Islam and Democracy: Compatible.
I decided to write about this because I have always asked myself and also because I ask to every person from the Middle East I find on my way or meet anywhere I go, their thoughts about this topic. In the Western hemisphere, many academics, scholars and people in general believe that Islam and democracy are not compatible. There are many arguments that have been used in order to justify this premise, I believe that most of them do not have a solid base, however. I believe we have to be Muslims or at least listen to what they have to say or why not, living with them if we are going to issue a statement about how they manage themselves with their own governments.
Firstly, if we are going to talk about Islam, the worst way to talk about it is when our arguments are underlied or based on stereotypes. Islam and Muslims are NOT like the Taliban or for this matter, any kind of terrorists. The image that has been prevailing of Islam today is precisely this one: that they all are terrorists and Islam is a backwards religion. Unfortunately, since 9/11 this image has been extended to the rest of the world thanks to some sectors (that ironically label themselves 'think tanks') in the United States.
Ignorance has been the worst enemy for Islam and for all countries in the Middle East. In the many things I was taught during my Middle East Studies courses, we were shown the difference of how things are told by academics (mostly Western) and how things actually are. In what respects to my memories, the worst and most ignorant 'professional' and 'documents of support' I have ever read came from the Project for the New American Century and from the Hinduvta faction of India, and well, what to say about far right groups in Europe. The worst basis one can use for talking about an ethnic group, a religion, a country or whatever are prejudices.
The Qu'ran, from the excerpts I've read serve as one of the many proofs of why Islam, totally opposite to what many believe, is a progressive religion in many ways. Since the first believer of Islam was a woman (Aisha), this religion is of the few ones that put men and women on the same level and, that also consider women as valuable beings. Second, it is a religion that encompassed all aspects of cultural and social life. We must remember that while Europe was drowning itself in darkness, the Middle East was creating valuable knowledge in astronomy and other sciences. The third aspect, that can be strongly debated is the part of religious tolerance. Many around the world label Muslisms as intolerant, but actually it is the opposite. Prophet Muhammad's teachings to his disciples were based on tolerance, and the said that 'people of the book' were allowed to live with them. The Qu'ran does not state that Christians, Catholics, etc. are inferior. Christianism and its varieties do consider in many cases that Muslisms are inferior.
There is no point in some saying that religious intolerance is proper of Islam, and also, intolerance towards the western hemisphere or towards some western countries coming from some Muslims is more a matter of history and even politics, than religion. In my experience, those who claim that the West must pay for its atrocities done in the Middle East are right, but their claim is more based on historical rather than religious arguments. Actually, Muslims have something that many western countries do not: historical memory.
In what respects to the ideal type of democracy the same thing happens, most do not accept any alternative version of democracy if it is not the western model and, this is why some academics (in my experience, mostly Europeans) who believe that Islam and democracy are not compatible. In some academic sectors, there is a reluctance towards any kind of source or argument that does not come from a western source, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. In my experience, I have heard that Muslim societies are incompatible with some aspects of western life, it is true, but it is also possible to grow and be democratic without getting rid of traditions (South Korea is an example).
I believe in the possibility that has been shown since the beginning of the Arab Spring, Muslim countries can be democratic and keep the legacies of Islam while doing so. Democracy does not necessarily has to be the western model, and this is a problem, because the interested countries in the Middle East are not able to identify this. There have been several opinions issued by the United States, and by European countries referring to this aspect of concern about the current situation in Egypt and in Syria. The part of geopolitical interests comes afterwards.
There is a difference between being secular and being able to have a goverment who is able to follow traditions and respect them. I believe there is nothing wrong with having a democratic government and being a Muslim at the same time, or respecting religious symbols at the same time. The part of capitalism and democracy is also out of the question, because in places like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, we cannot say that they are extremely democratic, but they are capitalist. One thing does not necessarly bring the other, as some Post-Cold War scholars in the United States have argued (like Fukuyama in his time or Huntington). We all in the West should remember that Islam is also part of these countries' identity and governments are also supposed to protect this kind of legacies.
We should remember that democracy is not a perfect system at all, it has severe faults, because sometimes the will of the majority is not the best. I am a strong believer of democracy as a good thing but ONLY when people are educated enough. It is really hard to have an entire country with a 100% educated population in matters of economy, politics and what is best for the national interest. Let's be honest, most people just care about carrying their daily lives out in the best way possible, or to survive, or just to get to the places their are supposed to go. Everything depends on where you are from.
