Islamic Political Thought - Essay Example

Table of Contents Introduction 2 Prelude 4 Modern religion and politics 4 Philosophy 5 Context and situation 5 Intellectual interpretation 5 Critical thought 5 Conclusion 12 Bibliography 14 Introduction In the recent few years, there has been trouble in the Muslim world as citizens disagreed with their governments and chose to depose them. The revolution initially started in Tunisia after a street hawker self-immolated himself in front of a government building because the city police brutalized and harassed him. Right after the deposition of Ben Ali’s regime in Tunisia, Libya was to follow, then Egypt and now Syria is on fire. All these political upsets in the Muslim world has led to a question of whether religious states can ever be effective and be able to deliver human rights to the citizens. In all these countries, there have been similar issues such as degraded human rights and dictatorial governments with the incumbent regimes amassing state wealth at the expense of the people12. For instance, according to Bonner, et al (2005, p.99) in Algeria, fundamentalist pushed for implementation of radical Islam principles at the institution level. At the same time, Muslim intellectuals who question these governments are considered as a threat to national security and in most cases, they have been exiled3. These include Ghannouchi from Tunisia and Soroush. However, unlike most western scholars, Ghannouchi does not believe that western-like democracy should be applied in the Muslim world. He does not believe, like most scholars, that religion as a basis of government is the problem with Islam government, but rather the way it is implemented. In this regard, he identifies a number of issues that are inherent in creating an Islamic democracy. Ghannouchi attitude towards secularism is based more personal opinion rather than critical thinking. The history affected his thinking even though he uses critical thinking an explanation on the use of Islamic democracy. Soroush4, from Iran, also agrees that there is something majorly wrong with the Islamic democracy system and that something needs to be done. His criticism on Islamic democracy has also earned him an exile in Europe for fear of his life in a hostile government5. His problems with the government especially escalated in 2004 after the electoral victory of Ahmadinejad (Bosetti, 2011). Soroush does not believe in an Islamic democracy, but suggests a secular political system that runs parallel to religion rather than inside religion. These two scholars, Ghannouchi and Soroush have some views that are similar and others that contradict each other in different areas. This paper looks closer at how their views relate and how some of their views differ from each other. To achieve this, it first looks at the factors that have affected the way these two scholars think. These factors include, environment, relations with the west and their philosophical thinking. Western democracy is not applicable to the Muslim world because of its contextual development. Western democracy could only be helpful if it developed in similar conditions. As a result, this paper seeks to understand what kind of government these two scholars suggest should be used in a Muslim country and their take on Islamic democracy. Their understanding of political democracy and how it should be achieved in a Muslim state is also put under the microscope to identify any similar or differing thoughts. Ghannouchi is a bold Islamic theorist in his country, especially during hard political times in Tunisia6. According to Mernissi7 youths are especially looking for ways to emerge from the strict Islamic laws and are trying to find verses in the Quran that liberate them to achieve their dreams. Prelude Religion seems to have always played a particularly central role in the development of political systems. The current western democracy is noted to have been designed on the foundation of the Christian religion. Theocracy is known to have been the principal form of governance in the early European time. With theocracy, a spiritual leader would lead the people and their powers were less than questionable. As time goes by, theocracy gave way to other forms of secular governments such as western democracy. Theocracy was one form of government that made it harder for people to be in control of the way they were governed, since no one could question the wisdom of a theocratic leader; those in governance were in complete possession of absolute power. Modern religion and politics Scholars such as Abdolkarim Soroush and Rashid Ghannouchi argue that the process that western democracy went through was too complicated to be replicated in an exact way elsewhere. As a result, these scholars argue that while democracy is a successful form of government in the west, it is not necessarily the best one. These scholars believe that there can be better forms of government that can be used to govern people. With regard to their ideas on how the Islamic regions and countries should be governed, there are some areas where two scholars differ and there are areas where they appear to possess similar ideas. Philosophy Both of them take a philosophical point of view of the issue. They look at the formation of government from a philosophical point of view. For instance, Soroush is metaphysics and an expert on Rumi8 philosophy and applies this to try and understand the essence of government. Context and situation Context plays a vital role in the way each of the two scholars look at the formation of democracy or any firm of government. For instance, Rashid Ghannouchi, having come from Tunisia and having got into trouble with the government in power that was being led by Ben Ali, was exiled in Europe to seek asylum. In this case, Ghannouchi’s arguments on democracy had to be sewn in a way that he would be in good terms with the western powers. Ghannouchi had to prove to his western hosts that his ideologies are sensible, harmless and practical. On the other hand, Seroush’s outlook