clarifying the lack of democracy in the Middle East as a consequence of Islam is essentially a flawed

thesis.

The hypothesis that Islam is undemocratic by nature is presented in several forms and arguments.

Despotism, it is argued, is right at the core of Islamic beliefs and history. Even the name ‘Islam’

comes from the Arabic word for ‘submission’, which is inherently problematic to democracy. Mark

Tessler, in outlining the arguments for Islam’s incompatibility with democracy, writes:

“Whereas democracy requires openness, competition, pluralism and tolerance of diversity, Islam

[they argue], encourages intellectual conformity and an uncritical acceptance of authority.” 3

1
David Bukay, “Can There Be an Islamic Democracy?” Middle East Quarterly (Spring 2007)
2
Samuel Huntington, “Will More Countries Become Democratic?” Political Science Quarterly 99 (Summer
1984), pg 216
3
Mark Tessler, ‘Islam and Democracy in the Middle East: The Impact of Religious Orientation on Attitudes
Toward Democracy in Four Arab Countries’, Comparative Politics (April 2002), pg 341
The concept of an Islamic democracy is presented by theorists as an oxymoron where the

sovereignty of God and sovereignty of the people are mutually exclusive. 4 As such, several scholars

have asserted that Islam “has to be ultimately embodied in a totalitarian state.” 5

From a historical standpoint too, on face value empires that have claimed to wave the banner of

Islam were certainly authoritarian. From the Umayyads to the Abbasids, the Buyids to the Safavids,

those who claimed to be ruling within an Islamic framework did so in an authoritarian fashion – a

trend that continues in present day Middle Eastern countries. 6 But were any of these empires or

states actually Islamic per se? To draw any conclusions about Islam’s compatibility with democracy

based on its lineage negates other historical realities and is in large, a futile exercise. There was no

universally recognised form of governance in Islam. Whilst the Abbasids took power in Baghdad for

example, an Umayyad fled to Spain to setup a competing caliphate – both claiming to propagate an

Islamic doctrine of governance. Which can we say was the Islamic one, if any? History also shows us

that there was not, nor is there today, a universal acceptance by Muslims as to how leaders and

governments ought to be chosen and formed. Following the death of the Prophet, the first four

caliphs each came to power through different means: the first was voted in by those in attendance,

the second by nomination, the third by a selected committee of 6 put together by the third caliph

and finally, the fourth installed by riot. 7 Since there is no clear consensus in Islamic thinking as to

where legitimacy derives from, it leaves the debate open to opposing theories.

The classical Orientalists put forward the argument that orthodox Islam promoted political

‘quietism’, which decreed that obedience to a Muslim ruler – regardless of whether they were

4
Tessler, ‘Islam and Democracy in the Middle East: The Impact of Religious Orientation on Attitudes Toward
Democracy in Four Arab Countries’, pg 341
5
Edgar Choueiri, “The Political Discourse of Contemporary Islamist Movements,” in Abdel Salem Sidahmed and
Anoushiravam Ehteshami, eds., Islamic Fundamentalism (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996)
6
Najib Ghadbian, Democratization and the Islamist Challenge In the Arab World (USA: Westview Press, 1997)
7
Barnaby Rogerson, The Heirs of Muhammad Islam’s First Century and the Origins of the Sunni-Shia Split (UK:
Overlook TP, 2008)
unworthy or a despot – was not only a political duty but also a religious one. 8 Al-Ghazali, a leading

Islamic thinker writes: “The tyranny of a sultan for a hundred years causes less damage than one

year’s tyranny exerted by the subjects against each other.” 9 This type of conservative thinking helps

to explain, to an extent, why Islamic states have tended to be autocracies. Add to that the low levels

of literacy in the Middle East today, and you find a culture that is very rarely concerned by ideas and

rights.

However, theories that have tried to show Islam’s compatibility with democracy are not too

uncommon. Ronald Nettler proposes the ideas of Mohamed Talbi as a guidance for the debate.

