Is Islam an obstacle to democracy?

Résumé du document

‘On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention', Tocqueville reports in Democracy in America. Even though religion cannot be considered formally as a part of the American political system, Tocqueville depicts it as the first American political institution because of its indirect effects on political life (Fradkin, 2000). Indeed, the role of religion constitutes one of the most central themes of his reflections on the issues and prospects of democracy. Thus, religion has always been a crucial question and theme in studying democracy especially in the Western world. Nevertheless, since 11 September 2001, the international spotlight has been more strongly focused than ever on the Muslim world particularly on the Middle East. The question of whether the culturalist thesis, elaborating that some religions are more compatible with democratic governance than others, has excited considerable and acute debates in recent years. This study aims primarily at showing that while no religious tradition is inherently and totally not suitable for democratic systems, the predominant practices and voices in specific religions may appear at precise times to be more or less willing to support democratic development. But, firstly, why did theorists of democracy find it natural and appropriate to examine whether one country or another was ‘fit for democracy' (Sen, 1999)? In this respect, important is to account for the framework of our study in explicating the complicated and vague notion of ‘democracy'. Indeed, what is democracy?

Extraits

[...] Islam is no longer an irreversible obstacle to democracy and pluralism will be able to emerge in Muslim countries when dominant discourses within this religion are favourable to democratic development. More generally, no religious tradition is either a necessary or sufficient cause of democratisation or an insuperable barrier to it. Indeed, religious tradition cannot be understood as the only factor that may influence democracy, extreme poverty or ethnic conflict are too. And democracy is a question of balance between, state and society. [...]

[...] First of all, Bruce argues that the central issue in Islam is in the focus on way of life rather than theology: ‘rule bound religions are inevitably more conservative than ones that do not embed divine revelation in a legal code' (Bruce, 2003). In fact, Islamic founding texts detailed instructions for the good life. The Shari'a (the Islamic legal code) has been made the basis of civil law ‘binding upon Muslims and non Muslims' (Lakoff, 2004). Moreover, deep ambiguities remain about the extent to which Muslim countries guarantee and protect the rights of the minorities. Liberal democracy as stated before need participation and competition but also and that is here a crucial point, the protection of the rights of minorities. [...]

[...] In supporting the culturalist approach, the rejectionist religionists see Islam as simply incompatible with democracy. Indeed, to them, the values, sources, means of control of democracy and Islam are clearly opposed. This assumption makes them consider democracy as kufr (blasphemy). This impossibility of coexistence is justified by the fact that democracy violates the principle of deity, al-hakimiyyah (God's sovereignty). Indeed, democracy is rejected because it leads to the appropriation of power by persons who are fallible. Moreover, free elections are regarded as a calculation against the Islamic tide. [...]

[...] Therefore, the acceptance of diversity in religions that stemmed whether or not directly from the Reformation favour a broader acceptance of diversity, a wider tolerance and the need for consent in building up the political order which was latter embedded in liberal democracy. Besides, Protestantism has contributed to modern democracy with its pioneering ‘combination of individualism and community spirit' (Bruce, 2004).Finally, the reformation postulates two kingdoms stressing the total division between the temporal order and the spiritual one. Hence, it promotes support for democratic political governance. Besides, ‘certain forms of Protestantism, having their home among the middle classes, united politically democratic inclinations with social equality' (Fradkin, 2000). [...]

[...] Indeed, Muslim and in particular Arab countries have not taken part in the third wave of democratisation. More precisely, what makes possible the rise of democratic conditions and sentiments is the required and essential distinction between that which belongs to Caesar and that which belongs to God. Indeed, in reality, taking the example of America, the separation of State and Church had, on the beginning (because it appears less relevant nowadays) two great benefits for democracy: on the one hand, it has prevented the emergence of vested religious interests in political forces and on the other hand, individual opinions acquired great force in the aggregate thanks to democratic liberty. [...]