Reconciling Islam with Democracy

Democracy and Islam are two ideologies which, given their current views, cannot coexist side by side in pure form. Islam is a religion filled with individual rights abuses that need to be corrected if constitutional democracy is going to successfully occur in modern Islamic nations. The evidence that Islam needs change is obvious-just compare the prevalence of poverty, starvation, and violence in developing countries where Islam is dominant to countries where some legitimate form of democracy is dominant. Islamic beliefs hampering progress and which are incompatible with democracy are (1) that women are the property of men, (2) the permission of violence against non-Islamic persons, and (3) cruel and unusual punishments for criminal acts. These three factors are gross violations of individual rights and, if permitted continued existence, will hold Islamic nations back from constitutional democracy. Constitutional democracy leads to social and economic progress, and if Islamic nations expect to progress and become elite nations, rights must be asserted through democracy and enforced at the individual level in an equal fashion for all persons.

The first major individual rights issue is that according to Islam, women are the property of men, must wear veils in public, and may be abused by their husbands with no punishment for the husband. If women constantly hold little or no status compared to men in public and private life, they will also hold very little, if any, influence on any "democratic" process taking place. How likely is democracy to succeed in a country where half the population is viewed as the property of the other half? If half of a population of a country is being repressed, then the other half is running the country and this leaves a high likelihood of biased legislation and resultant future pandemonium taking place. Women need to be on an equal individual rights level with men if constitutional democracy is to succeed.

Islam also allows its followers to use violence against non-Islamic persons, as these persons are viewed as Allah's enemies. The inherent undemocratic notion is easy to find: minorities in an Islamic nation can and probably will be discriminated against. The perpetrators of such discrimination need not feel any guilt or take any corrective action because what they are doing is not wrong. Islam must give up this view and realize that all people are completely equal, regardless of race, sex, or creed. Continuing chaos and violence will result in Islamic nations if individual rights are not enforced for non-Islamic individuals.

Islam also allows what other modern nations would call cruel and unusual criminal punishments. The stoning to death of an adulteress is a good example. What greater purpose does stoning to death or killing an adulteress accomplish? It accomplishes nothing, and that woman could be contributing towards the good of Islam or the nation in which she resides for many future years if allowed to live. Excessively cruel and unusual punishments are infractions against human rights, and hold back a country's political and social progress. Punishment may be needed, but not one so severe. Maiming criminals is an individual rights violation and just takes away the potential for growth from the person and ultimately, Islam itself.

The basic individual rights violations accepted by Islam have now been outlined, and the first aspect one needs to examine when dealing with beliefs held for thousands of year is if changing such beliefs is even possible. Remarkably, the solution to such a problem has already been found in India. For literally thousands of years, India has been dominated by a Hindu majority that believed in four hierarchical castes, of which the lowest was termed the "untouchables." All the worst jobs, least rewards, and even hatred and violence were saved for this seemingly despicable class of people. This hatred and violence was viewed as permissible by society and government due to the secondary status of the afflicted parties. Through leadership and the installation of mandatory discrimination laws in favor of the untouchables by the federal government, the dominant attitude of Indians has changed. Now, "There is no open public defence of the ancient regime. Everyone is against untouchability and against caste" (Galanter 1989, 1283). While this class of people is not experiencing perfect equality, and violence is still directed at this class, the people as a whole have learned to think of the untouchables as equals who were unfairly discriminated against for thousands of years. Further, the mandatory discrimination enforced by government has led to a sense of pride among the Indian nation. "Through it (mandatory discrimination) Indians tell themselves what kind of people they are and what kind of nation. These policies express a sense of connection and shared destiny" (Galanter 1989, 1291). If a nation dominated by the Hindu belief system for thousands of years can change society's prevailing attitude, then the same can happen in nations which have turned to Islam only very recently.

It is important to remember that while changes in Islam are suggested, Islam itself does not need to be discarded. Many of its teachings are procedural and guide one's approach to living life, and these teachings need no reform. The distinguishing point is that views which encourage individual rights abuse need to be reduced from their extreme form to a more humanistic contemporary approach. Some Islamic intellectuals believe democracy and Islam can coexist, and the answer is finding the meeting point between the two. Abdolkarim Soroush, a Shiite philosopher, maintains that "...[W]e need to embrace these new democratic ideas rather than reject them as foreign to Islam. We can appropriate them...and make them our own. [However], all ideas must be carefully examined in light of our tradition" (Katz 2004, 21).

The bottom line is that the treatment of women, non-Islamic persons, and criminals by Islam is unacceptable and hampers the democratic, social, and political progress of the nations it dominates. The change which occurred in India is possible in Islamic nations, should they choose to make that change. The change must occur in Islamic nations because if the rigid radical thinking currently in place continues, Islamic nations will be trapped in a self-destructive cycle marred with poverty and unending violence, and these nations will stand idly by while the rest of the world passes them in terms of social and economic progress. Islam should need no further incentive for reducing some of its extremist beliefs. The sooner Islam learns to treat all persons equally, the sooner constitutional democracy and economic and social progress will occur.

Bibliography

Galanter, Marc. 1989. "Law and Society in Modern India." In Comparative Constitutional Law, ed. Vicki Jackson and Mark Tushnet. New York: The Foundation Press.

Katz, Stanley. 2004. "Gun Barrel Democracy? Democratic Constitutionalism Following Military Occupation: Reflections on the U.S. Experience in Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, and Iraq." Princeton Law and Public Affairs Working Paper Series No. 04-010.