Mohammad Reza Katami
Iran Participation Front
Tehran - Iran

Islam is one of dynamic religions of the contemporary world. During the past half century we witnessed growth of certain currents in the Islamic world, which have Islam as their common denominator. Although in some instances and due to abuse of Islam by some terrorist groups, the Islam-seeking current has been incriminated severely censured by western media, we have witnessed that Islamist currents have been calling for democracy, justice, and independence.

On the other hand, despite its vast meanings, democracy is a method of governance in which “nation” is the source of power and, as the most favorable and less costly method for managing human societies, there is no better alternative to it.

For this reason, most western and Islamic thinkers are trying to find an answer to the question about whether democracy and Islam can basically come to terms or not.

The experience of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a valuable experience in which and during various periods of time, different ideas have been tested. Now, and in the light of this valuable experience, we are in a better position to delineate relationship between Islam and democracy in a better way.

In the world of Islam, especially in the Islamic Republic of Iran, three theories have been presented by Muslim thinkers and in the name of Islam, which are important enough to be discussed. One of those theories believes that Islam and democracy are incompatible and its proponents are generally advocates of traditional and historical Islam. The second theory, maintains that Islam is compatible with democracy and its proponents are mainly religious reformists including religious scholars and academic intellectuals, who believe in revising fundamental concepts.
The third theory, which has, thus far, failed to find a remarkable place in theoretical arenas, and therefore, will not be discussed here; believes in extracting democracy from religion. It can be considered a form of “innovation in appearance” of religion and is, in fact, a diluted form of the second theory.

In this paper, traditional and modern versions of Islam will be elaborated and after presenting the concept of democracy, we will measure compatibility between either of two modalities of Islam and democracy.

Both in traditional and modern theories, proponents have firm belief in fundaments of religion; that is, monotheism (TOHID), prophethood (AL-NOBOVVEH), and the Afterlife (MA’AD). Both currents respect the prerequisites as well as individual and social consequences of their faith. Both currents consider Quran and Sunna as two main sources that determine those requisites. However, the main differences in interpretation of Islam by either of the two groups are as follows:

A) Traditional Islam:

1) Religious edicts, which are usually proclaimed as jurisprudential rules, are constant and unchanging and transcend the limits of time and place;

2) Specifications of people, including gender and religious, are a source of inequality in rights;

3) Although there is no force in accepting religion, freedom of choice is not acceptable for Muslims;

4) After taking power(even by referendum or a free democratic election) , the Islamic government is obliged, whether people like it or not, to eliminate vice from the society in any possible way and, in other words, should establish the Heaven on Earth;

5) Government is of a religious nature and religious scholars should discover the ruler(FAQIH), which is appointed by God. All affairs should be supervised by religious scholars, who through unofficial and unaccountable institutions can stop anything that they consider to be non-Islamic.
Such an interpretation of Islam will lead to establishment of a government, which will enjoy the following features:

A) Rule of jurisprudents who enjoy a veto right over everything and can even revoke the results of public elections;

B) Legal inequality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, and even dividing Muslims into various groups according to the purity of their faith;

C) Disregard for people’s privacy.

B) Modern Islam

1) Changeability of religious edits in view of conditions of time and place: this group believes that Islamic edicts should be fair, rational, and superior to alternative solutions. Otherwise, they should be considered outdated and alternatives should be found to replace them through jurisprudence;

2) Legal equality of all social strata without any kind of religious, gender, and ideological discrimination;

3) Complete freedom of thought and expression and recognition of the right to choose religion for all citizens including Muslims and non-Muslims;

4) Making legitimacy of government conditional on people’s votes both in the stage of establishment, and maintenance;

5) Non-interference of government in people’s private lives and regulation of social relations on the basis of “expediency” of the society as recognized by pundits (people’s representatives) and their preference over other things, even religious edicts.
The result of this interpretation of Islam is a government with the following characteristics:

A) A government which is elected by people without any privilege being given to any group;

B) Equal participation of all citizens in the management of the society and supervision over government’s performance;

C) Total differentiation between private and social realms.
To understand compatibility or incompatibility of each of the abovementioned interpretations of Islam with democracy, we must first present a clear definition of democracy.

Sometimes, democracy is taken to be tantamount to liberal democracy governing in the west where anything, even homosexuality, is permissible. It does not seem that any interpretation of Islam will conform to such a definition of democracy.
However, if democracy is taken to be a “new tool” for running society and different societies consider special values for that system according to their own cultural and social coordinates (which would allow us to talk of democracies, instead of democracy), then we can measure compatibility of Islam with such a system. Anyway, democracy in any form is based on three main principles: 1. the right of public supervision; 2. political equality of all citizens; 3. allowing people to decide about laws and policies that are needed to manage the society. Realization of the said principles depends on a number of prerequisites, which include: 1) free and fair elections; 2) accountable government; and  3) assuring political and civil rights and liberties.
In such a democratic system, no law and policy is superior to people’s will and every law is only creditable as long as it is backed by people’s will. Now, with this definition of democracy in mind and through comparing it to principles that have been accepted by traditional and modern versions of Islam, we can opine about compatibility or incompatibility of those two versions with democracy.