According to Talbi, whilst democracy never did exist in the Islamic world, many components of

democracy are found in the Quran as basic Islamic and universal values. 10 Another significant work

that emerged in the early 1900s was that of a Shi’ite Islamic thinker Mirza Muhammed Hussein

Na’ini. He argued that in the absence of the infallible Imam11, the Muslim community had a choice of

two modes of governance: tyranny or constitutionalism. Whilst referring to both as usurpation of the

hidden Imam’s authority, constitutionalism was, in his words, “preferable”. 12 However ambiguous,

Nai’ini’s views were innovative and contrasted significantly with centuries-old “quietist” opinion.

During the second half of the twentieth century, two conflicting theories emerged amongst Islamic

scholars with regards to Islam’s relation to politics: Ruhollah Khomeini’s wiliayat al-faqih

(governance of the jurisprudent) and Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr’s wiliayat al ummah (governance of

the people). Khomeini advocated the direct intervention of the religious scholars in all issues that

8
Yahya Sadowski, “The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate” Middle East Report, No.183 (Jul – Aug
1993), pg 16
9
Elie Kedourie, Democracy and Arab Political Culture (Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
1992)
10
Ronald Nettler, “Islam Politics and Democracy: Mohamed Talbi and Islamic Modernism” The Political
Quarterly, Vol.71, Issue 1 (Aug 2000), pg 55

11
Shi'as believe that, for various reasons, God concealed the twelfth and current Shi'a Imam, al-Mahdi, from
humankind.

12
Heinz Halm, The Shi’ites: A Short History (USA: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2007)
concerned the state – for him, leadership of the state was not just an option for scholars, but a

religious responsibility.13 Given this, it is little wonder that Iran’s political structure is only a very

limited form of democracy at best. Khomeini’s simplistic approach to legitimizing rule of an Islamic

state is contrasted by Sadr’s, who provides a much more in depth theory linking Islam and politics

together. In his theory, Al-Sadr demonstrated that khilafa (governance) is a “right given to the whole

of humanity” and explained that it was an obligation from God to the human race to “tend the globe

and administer human affairs”. 14 In essence, the legitimacy of a government in an Islamic state

should come from its people. 15 Up until Al-Sadr’s political theory, many Islamists argued, just as

Khomeini had done, that legitimacy is passed down from God to the religious scholars – but for Sadr,

it is passed down to the people. The presence of these opposing ideas reflects the central

conundrum to our debate: Islam is open to interpretation, so to argue that Islam itself is an obstacle

to democratization in the Middle East is to turn a blind eye to the theories of Mohammed Talbi and

Al-Sadr, who interpret Islam and democracy as essentially two sides of the same coin.

Iraq is a very interesting case study for whether democracy can flourish in the Middle East. Though it

is still very early to be able to make any meaningful assessment, there are certainly signs to suggest

that a state whose constitution is constructed within an Islamic framework can indeed be

democratic. Given that Al-Sadr’s notion of wiliayat al ummah is gaining popularity, it is not

unforeseeable that democracy can indeed flourish in Iraq. Given this, it is hardly surprising that

many neighbouring states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have been accused of funding terror

activities in the country –a democratic Arab and Islamic state would serve to undermine their

stranglehold on power and limit their claims to legitimacy.

If Islam is compatible with democracy, then how can we account for its clear absence in the Middle

East? The oil trade has had political and economic implications on the region and allowed them to
13
Hamid Algar, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declaration of Imam Khomeini (USA: Mizan Press, 1981)
14
Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr, Al-Islam Yaqud al-hayat (Qom: Qom Press, 1979), pg 132
15
Al-Sadr, Al-Islam Yaqud al-hayat
develop in a manner that neither Marx nor Weber fully explained through the relationship between

class and production. Okruhlik refers to the idea of ‘rentierism’, and argues that it creates an

artificial link between state and society in the Middle East, allowing the state to hover above

society.16 Since much of the economic revenue is derived through the oil trade, there is no need for

the state to impose itself on citizens with heavy taxation. In fact many Middle Eastern countries are

typified by low taxation. The oil trade has several implications: firstly, as Michael Ross argues,

rentierism has restricted the development of certain sectors of the economy which would in turn

create industrial and middle class actors which are essential to establishing a democratically-inspired

society.17 Yahya Sadowski points to the weakness or even non-existence of a civil society in the

