Democracy in the Arab World

Posted on February 27th, 2009 Austan Mogharabi No comments  Print This Post

Our friends over at the National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) Democracy Digest posted a link to this article the other day concerning the prospects for democracy in the Arab world.

The author, Michael Mandelbaum, observes three “barriers to Arab democracy”:

1. A lack of liberty;
2. The religious/ethnic diversity of Arab countries;
3. Anti-Western sentiments

While all three arguments are interesting (and I recommend reading the article), I am particularly interested in the argument concerning liberty.  In an explanation sure to please Fareed Zakaria, Mandelbaum argues that without liberty, democracy is meaningless. 

The author contends that the lack of liberty in the Arab world is the consequence of two factors: 1) the failure to establish a free market economy; and 2) the predominant interpretation of Islam in the region. 

Mandelbaum’s point regarding the market economy is basically resource curse theory plus: the free market never developed due to oil (and other types) of rents that enabled rulers to trade lifestyle benefits for political apathy.  As a result, two important values never emerged in these countries: trust and compromise.  Trust develops as buyers and sellers trade and expect the other party to follow through on the terms.  Likewise, notions of compromise develop as buyers and sellers end up receiving and accepting less than they originally wanted.  (Tangent: it’s interesting to note the parallels between Mandelbaum’s arguments about the two qualities necessary for democracy and the qualities of “civilized people” that thinkers such as Locke and Mill wrote about several hundred years ago).

As for the predominant interpretation of religion, Mandelbaum argues that the bias against liberty in Islam started out stronger than in other religions and that the adherents views of government magnified the biases.  The bias Mandelbaum points to is the oft cited argument that Islam does not recognize the separation of the church and state.  In Christianity, Jesus said “Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”  In Islam, however, the prophet Mohammad represented both the religious leader and the political leader for his followers.  In my opinion, the argument suffers from two historic flaws: 1) The prophet Mohammad was just that, a prophet.  Anyone claiming to rule as both the religious leader and the political leader to “follow in his steps” needs to remember that Mohammad was a messenger of God…and he (the person attempting to usurp power) is not; 2) while Mohammad most definitely led the “political” grouping of his time, there was nothing equivalent to the modern-day state. In fact, the area of land on which he exerted political authority was rather small – almost all of the Arab Muslim conquests occurred after the passing of Mohammad.  

While the two problems I described above are historically accurate, they do not negate the fact that many Muslims believe there should be no difference between church and state.  My clarifications simply attempt to place the explanation proposed by Mandelbaum in context while not necessarily discounting the validity of his argument.

I find Mandelbaums argument more convincing when he addresses how the views of government that developed from Islam oppose liberty.  He states it well when he writes,

The fusion of faith and power in Islam also calls into question popular sovereignty. The task of government for a devout believer is to apply God’s law, on which human legislators, even those whom free elections empower for this purpose, cannot, and therefore should not, attempt to improve.

In they government system of a “devout” Muslim, there is no place for liberty nor for democracy.  While some might vehemently disagree with Mandelbaum and argue that the beliefs of most Muslims are compatible with liberty, I would contend that the growing popularity and support for radical Islamist parties that vow a return to “the true Islam” (whatever that means) is a worrying sign that perhaps a growing number of Muslims conform to Mandelbaum’s generalization.*  As long as enough Muslims in any given state believe (or accept) that the role of government is to enforce God’s law, not the laws made by men for men, liberty (and democracy) will remain an arms length away.  Liberty requires that all citizens are allowed to act as they wish (within reason) and democracy requires that laws originate from the source of government legitimacy: the people.

*I am well aware that many Muslims vote for Islamist parties as a method for voting against the regime, as opposed to voting for the party to show support.