is a little different from that of Ghannouchi especially because he is himself not an active politician. However, context also plays a vital role in the way he expresses his ideas for Islamic democracy as it can be seen that he becomes more outspoken when he came from Iran and was at the safety of the western world. Intellectual interpretation These two scholars use the intellectual knowledge they have to argue their point with regard to the kind of democracy that can work for the Islamic nations. The only irony is that although they are strong critics of the western philosophy such as Greek philosophy, they both draw a lot of their arguments from western philosophy. Critical thought Above all, the two scholars use critical thought to forward their argument. Both Abdolkarim Soroush and Rashid Ghannouchi are critical thinkers and this has contributed a lot in the way they argue for Islamic democracy and the way they argue against western democracy. They forward their critical thinking by critically looking at western democracy and the way it was developed, their conclusion on whether it can be universally applied. The two authors concluded that western democracy cannot be applied universally because of the origin of its social, economic and historical contacts. The authors also argue that western democracy cannot be useful in the Muslim world. It would lead to lack of proper integration because of the nature of its development environment. Ghannouchi is highly critical in the way western democracy is applied to the rest of the world. To begin with, unlike Soroush, Ghannouchi is a total believer in the religious state and his defense for Islamic democracy is inherently tied around the fact that he believes that religion should play a crucial role in the formation of a political ideology. At the same time, Soroush also has the same views but reveals them in a remarkably different way. For instance, unlike Ghannouchi, Soroush does not attack the western democracy. Ghannouchi proves his point of the formidability of Islamic democracy by looking critically at the manner in which religion played part in the development of western democracy. He does this by using criticism as a tool. For instance, he accuses western religion of having been too overarching and therefore led to the necessity of a secular political force. Ghannouchi accuses western religion of providing too powerful political force. For this reason, other forces such as science and secular forces attempted to overthrow it because could not provide a good platform to enable people to govern themselves. Western religion concentrated too much power in ruling elite. With this argument, Ghannouchi highlights two key factors of Islamic democracy. Both Ghannouchi and Soroush agree on the fact that the western democracy is not necessarily the best or the only suitable government form that can be used to govern people. In fact, they both attack western democracy by saying that it is not as rosy as it looks. Ghannouchi, for instance, does it by considering the fundamentals of democracy and then putting western democracy on the dock. To begin with, Ghannouchi argues that western democracy, although it provides people with the freedom they want, also steal the same freedom. What Ghannouchi is talking about is a system where freedom is given to people without actually giving them. What Ghannouchi could be talking about is the dominant effect of the western media houses and the way they set cultural beliefs and enslave people by setting the standards of life. Ghannouchi, in his critical thought seems to be indicating that freedom is fluid, perceptive and contextual. An exceptionally good example of what Ghannouchi is talking about is the American democracy that promises every American citizen that if they work hard enough that they have the chance to achieve whatever they want, they can become whatever they want. Yet, so many people live in poor and helpless condition because although the law gives freedom and the leeway to achieve their dreams, the conditions that surround them makes it harder for them. Ghannouchi, unlike Soroush, is a decidedly pro Islamic democracy and believes that Islam can be a good foundation for government, if applied correctly. Soroush on the other hand, while agreeing that western democracy may not be suitable for the Muslim world, such as Iran (where he comes from), he believes that religion may not offer a solid foundation for government, but rather has different views9. He puts forward the following points about Islam and government. First, he identifies that Islam can never be understood fully by anybody and that therefore no understanding of Islam will ever be complete or full. By this very understanding, Soroush postulates that no government should aver claim to be ruling on the basis of Islamic political ideology. In this regard, Soroush disagrees on Ghannouchi’s opinion because Ghannouchi believes that Islam can and should be the basis of government in the Islam world. Soroush, instead of advocating for a government based on religion, and especially Islam, argues for a secular democracy that considers the rights of people. Instead of a religious government or a government based on religion, Soroush advocates for a government that is based on human and civil rights while using democracy as a tool to deliver this and to also manage the way religion contributes to national politics. In fact, according to Soroush, it is crucial to break any direct links between religion and the politics of a religious nation in order to protect the image of religion. Soroush has not demonstrated his argument clearly because he did not explain how secular government eliminates negative issues of Islamic democracy. Although he identifies that Islamic democracy is not and also in western democracy not good enough for Islamic nations, he fails to give a concrete alternative. This is contrary to what Ghannouchi looks at the issue of governance in the religious states. However, Ghannouchi believes that religious states such as