Middle East as the single most hindering factor to democratization. 18 Secondly, as Ehteshami points

out, the social effects of rentierism is to have created a society that is provided for through means

other than their own production and taxation – in turn limiting democratic socialisation and

retrenching the existing social structure. 19 Thirdly, the system creates a sort of ‘silent contract’

between the state and citizen: political inactivity is in a sense rewarded by low taxation. Finally, the

revenue is also used by authoritarian states to strengthen their dictatorial machine – a process

which has been aided by modernisation. As Bernard Lewis writes, “...the power of the state to

dominate and terrorize people has been vastly increased by modern methods.” 20 Clearly, the oil trade

is a major factor in explaining why states in the Middle East have managed to remain so

undemocratic.

In fact, many of the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are anything but Islamic, and have a

record of crushing any Islamist movements that threaten their grip on power. Iraq under Saddam

Hussein provides a prime example of this. Following the Baath Party’s successful coup in 1968, they

16
Gwenn Okruhlik, “Rentier Wealth, Unruly Law, and the Rise of Opposition: The Political Economy of Oil
States” Comparative Politics, Vol.31 Issue 3 (April 1999)
17
Michael Ross, “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?” World Politics (2001)
18
Sadowski, “The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate”
19
Anushirivan Ehteshami, “Reform From Above: The Politics of Participation in the Oil Monarchies”
International Affairs, Vol.79 Issue.1 (Jan 2003)
20
Bernard Lewis, “Islam and Liberal Democracy” Atlantic Monthly, Vol271 Issue.2 (Feb 1993), pg 88
quickly declared their opposition to religious practices, stating that their aims as "the complete

elimination of Islamic movements as they constitute the biggest hindrance to the goals of the

(Baath) party."21 It is unsurprising then that Mohammed Baqir Al-Sadr, a religious scholar and the

architect behind the notion of wiliayat al ummah (governance of the people) was executed in 1980 ,

as religious figures were regarded as a threat to Saddam’s stranglehold on power in Iraq. 22 To point

to the Middle East as an example of how democracy is hindered by Islam is to turn a blind eye to the

reality that many of the regimes are, on closer inspection, anything but Islamic in practice.

In addition, Islamists, even extreme factions, have embraced certain aspects of democracy – Hamas

in Palestine for example, have come to realise that the idea of voting suits them very well since they

have significant support amongst the populous. Though holding free and fair elections alone is by no

means a sign of democracy, it is at the very least a step in the right direction. The problem here is

external influences on the region – many in the international community for example refuse to

accept Hamas’ legitimacy. In the 1990s in Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round of

the country’s first democratic multi-party elections – but were denied power when the military

cancelled the second round of elections, ultimately leading to the Algerian civil war. Though the

movement was arguably quite radical, the example reflects a conflict between western eagerness to

instil democratic ideals and the fear of an Islamist government coming to power through democratic

means. The geo-political elements are crucial in explaining why democracy is non-existent in the

Middle East. During the Cold War, the US sought the support of many Arab dictators, and in return

gave them the security with which to remain in power and rule in an authoritarian fashion. Even

today, Egypt is known to receive funding from the US – most of which goes towards it’s repressive

mechanism. The silence of the international community with regards to Saudi Arabia’s human rights

record can be regarded as a tacit sign of support. Thus, the role of the international community, and

21
Kanan Makiya, The Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq (USA: University of California Press, 1998)
22
Makiya, The Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq
in particular the US, is crucial to understanding how these regimes have managed to remain in

power for so long.