1) Principle of pubic supervision

In traditional Islam, public supervision is reduced to supervision by Muslims and there is strong resistance to establishment of supervisory institutions (such as independent legislature, separation of powers, freedom of parties, civil institutions…). Of course, it should be noted that this incompatibility is not basic and resilience has been shown in the face of social developments and pressure from the public opinion.
In modern Islam, the principle of public supervision has been totally accepted and through accepting the concept of “citizenship”, the right of all citizens, regardless of their religion or gender, has been recognized.

2) Political equality for all citizens

All versions of Islam have negated discrimination on the basis of color of the skin, ethnicity, wealth, and progeny.
Traditional Islam, however, considers discriminations based on gender and religion to be justice and it does not accept religious and gender equality in any way.
Those who believe in the absolute rule of jurisprudents in traditional Islam do not believe in political equality in this regard and consider special rights for jurisprudent in running the country’s affairs.
In modern Islam, political equality has been accepted in all fields and its proponents do not believe in any form of discrimination. Many religious revisionist basically do not accept “Velayat-e Faqih” (the rule of Muslim jurisprudent) and even those who accept that principle in line with specific political viewpoints, consider limiting conditions for Velayat-e Faqih like other governmental posts. They believe that people’s vote is influential in electing jurisprudent and he should be held accountable. Basically, they maintain that both powers and period of jurisprudent’s rule are limited.

3) Allowing for public decision on laws and policies

From the viewpoint of traditional Islam, divine rules, constitute the best law. They say that religion has predicted all requirements of humanity and enforcing laws should only be done by God, who knows everything; past, present, and future. They basically consider people’s rule as usurpation of the rule of God. A law is authentic as far as it conforms to God’s commands, whether people like it or not.
Modern Islam, on the other hand, differentiates between “religious edict” and “common law”. Setting religious edicts are restricted to God and the Prophet (PBUH) and obeying them is duty of the faithful. However, law as a tool for establishing order in the society and can only be executed when it has been accepted by people, or the majority of people, quite willingly. Otherwise, there is no religious means for imposition of a law, even if it is a religious edict, on people who do not accept it. Therefore, credibility of a law depends on people’s acceptance and that credibility is different from “legitimacy”.

As we said before, in this version of Islam, religious rules which lack three conditions of being fair, rational, and superior to other alternatives, should be considered outdated and the best means to measure the said three conditions is public opinion, not the viewpoints of a specific social class.
Of course, a group of religious revisionists believes that only prohibited acts, for which Quran has stipulated a punishment, should be also prohibited by the government. As for other prohibited acts, collective social wisdom which is manifested in the form of people’s representatives in the legislature, should decide.

Conclusion

Democracy is a unique tool for the management of the society, to which values are added according to social and cultural structure of every society. Although principles of democracy are constant, Muslims can add values to them to make them more ethical.
Compatibility between democracy and modern Islam is possible while this is not possible for traditional Islam. Also, extracting democracy from religion is neither desirable, nor practical.
Here, I am willing to refer to two important points. Although association between religion and democracy is important and necessary for the Islamic societies, this approach is also facing obstacles, the true understanding of which will help promote this approach.
The most important impediment is domination of dictatorships in Muslim societies, which has made dictatorship and despotism the order of the day and method of understanding for Muslims and, unfortunately, that dictatorship has been justified through religion. Another impediment is that modern concepts of the new world including basic rights of people, human rights, and democracy are looked upon through old and outdated concepts. Finally, introduction of hardware aspects to democracy such as modern government, parliament, separation of powers, and so forth; has led to mental confusion and lack of attention to software aspects including culture building, education and establishment of educational and social institutions, which has worsened the situation.
Last but not least, realization of democracy without association with religion is nothing but a mirage in the Islamic world. Promotion of democracy in such countries should be done in cooperation with the faithful. Otherwise, it will lead to a new form of despotism under the guise of democracy.
Muslim democrat reformists have shouldered a heavy responsibility in the face of mounting pressures from Muslim traditionalists who oppose democracy, on the one hand, and irreligious laic elements who oppose all forms of religion, on the other hand. Of course, resurgence of religion in modern societies has drawn more attention to the concept of religious democracy because it pays more attention to moral woes of modern societies and this depicts a promising future for reformists. Let’s hope that their efforts would prove to be a suitable answer to demands of the past decades in Muslim societies, where people are asking for religion and democracy, at the same time.

End.
May 2006
Jordan