What is the real problem?
Reader comment on item: Debate: Islam and Democracy

Submitted by Dennis Wheeler (United States), Jul 18, 2003 at 22:38

One thing I've noticed in reading various articles and debates about Islam & Democracy, is the seeming failure of both sides of the debate to address the difference between Arab Islamic societies and non-Arab Islamic societies, and the effect that these differences may have on the prospects for democracy and liberty to take root in the Islamic world.

Mr. Kahn in the above debate, for example, cites Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan as Islamic countries in the process of democratisation. Ignore for the sake of this argument the question of the factual accuracy of that statement (Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Iran has a grassroots democratic movement, but no genuine "democratisation" by the regime itself. And, one could argue, Turkey is in many respects a thinly veiled military dictatorship, though much more benign than that of Pakistan).

What then is the primary characteristic that the above-named countries, allegedly all in the process of democratisation, have in common? Not one of them is Arab. Islam came relatively late to all of these cultures as an import from the Arab world (often imposed by force). Also, unlike the Arabs, they do not ignore or whitewash their non-Islamic pasts by either pretending they didn't exist or seeing in them nothing but mere precursors to Islam having no intrinsic worth of their own.

In the Arab heartland of Islam, not a single country can be cited among those "in the process of democratisation". The problem of Islamic terrorism is also primarily an Arab problem. Even when terrorist activities occur in non-Arab countries or involve some non-Arab locals, there is usually an Arab leader or group backing them. (Remember how Bin Laden and the other Mujahedeen in Afghanistan are often referred to as the "Afghan Arabs").

Thus, is seems to me that the real fundamental question is not so much whether or not Islam itself is compatible with democracy (important though this question is), but rather, "Is Arab culture and society compatible with democracy?" Why is it that there are nascent democratic movements in non-Arab Islamic countries, but not in any Arab Islamic countries? Having recently read David Pryce-Jones' brilliant and enlightening book, "The Closed Circle," I am certainly not sanguine about the prospects for democracy and liberty in the Arab world (or most of the rest of the Islamic world, for that matter).

I know the above questions are certainly un-PC and will probably elicit accusations of racism, etc. Such accusations are to be expected in today's political climate, however, and are simply a cheap and easy way of ducking these questions without having to really think about and consider the issues involved. I think the issues are important, and they must be forthrightly addressed if we are to succeed in eradicating the worldwide threat to liberty and security posed by Arab/Islamic terrorism.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".