Forget about 'clash of civilizations.' A new poll of the world's Muslims finds strong support for many democratic values, says SHEEMA KHAN By SHEEMA KHAN Globe and Mail Update http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030912.sheema12/BNStory/International/ Some in the West say Islam and democracy cannot co-exist. Some Muslims feel the same way. But people like Osama bin Laden don't offer alternate visions of governance; they're not interested in building states, but destroying them. Meanwhile, hundreds of years of Islamic culture say that democracy and Islam are compatible -- provided democracy is rooted in Islamic values. Developing such a democracy is also the vision of Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor and author of After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, currently an adviser appointed by the Bush administration to help set up the interim Iraqi governing council. Prof. Feldman points out that Judaism and democracy co-exist in the state of Israel; true, there are tensions, but they are creative tensions. Muslim scholars and intellectuals of diverse backgrounds agree that Islam emphasizes certain fundamentals of governance -- justice, human dignity and equality, the rule of law, the role of people in selecting their leaders, the obligation of consultative government, and the value of pluralism. Clearly, these elements are lacking in many Muslim countries. But a sweeping new international poll shows that a majority of Muslims believe that their political institutions must become more democratic, even as they find a greater role for religious leaders. From April 28 to May 15, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press surveyed the political, social and religious attitudes of Muslims in 14 countries -- Mali, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Tanzania, Senegal, and the Ivory Coast. Interestingly, the Egyptian government did not permit survey questions pertaining to democracy. Majorities of Muslims in nine countries want Islam to play a large role in politics, while a slim majority favours the opposite in Lebanon, Turkey, Senegal and Uzbek-istan. In countries where Muslims support a greater role for Islam in politics, people also told pollsters that they valued freedom of speech, freedom of the press and free elections. Majorities also place high importance on the freedom to openly criticize the government, judicial systems that treat everyone the same, and honest multiparty electoral systems -- ideals that are in harmony with Islamic values. (Jordan, a monarchy with a limited parliament, is an exception; less than one-third expressed support for such freedoms.) When asked about what kind of leadership they would trust, most of those surveyed preferred a democratic government to a strong autocratic leader (the exceptions were Jordan, Uzbekistan and Nigeria). The Uzbekistan view that a strong central authority is the best form of governance was in line with other post-Soviet-bloc nations (Russia and Ukraine). But for those who favoured democracy, the question remains: What kind of democracy? The Pew pollsters didn't probe the particulars, but did ask Muslims what they thought of American-style democracy. The result: Solid majorities in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and Jordan expressed dislike of the latter. That's not a contradiction, even if some U.S. observers interpret it that way. The fact is, democracy comes in many forms. But the practical question remains: How can Muslims combine democratic ideals with the strong presence of their faith? In secular democracies that strictly separate church and state, this may seem impossible. But if you look back at Islamic governance over 14 centuries, you find a system akin to constitutional democracy serving as the foundation of certain states. The norms of the Koran and the sunnah (the authentic traditions of the Prophet Mohammed) served as the constitution, while bodies of independent scholars provided rulings in light of these texts. The principle of public participation was enshrined by the institution of shurah (consultation), but such consultation could not contradict the constitution. Moreover, the constitution required that the laws be applied equally to both the ruling class and the ruled. On occasion, the ruler would disregard the scholars' rulings; at times, courageous scholars would choose prison over bending to tyranny. Canadians should recognize aspects of such a democracy. We have a constitutional democracy, in that the democratic will (represented by Parliament) is subject to the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, whose rulings are binding on the government (the latter may opt out by invoking the notwithstanding clause, but even that exceptional step is enshrined in the Constitution). Today, it's a challenge to find one Muslim nation that abides by an Islamic model of constitutional democracy. Most are dysfunctional, with power concentrated in the hands of a few; little accountability of government leaders; and no checks and balances to set things right. And here's another problem turned up by the Pew poll: While Muslims favour democratic elements in political life, Muslim majorities in 10 of the nations surveyed rejected the idea that Islam should tolerate diverse interpretations. Yet the view that there should be only one true interpretation of Islam is supported neither by authentic Islamic texts, nor by history. The concept of haj (pilgrimage to Mecca) has made the Muslim community something of a global village for more than 14 centuries. Writing seven centuries ago, Ibn Battuta described the richness of thought in the Islamic empire in his travels from North Africa to China. The fact that four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence have evolved is yet another sign of the diversity of interpretation. This survey result is thus all the more perplexing. Does this mean that Muslims are looking for a central body of qualified scholars to provide one uniform interpretation of the religion? Whose interpretation will be taken as "true"? Will there be intolerance for differing interpretations? More importantly, does this imply that Muslim publics are susceptible to a demagogue who espouses rhetoric in the name of "one, true" interpretation? One hopes not. Islamic thought has sustained and nourished a rich world of scholarly opinion. Muslims today must remember that. Sheema Khan is chair of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Canada). |