Tunisia should be able to wrap their governance around the religion. This is because religion is the unifying factor in such states. Unlike popular belief that states in the Muslim world are opposed to western cultures, Soroush argues that they are not necessary opposed and that they only need to be synchronized continually10. In this regard, what Soroush is talking about is the fact that the Islam world can benefit from the western culture and this can be extraordinarily useful in establishing a structure of government fitted for this kind of government. Soroush is pro secularism and advocates for religion to be separated from politics. Ghannouchi provides for an argument for Islam as a source of democratic government. Contrary to common belief, especially in the western world, Ghannouchi believes that Islam is inherently democratic rather than giving leaders autonomic power over the people. Ghannouchi quotes a number of verses in the Quran that convinces him that Islamic faith supports democracy. Bukay (2007, pp. 71-79) also puts forward this kind of an idea in his paper11. However, Ghannouchi believes that selfish people who misinterpret the Quran have formed most of the current Islam governments in order to create government systems which will help them achieve their selfish agenda. Of the two, Soroush is clearer about the role of religion in the political arena and he clearly places religion outside the political arena. Ghannouchi on the other hand, while clearly expressing his dissatisfaction with the Tunisian dictatorship that was based on poorly interpreted Quran guidelines, fails to clearly identify the role of religion (Islam) on the formation of government. Ghannouchi, however, is clear that he believes that religion should and must be allowed to be the basis on which a government is formed and that there should be a reformation of Islamic governance12. Ghannouchi, unlike Soroush, has suffered the most pain in the hands of religious Islamic government in his country and has been jailed a number of times, sometimes getting a life sentence from Tunisian courts. This has made Ghannouchi to have liberalist views and like Soroush, Ghannouchi believes that even in the face of a religious government, the masses should be given the liberty to air their grievances and be able to contribute to national politics. This can be exemplified by what is happening in Egypt where the Liberalist believes that Islamists are a risk to democracy13. Ghannouchi, however, does not fault political ideology based on religion (Islam) like Soroush does. Instead, he blames it on poor implementation of such a government and his literature seems to indicate that what is wrong with the current Islamic governments is that they are miss-implemented and therefore giving an indecent image of Islamic governments. Soroush’s rejection of religion as a basis for government formation comes from his philosophical understanding and explanation of what religion is and what politics should be. According to him, he believes that politics are and should be driven by ideology (ideas) and that these ideas need to not be consistent. According to Soroush, religion is eternal and universal. He argues that Islamic religion is not ideological and therefore, forming a government on the basis of religion is not practical. In addition, there should not be any discrimination based on religious views. Being a liberalist, Soroush understands that pluralism and democracy must take opposing political powers with a level ground on which they can play each other, thus making sure that every incumbent government is well checked and monitored14. Unlike Ghannouchi, Soroush understands that Islam is used as a pillar for forming a government, the kind of government that would develop and have concentrated power. This power is normally hard to question and monitor. However, doctrines that are opposed to Islam provide a platform for structuring a government because of the possibility to form multiple parties each with a different religious ideology. Some have opposed the idea that such doctrines, anti Islam can provides a better way of regulating violence or creating a peaceful government. Like (Esposito, 1998, P.4) sates, secularism has its problems as it is also accused alongside capitalism of creating inequality and inequities in the society. This creates breeding ground for discontent among the citizens. These anti Islam ideologies can then be used as propaganda to fight and to try to garner support from the rest of the population. Contrary to Ghannouchi, Soroush has a different understanding of the role of multiparty political systems on democracy. He argues that because of the universality of religion, any political party can use and quote it; therefore, it does not create a good foundation or basis on which a government can be formed. However, in case a country chooses to adopt a secular multiparty political system, it is possible that each particular party in the system will have their own religious and/ or political ideology. Such political parties can then use their political or religious ideologies to lure citizens (electorate). This type of system plays a fundamental role in promoting democracy. In essence, Soroush points out that no one can monopolize religion and therefore it cannot be used as a basis of governance. Soroush adds that political parties are able to establish unique political and religious ideologies, monopolize such ideologies and use them to promote democracy. Although Ghannouchi agrees with Soroush that the current Islamic governments are short of democracy, he asserts that it is very possible to create a democratic government based on religion, and especially Islam. Ghannouchi on his argument adds that in its pure essence, Islam is inherently democratic and that unlike other religions around the world, Islam is completely social and political as well as spiritual and moral in way of life. Although Ghannouchi and Soroush differ in their argument on whether Islam can offer a good basis for government or not, they agree