Europeans, who praise themselves of being the example of integration and some scholars (from the United Kingdom, in my experience) argue that Europe has examples of a good democracy. I am sorry to contradict some of them, but I have never seen a better example of democracy as something that DOES NOT WORK than the European Union. In most European countries, people complain about Germany's toughness with measures for carrying out processes inside the EU framework, others complain of the United Kingdom's individualism and isolationism, others about France and the way they do things, and the rest complaining about Italy, Portugal and blaming Greece and Spain for all of their national debts and disgraces. It is absolutely obvious that you cannot put 28 heads on the same mindset, and to be honest, besides of showing to the world that pleasing everyone is impossible, they are showing us that even in the developed world you can be deeply divided but for other reasons besides the economic one. In my view, it is out of the reach of my intellectual common sense comparing Germans with Spanish, not possible at all. Normally in the EU, disagreements are the main issue of the day, so, democracy is perfect, then? We can only limit ourselves to say that it is the LEAST worse alternative.
A good thing of democracy though, is that it allows diversity and it also allows modifications to one's taste. It is precisely this what can work for Muslim countries. They can take some aspects of democracy and adapt them to their conditions and, on the long term, find what suits them best. The fact of combining good things of democracy and good things of a strict order, can bring very good results. I have to explain myself a bit better here.
I cannot say that democracy is great because in my country at least, where people are not educated enough to understand the importance a vote can have, we have a political class who just gets to power for taking advantage of the post and that's it, the country does not change. There are people who claim for a revolution, but once again, REVOLUTIONS ARE USELESS IF PEOPLE REMAIN THE SAME. Muslim countries can work with democratic aspects for their governance and keep their religious identity and symbols apart and preserve them. There is no need to sacrifice tradition for democracy.
There is still a long way to go. Egypt chose Morsi in a democratic way, but they still have to assimilate the fact of the impossibility to please everyone. Pakistan has democratic aspects in the government and has its Muslim identity deeply embedded, but they still have some national aspects to solve.
The Middle East has some more things to learn about democracy and some others in what respects to implementing democracy, it depends on what they are looking for in a government and for their nation. Education however, is of the upmost importance here for not committing the same mistakes and also for people to be aware of how important their vote is, because we are talking about a government in which decisions are going to be taken for them. Western countries should stop hitting on the Middle East if the outcome is not the one expected for suiting their agenda's interests.
The world has such complexity today, that it is impossible to make the world work in order to please all interests and, nowhere is written that the 'American way of life' or 'being Western' is the best alternative available, we all have seen that unhappy people do exist in the Western world. In my experience, Europeans have everything we, the developing world wished we had but, they are always complaining about everything and on the other hand, claiming they are perfect by sending activists to the developing world. Guys, remember the Confucian proverb: 'Before you go out and change the world, please give three turns inside your own house'.
Lastly, all systems have their faults. It depends on people if they will work properly or not because democracy, is a human invention in the end and therefore not perfect.
Firstly, if we are going to talk about Islam, the worst way to talk about it is when our arguments are underlied or based on stereotypes. Islam and Muslims are NOT like the Taliban or for this matter, any kind of terrorists. The image that has been prevailing of Islam today is precisely this one: that they all are terrorists and Islam is a backwards religion. Unfortunately, since 9/11 this image has been extended to the rest of the world thanks to some sectors (that ironically label themselves 'think tanks') in the United States.
Ignorance has been the worst enemy for Islam and for all countries in the Middle East. In the many things I was taught during my Middle East Studies courses, we were shown the difference of how things are told by academics (mostly Western) and how things actually are. In what respects to my memories, the worst and most ignorant 'professional' and 'documents of support' I have ever read came from the Project for the New American Century and from the Hinduvta faction of India, and well, what to say about far right groups in Europe. The worst basis one can use for talking about an ethnic group, a religion, a country or whatever are prejudices.
The Qu'ran, from the excerpts I've read serve as one of the many proofs of why Islam, totally opposite to what many believe, is a progressive religion in many ways. Since the first believer of Islam was a woman (Aisha), this religion is of the few ones that put men and women on the same level and, that also consider women as valuable beings. Second, it is a religion that encompassed all aspects of cultural and social life. We must remember that while Europe was drowning itself in darkness, the Middle East was creating valuable knowledge in astronomy and other sciences. The third aspect, that can be strongly debated is the part of religious tolerance. Many around the world label Muslisms as intolerant, but actually it is the opposite. Prophet Muhammad's teachings to his disciples were based on tolerance, and the said that 'people of the book' were allowed to live with them. The Qu'ran does not state that Christians, Catholics, etc. are inferior. Christianism and its varieties do consider in many cases that Muslisms are inferior.
There is no point in some saying that religious intolerance is proper of Islam, and also, intolerance towards the western hemisphere or towards some western countries coming from some Muslims is more a matter of history and even politics, than religion. In my experience, those who claim that the West must pay for its atrocities done in the Middle East are right, but their claim is more based on historical rather than religious arguments. Actually, Muslims have something that many western countries do not: historical memory.
