Democracy in the Middle East

Two Opportunities for Democracy (Rule of Law and Shura)

Since elections are not enough to instill democracy in a society, the model of democratization used for postwar Japan is not applicable to the Middle East, and successful democratization requires efforts of persuasion, democratic themes within Middle Eastern culture need to be identified and encouraged.  Islam, with its ubiquitous presence in the region and its prevalence in virtually all aspects of Middle Eastern society, is the only place to start.  In Islam, democratic themes are clearly in existence.  A majority of Muslims must be convinced that democracy is the best way to achieve the peaceful ends of Islam as well as the security interests of the region.  Muslims’ desire for the rule of law and the Islamic principle shura (deliberation) are two pillars upon which democracy can be supported.

The rule of law—one of the principle conditions for democracy—is widely recognized by Muslims as necessary for a pious and functioning society.  The 2004 Arab Human Development Report was the latest and most prominent statement by those in the region that the rule of law is of central importance to social change.[vi]  This should come as no surprise, as the Islamic and Ottoman socio-legal traditions that contribute to contemporary Arab law predate Anglo-American common law by several centuries.  These social and legal traditions are more strongly associated with Islam than Anglo-American law is with Judeo-Christian traditions – thus, the moral implications of adherence to the law are all the more potent.

A democracy with religious foundations for the rule of law is not more problematic than a secular democracy, nor is it undesirable.  A religiously informed conception of government and its role is likely to prove more durable than a secular one, due its citizens’ willingness to subject themselves to it.[vii]  This acquiescence is problematic, however, if not coupled with the moderating influence of the moral foundation of democracy.  Religion, like democracy, has moral as well as mechanistic forms: spiritual principles as well as religious rituals.  Without the spiritual element that grounds the faithful to unchanging principles, the forms and practices of religion are subject to manipulation and an improper submission to the abuse of power.  The result is impious behavior (i.e., the grounds for the Protestant Reformation).  In the same manner, a democracy which lacks the moral foundation will be manipulated and overthrown through the abuse of political machinery.  The result is undemocratic behavior (i.e., Chavez’s Venezuela).  The only guard against this in Middle Eastern societies is a strong moral foundation for democracy and its indisputable link with the moral foundation of Islam through a proper understanding and synergy with Islamic and governmental rule of law.  Democracy can provide this connection.

Islam’s emphasis on the rule of law includes significant attention to social equity and individual rights.  Though these rights are subject to interpretation by Islamic jurists, the general and specific issues that frame the legal discourse are engrained in the religious identity of a large majority of the people in Middle Eastern societies.  It is important to note that Islam’s priority of the rule of law contributed to the fact that Islamic jurisprudence never fully developed a concept of natural law.  This has meant that there is no clear theory in which to ground a completely secular legal order, as natural law helped do over time in the West.[viii]  Lacking the climate for a secular conception of rights, Islamic societies view such rights with respect to their religious foundation, which presents obstacles as well as opportunities for the prospect of democracy.  The major obstacle is the rejection of America’s secular conception of rights.*  The opportunity lies in discovering the source of these democratic rights within Islam.

The problem with Muslims associating all kinds of law and political rights with sharia is the rejection of those ideas that conflict with it.  This stands in contradiction of how Westerners have conceived of rights—whether legal or natural.  In 1981, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations articulated the position of his county regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, saying the document was a “secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition,” which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[ix]  The rejection of secular Judeo-Christian values for the pure dispensation of Islamic law may seem like a tremendous hurdle for democracy to overcome.  It may, however, be the point of contact that democracy needs to introduce itself formally to the Muslim people.  The moral imperative for holding leaders accountable to a system of law, especially a religious system to which the vast majority of inhabitants piously follow, ought to be the primary “selling point” for democracy in the region.  In this manner, the promotion of democracy should be guided by the perspective that democracy can help Muslims achieve Muslim ends as well as those which the United States and the Middle East both view as universal.