on one particular issue with regard to democracy: there is no common and conventional definition of democracy and that true democracy, regardless of its structure and source, must decentralize power from the ruling people and to the masses with voting powers. This will ensure that the ruling elite are keenly monitored15. In fact, Soroush does not necessarily decline that religion, especially Islam have a contribution to politics 16. He however argues that because religions serve higher purpose in comparison to politics, it cannot be limited to governments. This therefore means that Ghannouchi and Soroush agree on the same views with regard to Islam. They both look at Islam as an all encompassing and all serving tool that surpasses everything. However, while Ghannouchi looks at this as a way to prove that Islam ought to be exercised as a basis for promoting democracy on which a government is established, Soroush uses the same argument to oppose Islamic democracy. On the other hand, Ghannouchi and Soroush concur on the importance of Islam, but differ on the contributions of Islam to politics. Soroush envisions a secular democracy that is free of religion and a religion that is free of politics. In his view, Soroush supports a secular democracy that supports religion (Islam), but opposes a religion that supports politics (democracy). He believes that a well developed democracy founded on fundamental human rights is enough to support religion. He argues that since Islam is inherently multidimensional, it can to take care of spiritual, moral and political issues within the society. Conversely, Ghannouchi perceives Islam as a good pivot for democracy and government formation. According to Global Encounters (2006, p.149), modern Islamic intellectuals are shifting from earlier Islamic thinking and are actually exploring the fact that Islamic democracy is not too different from western democracy17. Conclusion Ghannouchi and Soroush are some of the most prolific Muslim scholars. Their contributions to the ideas on the way religion should relate to governance have been some of the most respected and their contribution to the academic of Islamic democracy has been endless and immensely powerful. For instance, after many years of struggle with a dictatorial Islamic regime in Tunisia, Ghannouchi’s political ideas seem to have eventually broken the waters and gave birth to a new era when in 2011, the people of Tunisia managed to depose the dictatorial government in Tunisia. Soroush’s works in Iran is also as significant. However, their ideas were met with hostility by incumbent governments as a result of danger they posed to the incumbent government. The incumbent governments were also led by people who served their selfish interests. After the deposition of Ben Ali’s dictatorial regime from the government, Ghannouchi has returned to his home to work with other enthusiastic leaders to build and better society. These two authors and philosophers seem to agree on the belief that western democracy may not be the best or the only government. Based on this argument, they postulate that there is a need to develop a democratic system that is suited for states such as religious states. The two, however, seem to have different views on other issues such as the way religion should relate with politics. Soroush believes that religion should be free from politics and that there should be a secular form of democracy that works for everyone. In fact, he believes that Islam as a religion is first of all too complicated and that no government should ever claim to create a government based on Islamic political ideology. Ghannouchi on the other hand believes in Islamic democracy and believes that Islam is inherently democratic in its sheer nature. He believes that Islam has the tools required to support the moral, spiritual and the political aspects of a society and therefore it has whatever it takes to create a political system that is useful and democratic. Bibliography Amineh, M. (2007). TheGreater Middle East in Global Politics: Social Science Perspectives on the Changing Geography of the World Politics. Leiden: BRILL. Bonner, M. e. (2005). Islam, Democracy And The State In Algeria: Lessons For The Western Mediterranean And Beyond. London: Routledge. Bosetti, G. (2011, June 13). Liberal Democracy in Islam: Abdolkarim Soroush. Retrieved March 14, 2013, from Philosophy and Religion: http://www.resetdoc.org/story/00000021632 Bukay, D. (2007). Can There Be an Islamic Democracy? Middle East Quarterly , pp. 71-79. Carlson, J. &. Owens (2003). The Sacred and the Sovereign: Religion and International Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Crotty, W. (2005). Democratic Development & Political Terrorism: The Global Perspective. Lebanon, NH: UPNE. The Economist. (2011, August 12). Islam and democracy: Uneasy companions. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from The Economist : http://www.economist.com/node/21525410 Encounters, G. (2006). Islamic Democratic Discourse: Theory, Debates, and Philosophical Perspectives. Lanhan, MD: Lexington Books. Entelis, P. (1997). Islam, Democracy, and the State in North Africa. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Jahanbakhsh, F. (2001). Islam, Democracy and Religious Modernism in Iran, 1953-2000: From Bāzargān to Soroush. BRILL. Kamrava, M. (2010). The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War. Berkerly, CA: University of California Press. Kamrava, M. (2006). The New Voices of Islam. London, UK: I.B.Tauris. Mernissi, F. (2002). Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World. New York City, NY: Basic Books. Soroush, A. (2011). Islamic Democracy and Islamic Governance. Retrieved March 14, 2013, from A summary of remarks by Abdolkarim Soroush and Charles Butterworth at The Middle East Institute, November 21, 2000 : http://www.drsoroush.com/English/By_DrSoroush/E-CMB-20001121-Islamic_Democracy_and_Islamic_Governance.html Esposito, L. (1998). Rethinking Islam and Secularism. Association Of Religion Data Archives, 04. Read More