The argument that Islam is the main obstacle to democratization in the Middle East is fundamentally

flawed. There can be no denying that the Middle East is far from democratic, and in large, there is

little to suggest this trend will change anytime soon, but there is no coherent argument which links

this phenomenon to Islam. Theories such as wiliayat al-ummah reflect an Islamic ideology that is not

only compatible with democracy, but one which effectively advocates it as a necessity in an Islamic

state. To an extent, the interpretations of Muslims duties within the state, as advocated by the

‘quietist’ approach has created a culture of apathy in the Middle East – fed upon by rentierism and

controlled through oppressive dictatorial machines. The role of the US and international community

should not be downplayed either- many of the dictatorial regimes have often strengthened their grip

on power through funding and alliances with western powers. Yahya Sadowski aptly sums it up when

he writes that scholars should “abandon the quest for the mysterious ‘essences’ that prevent

democratization in the Middle East and turn to the matter-of-face itemization of the forces that

promote or retard this process.” 23

Ahmed-

Once again you’ve done a very good job in this essay. You effectively deconstructed the premise of

the prompt statement, and made convincing arguments that there are a number of much more

plausible variables explaining the lack of democracy in the Middle East.

To be honest, I get a little fed up with this prompt statement. It is so easily discounted by pointing to

those variables that you did, as well as to a number of cases like Turkey or Lebanon (which I’m

surprised you omitted). Yet it is often still debated in many circles.

23
Sadowski, “The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate”, pg 20
Despite this ‘easy’ prompt, you made a very articulate and convincing rebuke. You structure your

essays well. You don’t let your writing get bogged down in precocious jargon; it is simple and

effective. Keep this kind of work up for the final essay and you’ll do very well.

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Sadr, Mohammed Baqir Al-Islam Yaqud al-hayat (Qom: Qom Press, 1979)

Algar, Hamid Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declaration of Imam Khomeini (USA: Mizan Press,
1981)

Bukay, David “Can There Be an Islamic Democracy?” Middle East Quarterly (Spring 2007)

Choueiri, Edgar “The Political Discourse of Contemporary Islamist Movements,” in Abdel Salem
Sidahmed and Anoushiravam Ehteshami, eds., Islamic Fundamentalism (Boulder: Westview Press,
1996)

Ehteshami, Anushirivan “Reform From Above: The Politics of Participation in the Oil Monarchies”
International Affairs, Vol.79 Issue.1 (Jan 2003)

Ghadbian, Najib Democratization and the Islamist Challenge In the Arab World (USA: Westview
Press, 1997)

Halm, Heinz The Shi’ites: A Short History (USA: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2007)

Huntington, Samuel “Will More Countries Become Democratic?” Political Science Quarterly 99
(Summer 1984)

Kedourie Elie, Democracy and Arab Political Culture (Washington: Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, 1992)
Lewis, Bernard “Islam and Liberal Democracy” Atlantic Monthly, Vol271 Issue.2 (Feb 1993)

Makiya, Kanan The Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq (USA: University of California Press,
1998)

Nettler, Ronald “Islam Politics and Democracy: Mohamed Talbi and Islamic Modernism” The Political
Quarterly, Vol.71, Issue 1 (Aug 2000)

Okruhlik, Gwenn “Rentier Wealth, Unruly Law, and the Rise of Opposition: The Political Economy of
Oil States” Comparative Politics, Vol.31 Issue 3 (April 1999)

Rogerson, Barnaby The Heirs of Muhammad Islam’s First Century and the Origins of the Sunni-Shia
Split (UK: Overlook TP, 2008)

Ross, Michael “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?” World Politics (2001)

Sadowski, Yahya “The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate” Middle East Report, No.183 (Jul
– Aug 1993)

Tessler, Mark ‘Islam and Democracy in the Middle East: The Impact of Religious Orientation on
Attitudes Toward Democracy in Four Arab Countries’, Comparative Politics (April 2002)