In what respects to the ideal type of democracy the same thing happens, most do not accept any alternative version of democracy if it is not the western model and, this is why some academics (in my experience, mostly Europeans) who believe that Islam and democracy are not compatible. In some academic sectors, there is a reluctance towards any kind of source or argument that does not come from a western source, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. In my experience, I have heard that Muslim societies are incompatible with some aspects of western life, it is true, but it is also possible to grow and be democratic without getting rid of traditions (South Korea is an example).
I believe in the possibility that has been shown since the beginning of the Arab Spring, Muslim countries can be democratic and keep the legacies of Islam while doing so. Democracy does not necessarily has to be the western model, and this is a problem, because the interested countries in the Middle East are not able to identify this. There have been several opinions issued by the United States, and by European countries referring to this aspect of concern about the current situation in Egypt and in Syria. The part of geopolitical interests comes afterwards.
There is a difference between being secular and being able to have a goverment who is able to follow traditions and respect them. I believe there is nothing wrong with having a democratic government and being a Muslim at the same time, or respecting religious symbols at the same time. The part of capitalism and democracy is also out of the question, because in places like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, we cannot say that they are extremely democratic, but they are capitalist. One thing does not necessarly bring the other, as some Post-Cold War scholars in the United States have argued (like Fukuyama in his time or Huntington). We all in the West should remember that Islam is also part of these countries' identity and governments are also supposed to protect this kind of legacies.
We should remember that democracy is not a perfect system at all, it has severe faults, because sometimes the will of the majority is not the best. I am a strong believer of democracy as a good thing but ONLY when people are educated enough. It is really hard to have an entire country with a 100% educated population in matters of economy, politics and what is best for the national interest. Let's be honest, most people just care about carrying their daily lives out in the best way possible, or to survive, or just to get to the places their are supposed to go. Everything depends on where you are from.
Europeans, who praise themselves of being the example of integration and some scholars (from the United Kingdom, in my experience) argue that Europe has examples of a good democracy. I am sorry to contradict some of them, but I have never seen a better example of democracy as something that DOES NOT WORK than the European Union. In most European countries, people complain about Germany's toughness with measures for carrying out processes inside the EU framework, others complain of the United Kingdom's individualism and isolationism, others about France and the way they do things, and the rest complaining about Italy, Portugal and blaming Greece and Spain for all of their national debts and disgraces. It is absolutely obvious that you cannot put 28 heads on the same mindset, and to be honest, besides of showing to the world that pleasing everyone is impossible, they are showing us that even in the developed world you can be deeply divided but for other reasons besides the economic one. In my view, it is out of the reach of my intellectual common sense comparing Germans with Spanish, not possible at all. Normally in the EU, disagreements are the main issue of the day, so, democracy is perfect, then? We can only limit ourselves to say that it is the LEAST worse alternative.
A good thing of democracy though, is that it allows diversity and it also allows modifications to one's taste. It is precisely this what can work for Muslim countries. They can take some aspects of democracy and adapt them to their conditions and, on the long term, find what suits them best. The fact of combining good things of democracy and good things of a strict order, can bring very good results. I have to explain myself a bit better here.
I cannot say that democracy is great because in my country at least, where people are not educated enough to understand the importance a vote can have, we have a political class who just gets to power for taking advantage of the post and that's it, the country does not change. There are people who claim for a revolution, but once again, REVOLUTIONS ARE USELESS IF PEOPLE REMAIN THE SAME. Muslim countries can work with democratic aspects for their governance and keep their religious identity and symbols apart and preserve them. There is no need to sacrifice tradition for democracy.
There is still a long way to go. Egypt chose Morsi in a democratic way, but they still have to assimilate the fact of the impossibility to please everyone. Pakistan has democratic aspects in the government and has its Muslim identity deeply embedded, but they still have some national aspects to solve.
The Middle East has some more things to learn about democracy and some others in what respects to implementing democracy, it depends on what they are looking for in a government and for their nation. Education however, is of the upmost importance here for not committing the same mistakes and also for people to be aware of how important their vote is, because we are talking about a government in which decisions are going to be taken for them. Western countries should stop hitting on the Middle East if the outcome is not the one expected for suiting their agenda's interests.
The world has such complexity today, that it is impossible to make the world work in order to please all interests and, nowhere is written that the 'American way of life' or 'being Western' is the best alternative available, we all have seen that unhappy people do exist in the Western world. In my experience, Europeans have everything we, the developing world wished we had but, they are always complaining about everything and on the other hand, claiming they are perfect by sending activists to the developing world. Guys, remember the Confucian proverb: 'Before you go out and change the world, please give three turns inside your own house'.
Lastly, all systems have their faults. It depends on people if they will work properly or not because democracy, is a human invention in the end and therefore not perfect.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario