RSS

A fundamental trait of democracy as it exists in the West is the separation of politics from religion, which obviously conflicts with the Islamic affirmation of God’s sovereignty. Despite the secular nature of the Arab Spring, the form of government and the cultural background of the countries overwhelmed by the protests make it impossible to dissociate religion from their political life. Are these Islamic countries really able to embrace democracy? And how far can democracy, as intended in the West, be applied in an Islamic context?

Democracy does not necessarily follow one model; after all, it is at the discretion of a state to choose whether to include, and to what extent, religious elements and norms in the government. But a clear distinction between the two is essential.

Some analysts rule out the incompatibility of Islam with democratic concepts, especially considering that Islam bases its fundamentals on the Shari’a, the code of conduct, per se, or a set of rules and norms. But is that enough to make an Islamic country a democratic one? Can a country be considered such simply because it avails itself of a constitution?

In terms of jurisdiction, the incompatibility of democracy with Islam is indeed questionable. After all, the Shari’a does contain concepts of the “rule of the majority”, “mutual consultation” (Shura), and “accountability of the leaders” (even if towards Allah and not its people). But it is the cultural background of the Arab world that makes the difference.

If we take the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as an example, we will notice that like most Arab countries experiencing the Arab Spring, its institutional arrangement is characterized by the lack of a political culture and of a secular political class, something that could effectively lead the transition process from the current regime structure to a more democratic one.

The structure of the society in Jordan also plays an important role: the absence of a political class is also the consequence of the tribal social configuration. The Jordanian Parliament has traditionally been run by tribal leaders, who are often elected by virtue of their wealth, rather than their political capabilities or their success earned in free political competition.

Furthermore, this lack of a political class also results from strong nationalism and the need for a national identity. This often leads to discrimination against minorities, who cannot find representation or recognition in the political structure of the state, leading to their isolation.

The risk is that in societies where the people lack organized representation, and there is no middle class in the social configuration, a forced separation of religion from politics creates a gap, a vacuum, that can easily open the way to political systems that have no sense of moral value. On the contrary, it may also happen that if leaders grant more democratic rights, for example the freedom to vote for parliamentary representation, power might end up in the hands of the only opposition parties politically present and well organized in the region, as Jordan’s Islamic Action Font is at the moment. In this case, the power would be shifted toward those political groups that base their policy on religious values and Islamic law, rather than secular democratic concepts. Would, therefore, more democracy, or a secular state, open the way for the abuse of power?

All Arab leaders, not just King Abdullah II of Jordan, are facing a dilemma. The issue is not whether Islam and democracy are compatible in their nature, but whether these leaders will successfully lay the social foundations to allow a democratic transition to take place. They will have to face more protests, be ready to give up some of their power and compromise with their people if they want to maintain their leadership status.

History teaches us that democracy is not something that can simply be donated by third parties, and definitely not by the West. It is clear that the Western model of democracy cannot be imposed. The West can, however, intervene and support the growth of a political and social structure through education and training programs, which in the long run are vital for institution-building in countries undergoing a democratic transition. Uprisings are not enough to bring democracy into a culture - but for every process there must be a beginning!

The author works in the Middle East Faculty of the NATO Defense College in Rome and holds an MA in International Relations from LUISS University in Rome. The views expressed in this article are her own.